Republic of the Philippines that Dr. Dionisia Rola who would take over the courses of Prof.

d take over the courses of Prof. Jamias had

SUPREME COURT been assigned to the U.P. College in Baguio; and that the extension would
Manila enable the discipline of English to adjust itself to the teaching of Prof. Jamias'
courses.
EN BANC
On June 20, 1961, President Sinco favorably endorsed Dean Fonacier's
G.R. No. L-19617            October 31, 1969 request to the Board of Regents. On July 27, 1961, said board resolved to
approve the extension of Prof. Jamias' services until April 15, 1962.
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES BOARD OF REGENTS and CRISTINO
JAMIAS, petitioners, The present controversy started on December 28, 1961 when Auditor Alfredo
vs. Liboro, the Auditor General's representative at U.P., questioned the legality of
AUDITOR GENERAL and the GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE the July 27, 1961 resolution of the Board of Regents just adverted to. U.P.
SYSTEM, respondents. sought reconsideration by the Auditor General. On February 1, 1962, Auditor
General Pedro M. Gimenez affirmed the U.P. Auditor's ruling. The Auditor
Crispen D. Baizas and Perfecto V. Fernandez for petitioners. General, citing Opinion 117, dated September 1, 1961, of the Secretary of
Leovigildo Monasterial, Rodolfo R. Magsarili, V. B. Magadia and Samson G. Justice, held that the Board of Regents was without power to extend the
Binag for respondent Government Service Insurance System. services of U.P. professors beyond the compulsory limit of 65 years.
Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz and Solicitor Conrado T.
Limcaoco for respondent Auditor General. The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) joined hands with the
Auditor General. Accordingly, on January 5, 1962, GSIS wrote Prof. Jamias
SANCHEZ, J.: that his services rendered after the compulsory retirement age were illegal;
and that he (Jamias) was not entitled to compensation. The GSIS letter to
Prof. Jamias concluded: "Thus, if you were paid salary for services rendered
The question of power this original action for prohibition presents is whether
after you became due for compulsory retirement, the same should be
or not the Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines (U.P.) may
refunded to the University of the Philippines; otherwise, it will be deducted
extend the tenure of a professor beyond the retirement age by law fixed at 65
from the annuity due you under CA 186, as amended, pursuant to a ruling of
years. Respondents answered in the negative. Petitioners came to this Court.
the Auditor General in a similar case and turned over to the University of the
Philippines." Prof. Jamias sought reconsideration. GSIS turned it down.
Petitioner Cristino Jamias started service in U.P. on June 26, 1924. At the
time the present petition was filed in this Court on April 3, 1962, he was a
Then followed the directive of U.P. Auditor Alfredo Liboro that Prof. Jamias'
Professor of English Language and Literature and concurrently Head of the
salary be withheld beginning with the weekly salary due on March 7, 1962.
University Publications Department. His service had been unquestionably
continuous for more than fifteen years before he reached the age of 65 years
on July 20, 1961. It was upon the foregoing backdrop that petitioners U.P. Board of Regents
and Cristino Jamias came to this Court on an original petition for prohibition
against respondents Auditor General and GSIS. They seek to stop the
Prior thereto, on June 12, 1961, Dean (now Regent) Tomas S. Fonacier of
Auditor General and his men from withholding Prof. Jamias' salary and to
the U.P. College of Arts and Sciences — the immediate superior of Prof.
restrain GSIS from deducting any amount from his five-year lump sum
Jamias — having first obtained the latter's consent, wrote U.P. President
retirement annuity upon retirement on April 16, 1962. We declined to issue
Vicente G. Sinco with the request that Jamias' service be extended for one
the preliminary injunctive writ prayed for in the petition.
academic year ending April 15, 1962. Fonacier's reasons were that Prof.
Jamias was still quite healthy; that he had been commissioned to write the
history of U.P. but had just finished half of it, i.e., from U.P.'s establishment to As adverted to at the start of this opinion, the core of the case is this: May the
the Benton era that he could continue to act as Head of the University U.P. Board of Regents extend the tenure of a professor beyond retirement
Publications until the administration would find someone to take his place; age?
