Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 86 views

    Pamil vs. Telecom

    Uploaded by

    jon_cpa
    1) Fr. Margarito Gonzaga was elected mayor of Alburquerque, Bohol but another candidate filed a quo warranto suit challenging his eligibility due to a provision prohibiting ecclesiastics from holding municipal office. 2) The issue was whether the prohibition on ecclesiastics holding office was still valid or had been impliedly repealed by the 1971 Election Code. 3) The Court was divided, with five justices finding the prohibition remained valid and was not unconstitutional, while seven found it had been impliedly repealed, however the minority view did not receive eight votes to become the controlling decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pamil vs. Telecom

    Uploaded by

    jon_cpa
    86 views1 page
    1) Fr. Margarito Gonzaga was elected mayor of Alburquerque, Bohol but another candidate filed a quo warranto suit challenging his eligibility due to a provision prohibiting ecclesiastics from holding municipal office. 2) The issue was whether the prohibition on ecclesiastics holding office was still valid or had been impliedly repealed by the 1971 Election Code. 3) The Court was divided, with five justices finding the prohibition remained valid and was not unconstitutional, while seven found it had been impliedly repealed, however the minority view did not receive eight votes to become the controlling decision.

    Original Description:

    ,

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Fr. Margarito Gonzaga was elected mayor of Alburquerque, Bohol but another candidate filed a quo warranto suit challenging his eligibility due to a provision prohibiting ecclesiastics from holding municipal office. 2) The issue was whether the prohibition on ecclesiastics holding office was still valid or had been impliedly repealed by the 1971 Election Code. 3) The Court was divided, with five justices finding the prohibition remained valid and was not unconstitutional, while seven found it had been impliedly repealed, however the minority view did not receive eight votes to become the controlling decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    86 views1 page

    Pamil vs. Telecom

    Uploaded by

    jon_cpa
    1) Fr. Margarito Gonzaga was elected mayor of Alburquerque, Bohol but another candidate filed a quo warranto suit challenging his eligibility due to a provision prohibiting ecclesiastics from holding municipal office. 2) The issue was whether the prohibition on ecclesiastics holding office was still valid or had been impliedly repealed by the 1971 Election Code. 3) The Court was divided, with five justices finding the prohibition remained valid and was not unconstitutional, while seven found it had been impliedly repealed, however the minority view did not receive eight votes to become the controlling decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Part 3: Constitutional Law II: Case 79

    Pamil Vs. Telecom


    86 SCRA 413
    G.R. 34854
    November 20, 1978
    Facts: Fr. Margarito Gonzaga was elected as Municipal Mayor in Alburquerque, Bohol. Petitioner,
    also an aspirant for said office, then filed a suit for quo warranto for Gonzagas disqualification based
    on the Administrative Code provision: In no case shall there be elected or appointed to a municipal
    office ecclesiastics, soldiers in active service, persons receiving salaries or compensation from
    provincial or national funds, or contractors for public works of the municipality." The respondent
    Judge, in sustaiing Fr. Gonzagas right to the office, ruled that the provision had already been
    impliedly repealed by the Election Code of 1971. Petitioner on the other hand argues that there was
    no implied repeal.
    Issue:
    Whether or Not Fr. Gonzaga is eligible for the position of municipal mayor, according to law.
    Whether or Not the prohibition regarding elected or appointed ecclesiastics is constitutional.
    Held: The court was divided. Five voted that the prohibition was not unconstitutional. Seven others
    voted that the provision was impliedly repealed. However, the minority vote overruled the seven.
    According to the dissenting seven, there are three reasons for the said provision to be inoperative.
    First, the 1935 Constitution stated, No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or
    political rights. Second, said section 2175 is superseded by the Constitution. Third, section 2175
    has been repealed by Sec. 23 of the Election Code (1971): Appointive public office holders and
    active members of the Armed Forces are no longer disqualified from running for an elective office.
    Ecclesiastics were no longer included in the enumeration of persons ineligible under the said
    Election Code. On the other hand, the controlling five argued: Section 2175 of the Administrative
    Code deals with a matter different from that of section 23 of the Election Code. Also, section 2175 of
    the Administrative Code did not violate the right to freedom of religion because it did not give any
    requirement for a religious test.
    The view of the dissenting seven failed to obtain a vote of eight members, so it was not controlling.
    The provision of the Administrative Code remained operative.

    You might also like