Pamil v. Teleron
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In 1971, Father Margarito R. Gonzaga was elected municipal mayor of Alburquerque, Bohol, and was duly proclaimed. Petitioner Fortunato R. Pamil, an aspirant for the same office, filed a quo warranto suit seeking Father Gonzaga's disqualification based on Section 2175 of the Revised Administrative Code, which prohibits ecclesiastics from being elected or appointed to a municipal office. Procedural History: The respondent Judge sustained Father Gonzaga's right to the office, ruling that Section 2175 of the Revised Administrative Code was impliedly repealed by the Election Code of 1971. Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner contends that there was no implied repeal and that Section 2175 remains in full force and effect.
Issue(s)
Whether Section 2175 of the Revised Administrative Code, prohibiting ecclesiastics from municipal office, is unconstitutional or has been repealed, thereby affecting the eligibility of Father Margarito R. Gonzaga to serve as mayor.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is granted. The judgment of the lower court is reversed and set aside. Respondent Gonzaga is ordered to vacate the mayoralty of Albuquerque, Bohol.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court was deeply divided on the validity of the prohibition against ecclesiastics. Seven members of the Court (Justices Fernando, Teehankee, Muñoz Palma, Concepcion Jr., Santos, Fernandez, and Guerrero) were of the opinion that Section 2175 of the Revised Administrative Code (RAC) was either superseded by the 1935 Constitution or repealed, as it effectively imposed a prohibited religious test for public office. These justices argued that excluding individuals from office based on their religious profession (being an ecclesiastic) directly contravenes the mandate that 'No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.' However, five members (Chief Justice Castro and Justices Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, and Aquino) held that the prohibition was not tainted with any constitutional infirmity. Under the then-effective 1973 Constitution, a supermajority (10 votes) was required to declare a law unconstitutional or ineffective. Since the group favoring invalidity only secured seven votes, the presumption of the statute's validity prevailed. Consequently, the Court was duty-bound to apply Section 2175, which renders ecclesiastics ineligible for municipal office. Therefore, the election of Father Gonzaga was nullified, and he was ordered to vacate his post.
Main Doctrine
A provision in the Revised Administrative Code disqualifying ecclesiastics from holding elective municipal office is inoperative and void for being inconsistent with the constitutional prohibition against religious tests for the exercise of civil or political rights.