De Leon v. Esguerra

The 1987 Constitution took effect on February 2, 1987, the date of the plebiscite held for its ratification, and not on February 11, 1987, the date of the presidential proclamation of ratification, such that the Provisional Constitution — including its one-year period for replacing incumbent officials — was superseded as of the plebiscite date, and the power of replacement could no longer be exercised thereafter.

Petitioners were elective barangay officials of Barangay Dolores, Municipality of Taytay, Province of Rizal, elected on May 17, 1982 under Batas Pambansa Blg. 222 (the Barangay Election Act of 1982), which fixed their term at six years commencing June 7, 1982 and continuing until their successors had been elected and qualified. After the 1986 EDSA Revolution, the Provisional Constitution promulgated on March 25, 1986 authorized the replacement of elective and appointive officials within one year from February 25, 1986. Respondent OIC Governor Benjamin Esguerra, appointed on March 20, 1986, sought to exercise this replacement power. The 1987 Constitution was submitted to a plebiscite on February 2, 1987, and its ratification was proclaimed by the President on February 11, 1987.

In the barangay elections held on May 17, 1982, petitioner Alfredo M. De Leon was elected Barangay Captain of Barangay Dolores, Municipality of Taytay, Province of Rizal, and the other petitioners — Angel S. Salamat, Mario C. Sta. Ana, Jose C. Tolentino, Rogelio J. de la Rosa, and Jose M. Resurreccion — were elected Barangay Councilmen of the same barangay, all under Batas Pambansa Blg. 222, the Barangay Election Act of 1982. Section 3 of that law fixed their term of office at six years, commencing June 7, 1982 and continuing until their successors had been elected and qualified.

After the 1986 revolution, the Provisional Constitution was promulgated on March 25, 1986. Its Section 2, Article III provided that all elective and appointive officials under the 1973 Constitution would continue in office until otherwise provided by proclamation or executive order, or upon the designation or appointment and qualification of their successors, if such appointment were made within one year from February 25, 1986. Respondent Benjamin Esguerra was appointed OIC Governor of Rizal on March 20, 1986.

On February 9, 1987, petitioner Alfredo De Leon received a memorandum antedated December 1, 1986 but actually signed by respondent OIC Governor on February 8, 1987, designating respondent Florentino G. Magno as Barangay Captain of Barangay Dolores "by authority of the Minister of Local Government." On the same day, February 8, 1987, the OIC Governor signed another memorandum, likewise antedated December 1, 1986, designating respondents Remigio M. Tigas, Ricardo Z. Lacanienta, Teodoro V. Medina, Rosendo S. Paz, and Teresita L. Tolentino as members of the Barangay Council. That the memoranda had been antedated was confirmed by the OIC Governor's own affidavit, executed on March 23, 1987, in which he stated that the memorandum dated December 1, 1986 was signed by him personally on February 8, 1987 and disseminated the following day.

The 1987 Constitution was submitted to a plebiscite on February 2, 1987. Its ratification was proclaimed by President Corazon C. Aquino on February 11, 1987. Petitioners contended that with the Constitution's ratification, the OIC Governor no longer possessed authority to replace them, and that their six-year term under the Barangay Election Act remained operative. Respondents countered that the Provisional Constitution had abolished the terms of elective officials, that petitioners continued in office only by virtue of the Provisional Constitution's holdover provision, and that the six-year term fixed by the Barangay Election Act had been repealed for inconsistency with the Provisional Constitution.

• Security of Tenure under the Barangay Election Act: Petitioners maintained that pursuant to Section 3 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 222, their term of office was six years commencing June 7, 1982 and continuing until their successors had been elected and qualified, or up to June 7, 1988.
• Loss of Replacement Authority upon Ratification: Petitioners argued that with the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, respondent OIC Governor no longer had the authority to replace them and to designate their successors.

• Abolition of Terms under the Provisional Constitution: Respondents relied on Section 2, Article III of the Provisional Constitution, contending that the terms of office of elective and appointive officials were abolished and that petitioners continued in office by virtue of the holdover provision, not because their six-year term had not yet expired.
• Repeal of the Barangay Election Act by Inconsistency: Respondents argued that the provision of the Barangay Election Act fixing the term of barangay officials at six years must be deemed to have been repealed for being inconsistent with the aforequoted provision of the Provisional Constitution.

• Effectivity of the 1987 Constitution: Whether the 1987 Constitution took effect on February 2, 1987, the date of the plebiscite, or on February 11, 1987, the date of the presidential proclamation of ratification.
• Authority to Replace Barangay Officials: Whether the OIC Governor retained the power to replace elected barangay officials after the ratification of the 1987 Constitution.
• Continuing Validity of the Barangay Election Act: Whether the six-year term of office for barangay officials under Batas Pambansa Blg. 222 remained operative under the 1987 Constitution.

