Grego vs. COMELEC

Section 40(b) of Republic Act No. 7160, disqualifying those removed from office as a result of an administrative case, applies only prospectively from its January 1, 1992 effectivity and does not disqualify a candidate dismissed in 1981.

Humberto Basco was a former Deputy Sheriff of the City Court of Manila dismissed by the Supreme Court in 1981 with prejudice to reinstatement, who later became an elective City Councilor of Manila's Second District. Wilmer Grego claimed standing as a registered voter of Precinct No. 966, District II, City of Manila. The governing statutory backdrop was Section 40(b) of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code, which disqualifies from any elective local position those removed from office as a result of an administrative case and which took effect on January 1, 1992.

On October 31, 1981, Humberto Basco was removed as Deputy Sheriff of the City Court of Manila upon a finding of serious misconduct in an administrative complaint lodged by Nena Tordesillas. The dismissal ordered forfeiture of all retirement benefits and was with prejudice to reinstatement to any position in the national or local government, including its agencies and instrumentalities, or government-owned or controlled corporations. Subsequently, Basco entered elective politics in Manila's Second District. He ran for councilor in the January 18, 1988 local elections, won, and assumed office. He sought re-election in the May 11, 1992 synchronized elections and again won as one of six city councilors.

His 1992 victory was challenged through a quo warranto petition before the COMELEC by fellow candidate Cenon Ronquillo alleging ineligibility based on the Tordesillas ruling, alongside cases filed by Honorio Lopez II before the Ombudsman and the Department of Interior and Local Government. All those challenges were dismissed, allowing Basco's continued stay in office. Undeterred, Basco ran again in the May 8, 1995 local elections for a third term and emerged sixth in the contest for six councilor seats, receiving 34,358 votes.

On May 13, 1995, Grego filed with the COMELEC a petition for disqualification praying for Basco's disqualification, suspension of his proclamation, and declaration of Romualdo S. Maranan as sixth duly elected councilor. A copy was furnished the Chairman of the Manila City Board of Canvassers that day, with the other members learning of it two days later. The COMELEC heard the case on May 14, 1995 and ordered simultaneous memoranda. Before compliance, the Manila City Board of Canvassers proclaimed Basco on May 17, 1995 as duly elected councilor, after which he took his oath before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. Grego then filed an urgent motion to annul the proclamation as illegal and hasty, which Basco opposed, followed by Basco's June 5, 1995 Motion to Dismiss Serving As Answer. After memoranda were filed, the COMELEC First Division dismissed the petition and the COMELEC en banc denied reconsideration.

• Retroactivity of Section 40(b): Petitioner argued that Section 40(b) of Republic Act No. 7160 must be given retroactive effect to Basco's 1981 dismissal because the text uses the past tense and does not qualify the date of removal, so any prior removal from office as a result of an administrative case triggers disqualification.
• No Condonation by Election: Petitioner maintained that Basco's elections in 1988, 1992 and 1995 did not wipe away or condone the administrative penalty, invoking the rule that qualifications for elective office cannot be erased by the electorate alone through the ballot.
• Reinstatement Bar: Petitioner argued that Basco's candidacy circumvented the Tordesillas prohibition against reinstatement, contending that the term any position was broad enough to cover both appointive and elective positions.
• Void Proclamation: Petitioner argued that Basco's May 17, 1995 proclamation while the disqualification case was pending was void ab initio under Section 20(i) of Republic Act No. 7166, Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6646, and rulings in Duremdes vs. COMELEC, Benito vs. COMELEC and Aguam vs. COMELEC.
• Succession by Seventh-Placer: Petitioner argued that Romualdo S. Maranan, who placed seventh, may be declared winner pursuant to Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6646 and the exception recognized in Labo vs. COMELEC.

• Bar by Prior Judgments and Laches: Respondent countered that disqualification under Section 40(b) was barred by laches, prescription, res judicata, lis pendens, bar by prior judgment, law of the case and stare decisis in view of the Tordesillas decision and prior dismissals.
• Prospectivity and Constitutionality: Respondent argued that Section 40(b) could not be applied to a dismissal prior to its effectivity without making it ex post facto, a bill of attainder, retroactive legislation impairing vested rights, and class legislation.
• Effect of Proclamation: Respondent argued that because he had already been proclaimed, the petition as a pre-proclamation contest should be dismissed under the Marquez vs. COMELEC ruling.
• Implied Pardon by Electorate: Respondent argued that his three-time election as councilor constituted implied pardon by the people of previous misconduct.
• Procedural Defects: Respondent argued that as a petition to nullify the certificate of candidacy the case had prescribed, it was premature as an election protest, and it was not brought by a proper party in interest.