1. It is undisputed that U.P. employees, including its professors, are (f) Regular and permanent employees of other Government boards or
employees of the Government. agencies, except the University of the Philippines and the
Government-owned or controlled, business corporations; ... .
The U.P. charter entrusts the university with the duty "to provide advanced
instruction in literature, philosophy, the sciences, and arts, and to give To be noted is that in the early 1936 statute just quoted, Congress did
professional and technical training."1 This is in line with the obligation expressly exclude U.P. from the operation of the Retirement Law. But then
expressly imposed upon the State by the Constitution of the Section 4 (g) of the same original law gave U.P. the option to join GSIS, viz.:
Philippines.2 Intrinsically valid then is the holding in University of the
Philippines vs. Court of Industrial Relations 107 Phil. 848, 850, that U.P. (g) ... Provided, That any provincial, city or municipal, government, or
performs a "legitimate governmental function, ... is maintained by the the University of the Philippines or any other corporation owned or
Government, ... declares no dividends, and is, obviously, not a corporation controlled by the Government, shall have the option of joining the
created for profit but an institution of higher education and therefore not an System, and if it so joins, the membership shall be compulsory upon
industrial or business organization." all its permanent and regular employees, . . .

As government employees, U.P. professors are compulsorily covered by the The option spoken of by the above-quoted provision was taken advantage of
Retirement Law, Commonwealth Act 186, as amended, which creates a by U.P. when it chose to participate in the GSIS. 4
uniform retirement system for all members of the GSIS. It does not take
much thought to come to this conclusion. The applicable retirement law at the But as the law stood in 1961, the provisions exempting U.P. from GSIS
time Prof. Jamias reached retirement age of 65 years on July 20, 1961 was coverage and granting it the option to join GSIS were eliminated by Republic
Section 4 (a), Commonwealth Act 186, as successively amended by Act 660 which took effect on June 16, 1951 and succeeding acts. Section
Republic Acts 660 (approved June 16, 1951), 1573 (approved June 16, 4(a) of Republic Act 660 approved June 16, 1951 provided that:
1956) and 1820 (approved June 22, 1957). Section 4, as amended by said
Acts, then read:
(a) Membership in the System shall be compulsory upon all regularly
and permanently appointed employees, including those whose tenure
SEC. 4. Scope of application of System. — (a) Membership in the of office is fixed or limited by law; upon all teachers except only those
System shall be compulsory upon all regularly and permanently who are substitutes; and upon all regular officers and enlisted men of
appointed employees, including judges of the Courts of First Instance the Armed Forces of the Philippines.5
and those whose tenure of office is fixed or limited by law; upon all
teachers except only those who are substitutes; upon all regular
It makes eminent sense to say that the deletion of the University of the
employees of the Philippine Tuberculosis Society, and upon all
Philippines from the exception cannot be of de minimis effect. That omission
regular officers and enlisted men of the Armed Forces of the
is not elusive of exact comprehension either. The plain and natural impact
Philippines.3
thereof is that U.P. became covered by the System. Because, the option to
join or not to join was left solely and exclusively to be exercised by "an
The view that U.P. is definitely governed by Commonwealth Act 186, as elective official of the National Government or of a local government that is a
amended, is not without support. A rundown of the genealogy of the law member of the System" — and by no other. 6 The ineluctable conclusion that
gives this thesis a lift. Originally, Section 4 of the law (Commonwealth Act follows is that since U.P. is not within the limited limits of the exception, it is a
186, which took effect on November 14, 1936) reads: compulsory member of the System.

Sec. 4. Scope of application of System. — Regular membership in 2. Let us now take a look at the law decisive of the present question — the
the system shall be compulsory upon — Board of Regents' power to extend appointment of U.P. professors. It may
perhaps be conducive to better analysis if we go into the history of that law.
xxx           xxx           xxx Initially, the power to extend service was lodged solely with the President of
the Philippines.