• Effectivity of the 1987 Constitution: The 1987 Constitution took effect on February 2, 1987, the date of the plebiscite, by virtue of Section 27, Article XVIII, which states that the Constitution "shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the purpose."
• Authority to Replace Barangay Officials: No. The OIC Governor could no longer exercise the power to replace petitioners after February 2, 1987, the Provisional Constitution having been superseded by the 1987 Constitution on that date, rendering the replacement memoranda of February 8, 1987 without legal force and effect.
• Continuing Validity of the Barangay Election Act: Yes. The six-year term under the Barangay Election Act of 1982 remained operative, there being no inconsistency between it and the 1987 Constitution, pursuant to Section 3, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution.

• Effectivity of the 1987 Constitution: Section 27, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution provides that the Constitution "shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the purpose and shall supersede all previous Constitutions." The act of ratification is the act of voting by the people on the date of the plebiscite; the canvass thereafter is merely a mathematical confirmation, and the presidential proclamation is merely an official confirmatory declaration of an act already done. This interpretation was supported by the record of the Constitutional Commission proceedings, where Commissioner Davide's proposed amendment to make effectivity depend on presidential proclamation was withdrawn in the face of the overwhelming contrary view expressed by Commissioners Bernas, Nolledo, Regalado, Padilla, Concepcion, and Guingona. The original committee formulation was approved unanimously by thirty-five votes in favor and none against. Accordingly, the Constitution took effect on February 2, 1987, the plebiscite date, and the Provisional Constitution was superseded on that same date.

• Authority to Replace Barangay Officials: The Provisional Constitution's Section 2, Article III provided a one-year period from February 25, 1986 within which replacements could be made. While February 8, 1987 — the actual date of signing, as confirmed by the OIC Governor's affidavit — fell within that one-year period, the Provisional Constitution was superseded by the 1987 Constitution on February 2, 1987. Having become inoperative, the OIC Governor could no longer rely on Section 2, Article III to designate replacements. Had the framers intended to preserve the replacement power beyond the Constitution's effectivity, they would have so provided in the Transitory Article, as they did for numerous other transitory matters across twenty-six sections of Article XVIII. The antedating of the memoranda to December 1, 1986 did not cure the defect, the Court holding that February 8, 1987 should be considered the effective date of replacement "in keeping with the dictates of justice."

• Continuing Validity of the Barangay Election Act: The 1987 Constitution ensures the autonomy of local governments and political subdivisions, of which barangays form a part, and limits the President's power to general supervision. Section 8, Article X of the 1987 Constitution provides that the term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials whose term "shall be determined by law," shall be three years. Until Congress determines the term of barangay officials by law, the six-year term under the Barangay Election Act of 1982 should still govern. No inconsistency exists between that term and the 1987 Constitution, and under Section 3, Article XVIII, all existing laws not inconsistent with the Constitution remain operative until amended, repealed, or revoked. Petitioners therefore acquired security of tenure.

• Date of Effectivity of a Constitution — A constitution takes effect on the date of its ratification by the people in a plebiscite, which is the date the votes are cast, and not on the date of the subsequent proclamation of ratification by the President. The canvass of votes is merely a mathematical confirmation, and the presidential proclamation is merely an official confirmatory declaration of an act already accomplished by the people's vote. This doctrine was supported by the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, where the view that the Constitution "will be effective on the very day of the plebiscite" prevailed unanimously.

• Supersession of Prior Constitutions — Upon the effectivity of a new constitution, all prior constitutions are deemed superseded and inoperative, including any transitory powers granted under them. The one-year replacement period under the Provisional Constitution was accordingly shortened by the ratification and effectivity of the 1987 Constitution on February 2, 1987.

• Security of Tenure of Elective Local Officials — Elective barangay officials possess security of tenure under their statutory term of office, which remains operative after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution so long as no inconsistent provision exists and Congress has not yet determined a new term by law, pursuant to Section 3, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution.

• Antedating of Official Documents — Where an official document is antedated, the actual date of signing controls as the effective date, not the antedated date, in keeping with the dictates of justice.

• "The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987. By that date, therefore, the Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have been superseded. Having become inoperative, respondent OIC Governor could no longer rely on Section 2, Article III, thereof to designate respondents to the elective positions occupied by petitioners." — This passage states the ratio decidendi: the Provisional Constitution was superseded on the plebiscite date, extinguishing the OIC Governor's replacement authority.