• Retroactivity: Whether Section 40(b) of Republic Act No. 7160 applies retroactively to those removed from office before its January 1, 1992 effectivity.
• Condonation and Reinstatement Bar: Whether Basco's elections in 1988, 1992 and 1995 wiped away and condoned the administrative penalty, and whether the Tordesillas bar on reinstatement covers elective office.
• Validity of Proclamation: Whether Basco's proclamation as sixth winning candidate on May 17, 1995 while the disqualification case was pending is void ab initio.
• Succession by Seventh-Placer: Whether Romualdo S. Maranan, the seventh-placer, may be declared winner pursuant to Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6646.

• Retroactivity: No. Section 40(b) has no clear retroactive intent and applies only to removals on or after January 1, 1992, so Basco's 1981 dismissal is outside its reach.
• Condonation and Reinstatement Bar: The condonation issue is irrelevant because Basco was never disqualified; moreover, the Tordesillas reinstatement bar contemplates only appointive positions, not elective office.
• Validity of Proclamation: No. The proclamation was not void, Section 20(i) of Republic Act No. 7166 governing contested returns being inapplicable and suspension under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6646 being discretionary.
• Succession by Seventh-Placer: No. Maranan may not be declared winner because Basco was qualified and received the winning number of votes, and the Labo vs. COMELEC exception requirements were absent.

• Retroactivity: The settled rule, reiterated from Aguinaldo vs. COMELEC, Reyes vs. COMELEC and Salalima vs. Guingona, Jr., is that statutes operate prospectively absent express declaration or necessary implication of retroactivity. No provision in Republic Act No. 7160 indicates retroactive operation. Generality of language and use of the past tense do not supply the missing qualification, since hermeneutics requires that a statute must not overreach acts transpiring before its passage.
• Condonation and Reinstatement Bar: Because Section 40(b) did not disqualify Basco in the 1988, 1992 and 1995 elections, whether election condoned the penalty need not be resolved at length. The Tordesillas decretal phrase with prejudice to reinstatement was construed under the former Civil Service Decree and implementing personnel rules, where reinstatement meant reappointment of a permanently appointed career-service employee separated without delinquency or misconduct. Thus construed, the prohibition reached appointive reinstatement only and did not bar candidacy for elective office.
• Validity of Proclamation: Section 20(i) of Republic Act No. 7166 was inapplicable on its face because it voids proclamations relating to contested election returns, not contested qualifications. Under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6646, continuation of trial after election is mandatory but suspension of proclamation upon strong evidence of guilt uses may and is merely directory and permissive, leaving the determination to COMELEC expertise absent whimsical or capricious exercise. Section 5, Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure using shall could not override the statute, since implementing rules cannot amend or extend the law. Absent irregular returns or an injunctive order, canvassing and proclamation were mandatory and ministerial, limited to ascertaining the apparent result. Duremdes vs. COMELEC, Benito vs. COMELEC and Aguam vs. COMELEC involved different defects and did not govern mere pendency of a disqualification case.
• Succession by Seventh-Placer: Basco being qualified and sixth with the winning number of votes, no vacancy by disqualification arose. The Labo vs. COMELEC exception requires both disqualification of the highest-vote getter and electorate awareness of the disqualification amounting to notoriety despite voting for the ineligible candidate. Neither assumption was present, and alleged notoriety in a small community was speculative and unsupported by convincing record facts.

• Prospectivity of statutes — Laws operate only prospectively and not retroactively unless retroactive intent is expressly declared or clearly and necessarily implied from the language. Applied to hold that the generality and past-tense phrasing of Section 40(b) did not extend disqualification to removals before January 1, 1992.
• Reinstatement as appointive reappointment — Under the former Civil Service Decree and Civil Service rules, reinstatement meant reappointment of a person permanently appointed to the career service and separated without delinquency or misconduct to a qualified position. Applied to confine the Tordesillas prejudice-to-reinstatement clause to appointive positions, leaving elective candidacy unaffected.
• Permissive suspension of proclamation under Section 6, Republic Act No. 6646 — The word may confers discretion to suspend proclamation of a candidate with strong evidence of guilt pending final judgment, while continuation of trial and hearing is mandatory. Applied to sustain COMELEC's non-suspension where no grave abuse of discretion was shown.
• Subordination of implementing rules to statute — Administrative rules must remain consistent with and carry into effect the law implemented; they cannot supplant, modify, extend, or subvert statutory requirements, and the basic law prevails in case of discrepancy. Applied to reject COMELEC Rule 25, Section 5's shall where the statute used may.
• Ministerial duty of boards of canvassers — Where returns are genuine and complete and no suspension has been ordered, the board's function is mechanical or mathematical: to ascertain and declare the apparent result by compiling votes and certifying the outcome, leaving other questions to election contests or quo warranto. Applied to uphold the Manila City Board of Canvassers' proclamation of Basco.
• Second-placer rule and Labo vs. COMELEC exception — A second-placer or seventh-placer generally may not be declared winner; the exception requires concurrence of disqualification of the vote-leader and electorate knowledge of the disqualification amounting to notoriety yet voting for the ineligible candidate. Applied to deny Maranan's claim for lack of both predicates.
• Deference to COMELEC expertise — Findings and conclusions of the COMELEC as the specialized constitutional body administering election laws are generally respected and accorded finality absent grave abuse of discretion. Applied to decline substitution of judgment on suspension of proclamation.