Section 12 (c) of Commonwealth Act 186, as amended by Republic Act 660, otherwise he shall be allowed to continue in the service until he shall
read as follows: have completed the required length of service unless he is otherwise
eligible for disability retirement. This clause shall not apply to
(c) Retirement shall be automatic and compulsory at the age of sixty- members of the judiciary and constitutional officers whose tenure of
five years, if he has completed fifteen years of service, and if he has office is guaranteed. It shall be the duty of the employer concerned to
not, he shall be allowed to continue in the service until he shall have notify each such employee under its direction of the date of his
completed fifteen years unless he is otherwise eligible for disability automatic separation from the service at least sixty days in advance
retirement. This clause shall not apply to members of the judiciary thereof.
and constitutional officers whose tenure of office is guaranteed. Upon
specific approval of the President of the Philippines, an employee Not escaping notice is that the power to extend service of an employee
may be allowed to continue to serve after the age of sixty-five years if beyond retirement age — previously given to the President of the Philippines,
he possesses special qualifications and his services are needed. It the Senate President, the Speaker, or the Chief Justice — was expressly
shall be the duty of the employer concerned to notify each such deleted from the law. The directive that retirement "shall be automatic and
employee under its direction of the date of his automatic separation compulsory" is imperative. The law does not admit of exception. Such was
from the service at least sixty days in advance thereof. the legal provision actually in force at the time Prof. Jamias reached 65 years
of age.7
By Republic Act 728 (approved June 18, 1952) which amended Section 12
(c), that power to extend service was expanded to include the President of In summary, it may be said that in accordance with Republic Act 660,
the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Chief retirement was automatically compulsory at age 65 if the employee had
Justice of the Supreme Court, viz.: completed 15 years of service; except that upon specific approval by the
President of the Philippines, an employee might be allowed to continue to
(c) ... Upon specific approval of the President of the Philippines, the serve after the age of 65 years if he possessed special qualifications and his
President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of services were needed. This power given to the President by Republic Act
Representatives, or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as the 660 was granted also by Republic Act 728 to the President of the Senate, the
case may be, an employee may be allowed to continue to serve in Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Chief Justice of the
the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial Branch of the Government after Supreme Court. However, when Republic Act 3096 (the law here applicable)
the age of sixty-five years if he possesses special qualifications and took effect on June 17, 1961, this grant of power to extend the service of an
his services are needed. ... . employee beyond the age of 65 was eliminated. Such elimination operates to
repeal the eliminated provision.8
The above provision later became section 12 (e) because Republic Act 1616
(approved May 31, 1957) added paragraphs (b) and (c) to Section 12. There can be no mistake as to this. Both the language of the statute
(Republic Act 3096) and the express legislative intent deleted the power to
Then came Republic Act 3096, effective June 17, 1961, which displaced grant extension of service. House Bill 1224 which became Republic Act 3096
Section 12 (e), thus — specifically wrote off the power of the President of the Philippines, the
President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to extend services of government
(e) Retirement shall be automatic and compulsory at the age of sixty-
employees beyond the age of 65 years.9 Needless it is to deeply explore the
five years, and optional retirement at the age of sixty-three shall be
underlying rationale of this particular amendment. The explanatory note is
allowed with lump sum payment of present value of annuity for first
there. It reads in part:
five years, and future annuity to be paid monthly, and other benefits
given to a compulsorily retired member as provided for in Republic
Act Numbered Six hundred sixty, as amended, if he has completed In the course of operations of the Government Service Insurance
fifteen years of service and if he has not been separated from the System, it has been found that Commonwealth Act No. 186, as
service during the last three years of service prior to retirement; amended, still requires further improvement in order that the life and
retirement insurance provided therein may be more responsive to the
 needs of government employees. To attain this end, the following xxx           xxx           xxx
changes are necessary:
(e) To appoint, on the recommendation of the President of the
xxx           xxx           xxx University, professors, instructors, lecturers and other employees of
the University; to fix their compensations, hours of service, and such
3. To realize the purpose behind requiring that retirement be other duties and conditions as it may deem proper; to grant to them in
compulsory upon attainment of age 65, the continuance in the its discretion leave of absence under such regulations as it may
service of those who are already eligible to compulsory retirement promulgate, any other provisions of law to the contrary
should no longer be allowed.10 notwithstanding, and to remove them for cause after an investigation
and hearing shall have been had. 11
Taking stock of the prohibition in Republic Act 3096, the executive
department of the government made the impact of the law — which bans Petitioners' trenchant claim is that the foregoing gives the Board of Regents
extension of service after retirement age — clear to its different agencies. plenary power to deal with all aspects of service or employment in the
This was when the Office of the President of the Philippines issued university. Their position is that legislative intention there is to free U.P.'s
Memorandum Circular 30 dated September 15, 1961 "enjoining against the academicians from control and interference by other bureaus and offices of
continuance in the service of officials and employees beyond the due date of the government. They aver that the board is with power to fix conditions of
their automatic and compulsory retirement." That circular called attention to employment "as it may deem proper."