• "The act of ratification is the act of voting by the people. So that is the date of the ratification." — This formulation, drawn from the Constitutional Commission debates and quoted in the concurring opinion of Chief Justice Teehankee, articulates the canonical understanding that ratification occurs when the people cast their votes, not when the results are proclaimed.

• "Until the term of office of barangay officials has been determined by law, therefore, the term of office of six (6) years provided for in the Barangay Election Act of 1982 should still govern." — This passage establishes the continuing validity of the statutory six-year term for barangay officials pending congressional legislation, anchoring petitioners' security of tenure.

• Javellana vs. Executive Secretary — Cited in the dissenting opinion of Justice Sarmiento as the decision whose finality was argued to mark the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution; the majority's reasoning implicitly rejected reliance on the proclamation date as the moment of constitutional effectivity.

• Magtoto vs. Manguera — Cited by the dissent for the proposition that the 1973 Constitution became effective on January 17, 1973, the date of Proclamation No. 1102 announcing ratification. The majority did not rely on this case, distinguishing the 1987 Constitution's express language and the Constitutional Commission's deliberative record.

• Ponsica vs. Ignalaga — Cited by the dissent as a case where the Court stated in passing that the new Charter was ratified on February 2, 1987; the dissent argued this was not a categorical holding and called for its reexamination, but the majority adopted that date as its definitive ruling.

• Section 27, Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions), 1987 Constitution — Provides that the Constitution "shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the purpose and shall supersede all previous Constitutions." Applied as the textual basis for ruling that the 1987 Constitution took effect on February 2, 1987, the plebiscite date.

• Section 2, Article III, Provisional Constitution (1986) — Provided that elective and appointive officials under the 1973 Constitution shall continue in office until otherwise provided by proclamation or executive order, or upon the designation or appointment and qualification of their successors, if made within one year from February 25, 1986. Held to have been superseded by the 1987 Constitution on February 2, 1987, rendering the replacement power thereunder inoperative.

• Section 3, Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions), 1987 Constitution — Provides that all existing laws, decrees, executive orders, and other executive issuances not inconsistent with the Constitution shall remain operative until amended, repealed, or revoked. Applied to sustain the continuing validity of the six-year term for barangay officials under Batas Pambansa Blg. 222.

• Section 8, Article X, 1987 Constitution — Provides that the term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials whose term "shall be determined by law," shall be three years. Applied to confirm that barangay officials' terms await determination by Congress, leaving the existing statutory term in force.

• Section 3, Batas Pambansa Blg. 222 (Barangay Election Act of 1982) — Fixed the term of office of barangay officials at six years commencing June 7, 1982 and continuing until successors have been elected and qualified. Held to remain operative as not inconsistent with the 1987 Constitution.

• Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ. — Concurred in the majority opinion.
• Teehankee, C.J. — Concurred separately, elaborating on the Constitutional Commission record to demonstrate that the framers' clear intent was that the Constitution takes effect on the date of the plebiscite, not the date of proclamation. He also clarified that the reported appointments of seven Court of Appeals Justices and fiscals on February 2, 1987 were in fact made on or before January 31, 1987, and that no judicial appointments had been extended since February 2, 1987, indicating executive acquiescence in that date as the Constitution's effectivity.
• Cruz, J. — Concurred separately, noting that the ponencia affirmed his dissents in the De la Serna, Zamora, Duquing, and Bayas cases, where he had submitted that local OICs acquired security of tenure under the new Constitution. He yielded to the ponente's view that the right commenced on February 2, 1987 (ratification date) rather than February 25, 1987 (the deadline under the Freedom Constitution).

• Sarmiento, J. — Dissented on the ground that the 1987 Constitution took effect on February 11, 1987, the date of presidential proclamation of ratification, and not on February 2, 1987, the plebiscite date. He argued that the language of Section 27, Article XVIII — "upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast" — logically required that the will of the people first be ascertained before ratification could be deemed accomplished, and that the people's will could not have been determined as of the time the votes were cast. He invoked pragmatic considerations, noting that government acts performed between February 2 and February 11, 1987 — including appointments of Court of Appeals Justices and fiscals — would be open to serious question under the 1987 Constitution's Judicial and Bar Council requirements if the Constitution were deemed effective on February 2. He further cited historical practice since 1973 of reckoning constitutional effectivity from the date of presidential proclamation, citing Magtoto vs. Manguera and various proclamations of ratification of constitutional amendments under the Marcos era and the 1947 plebiscite. He concluded that the challenged dismissals on February 8, 1987 were valid, the 1987 Constitution not yet being in force.