• "Well-settled is the principle that while the Legislature has the power to pass retroactive laws which do not impair the obligation of contracts, or affect injuriously vested rights, it is equally true that statutes are not to be construed as intended to have a retroactive effect so as to affect pending proceedings, unless such intent is expressly declared or clearly and necessarily implied from the language of the enactment." — States the controlling prospectivity rule that defeated retroactive application of Section 40(b) to the 1981 dismissal.
• "Lex prospicit, non respicit." — Canonical maxim invoked to hold that despite general language, the law looks forward and cannot overreach pre-effectivity removals.
• "The law looks forward, not backward." — English formulation of the prospectivity maxim anchoring the refusal to qualify Section 40(b) by retroactive construction.
• "The simple purpose and duty of the canvassing board is to ascertain and declare the apparent result of the voting. All other questions are to be tried before the court or other tribunal for contesting elections or in quo warranto proceedings. (9 R.C.L., p. 1110)" — Defines the ministerial canvassing function sustaining the validity of Basco's proclamation despite the pending disqualification case.

• Aguinaldo vs. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 105128-30 (1992) — Controlling precedent followed for non-retroactivity of Section 40(b) of the Local Government Code to removals before January 1, 1992.
• Reyes vs. COMELEC, 254 SCRA 514 (1996) — Reiterated Aguinaldo vs. COMELEC on prospective application of Section 40(b).
• Salalima vs. Guingona, Jr., 257 SCRA 55 (1996) — Reiterated Aguinaldo vs. COMELEC on prospective application of Section 40(b).
• Frivaldo vs. COMELEC, 174 SCRA 245 (1989) — Cited by petitioner for the rule that the electorate alone cannot erase disqualification; deemed inapplicable because Basco was not disqualified.
• Labo vs. COMELEC, 211 SCRA 456 (1992) — Source of the possible exception allowing a non-winner to be declared elected; held inapplicable for absence of disqualification and notoriety.
• Duremdes vs. COMELEC, 178 SCRA 746 (1989) — Distinguished as involving void proclamation contrary to Omnibus Election Code rules on contested returns, not mere pendency of a disqualification case.
• Benito vs. COMELEC, 235 SCRA 436 (1994) — Distinguished as involving violation of the ministerial duty to proclaim the highest-vote getter and succession, not a disqualification-pendency defect.
• Aguam vs. COMELEC, 23 SCRA 883 (1968) — Distinguished as involving proclamation based solely on advance copies of returns, not a disqualification-pendency defect.
• Dizon vs. Provincial Board of Canvassers of Laguna, 52 Phil. 47 — Authority for the limited mechanical function of canvassers to declare the apparent result.
• Miners Association of the Philippines, Inc. vs. Factoran, Jr., 240 SCRA 100 (1995) — Authority that administrative rule-making must harmonize with and cannot extend the statute.

• Section 40(b), Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code) — Disqualifies from any elective local position those removed from office as a result of an administrative case; held prospective from January 1, 1992 and inapplicable to Basco's 1981 dismissal.
• Section 20(i), Republic Act No. 7166 — Voids proclamations made without COMELEC authorization on appeal of objections to contested election returns; held inapplicable because the case involved contested qualification, not contested returns.
• Section 6, Republic Act No. 6646 — Provides that a candidate declared disqualified by final judgment shall not be voted for, requires continuation of proceedings if voted for and winning, and permits suspension of proclamation when evidence of guilt is strong; held to make suspension discretionary through may.
• Section 5, Rule 25, COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Provides for mandatory suspension of proclamation if a disqualification petition is unresolved before completion of canvass through shall; held improper as overriding Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6646.
• Article VIII, Section 24(d), Presidential Decree No. 807 (former Civil Service Decree); Rule VI, Section 7, Rules on Personnel Actions and Policies — Define reinstatement as reappointment of a permanently appointed career-service person separated without delinquency or misconduct; used to limit the Tordesillas reinstatement bar to appointive posts.

Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Davide, Jr., Melo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Hermosisima, Jr., Panganiban and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur. Padilla, Bellosillo, Kapunan and Francisco, JJ., are on leave.