the fact that Section 12(e) of Commonwealth Act 186, as amended by
Republic Act 3096, "no longer contains the provisions empowering the We are thus required to pit Section 6(e) of the U.P. Charter against Section
President of the Philippines, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the 12(e) of the Retirement Law, as amended by Republic Act 3096. As we do
House of Representatives, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to so, we find that the Board of Regents' power to fix conditions of service "as it
continue an employee in the service in the Executive, Legislative or Judicial may deem proper" is but a general statement. It lacks that illuminating
Branch of the Government, as the case may be, after reaching the automatic specific authority to place the Board of Regents beyond the reach of Republic
and compulsory retirement age of 65 years." The circular directed strict Act 3096, which in letter and legislative intent proscribed extension of
compliance with the last portion of said Section 12(e) which makes it a duty service. We are hard pressed to understand how the cited provision in the
on the part of the employer concerned to notify the employee of the date of U.P. Charter could give the Board of Regents power to extend where none
his automatic separation at least 60 days in advance thereof. was theretofore granted, and given the fact that even the President of the
Philippines who previously had that authority was shorn of it by law. Absent
Prof. Cristino Jamias reached 65 years of age on July 20, 1961. At that time, an express congressional direction that the Board of Regents may so extend,
Republic Act 3096 — enacted on June 17, 1961 — was in force. No power or we are unprepared to indulge in unbridled expansive construction and to say
authority there was then to extend the service of a government employee that U.P. is beyond the reach of that positive and unambiguous law,
beyond 65 years of age. Prohibition to extend is patent and clear. The Commonwealth Act 186, as amended by Republic Act 3096, on the
retirement of Prof. Jamias became automatic and compulsory. The Board of retirement of government employees which include U.P. professors.
Regents is powerless to extend his service beyond July 20, 1961. And, its
resolution now under consideration is null and void. The cited provisions of Act 1870 (the U.P. Charter) must be deemed
restricted or limited by Commonwealth Act 186, as amended by Republic Act
3. But petitioners would want to anchor the power of the Board of Regents to 3096, which makes 65 the automatic and compulsory age for retirement, the
so extend upon Section 6(e) of the U.P. Charter, Act 1870, as amended, in conditions set forth by the law being present. The Board of Regents was not,
which the language is — by the applicable statute, Republic Act 3096, singled out as an exception,
one with sole authority to grant extension of service. In fact, even the
SEC 6. The Board of Regents shall have the following powers and President of the Philippines, to repeat, was divested of that power. It is
duties, in addition to its general powers of administration and the because of this that we would rather adhere, than depart, from the rule that
exercise of the powers of the corporation: courts may not introduce exceptions or conditions by construction from
considerations of convenience, public welfare, or for any other laudable To be observed is that under the above provision, an employee separated
purpose. 12 from the service who is receiving an annuity may be eligible again to another
appointment in the government if the appointing authority determines that he
This should dispose then of petitioners' contention that policy considerations is possessed of special qualifications and his medical examination has been
behind compulsory retirement in the government service are not applicable to approved by the GSIS. This provision of law must be viewed in the context of
U.P. by the very nature of the conditions of the service rendered therein — other provisions of Commonwealth Act 186 and in accordance with the
and these conditions are even debatable — viz.: U.P. faculty members for history of the law.
the most part lead sheltered quiet lives; that owing to the leisurely pace of
academic work the faculty members normally are spared the rigors of an Section 12(e), as we have seen, expressly exacts automatic and compulsory
eight-hour day, their duties being within their energies as a whole; that they retirement at age 65 if the conditions therein stated are met; that while
perform their work with like efficiency as before the age of 65; and that unlike previous amendments have granted the power of extension of service of
regular bureaus and offices of the government where old age decreases retirable employees to the four top officials of the government, Republic Act
efficiency by the very nature of the work, U.P. calls for special services and 3096 (the law which here governs) eliminated such power. To adopt
qualifications, not necessarily affected by age. On the other side of the coin, petitioners' view then in reference to Section 12(d) above-quoted would be to
of course, is the thought quite often expressed that no man — not even one make the provisions of Section 12(e) conflict with those of Section 12(d) of
with the learning and wisdom of a 65-year old — is indispensable. Anyway, the law. The former would be rendered nugatory by the latter. This is an
whether or not as a rule the university professors maintain, increase or effect that should be avoided. Consistency in statutes is of prime importance.
diminish their efficiency as they reach 65 years, is a consideration which All laws are presumed to be consistent with each other. In interpreting laws,
would not give this Court a desirable approach to the problem before us. courts are hidebound by the rule that theirs is to reconcile and to harmonize;
Policy that is proper for legislation is beyond the ambit of court powers. and, if possible, to avoid inconsistency and repugnancy; to give the laws a
Suffice it to say that these suasions are best addressed to Congress. conjoint not discordant effect. As we said in a previous case, 14 "[w]e have to
Because courts cannot simply melt and recast a statute. take the thought conveyed by the statute as a whole; construe the constituent
parts together; ascertain the legislative intent from the whole act; consider
4. Petitioners next assert that their theory that a retired employee may be each and every provision thereof in the light of the general purpose of the
retained in the government beyond 65 years of age finds support from statute; and endeavour to make every part effective, harmonious, sensible."
Section 12(d) of Commonwealth Act 186, as amended. This section reads:
To harmonize Section 12(d) with Section 12(e) — as it stood amended by
(d) An employee separated from the service who is receiving an Republic Act 3096 — is to hold that a retired employee who is receiving
annuity described under section eleven shall not be eligible again to annuity from the GSIS may be reappointed to the government service only if
appointment to any appointive position or employment under any he has not yet reached the age of 65 years. The prohibition in Section 12(e)
'employer' unless the appointing authority determines that he is against the extension of the service of a retirable government employee
possessed of special qualifications and his medical examination has where the conditions for automatic and compulsory retirement exist is so
been approved by the System, in which event he shall not be entitled patent and so clear that it will not admit of any other construction that would
to payments of his annuity during the period of his new violate legislative intent.
employment: Provided, however, That nothing in this Act shall be so
construed as to affect the rights of the annuitant's beneficiary if the 5. Petitioners bring in the concept of academic freedom. Their argument is
annuitant has been receiving or had elected, and was otherwise that the law as we now interpret it would trench upon the academic freedom
entitled to, a reduced annuity under subsection (a) of section enjoyed by the university as guaranteed by the Constitution. Petitioners refer
eleven: Provided, further, That upon the termination of his new to Section 5, Article XIV of the Constitution, which provides that "[u]niversities
appointment, the payments of the annuity which were discontinued established by the State shall enjoy academic freedom." Petitioners mention
shall be resumed: And provided, finally, That if the annuitant's salary the concurring opinion of Justice Frankfurter, whom Justice Harlan joins, in
in his new position is less than the annuity granted to him under this Sweezy vs. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 1 L. Ed. 2d. 1311, 1327, 1332.
Act, he shall be entitled to receive the difference. 13 This concurring opinion quotes a passage from a report entitled "The Open
Universities in South Africa" where statement was made that academic
freedom of a university consists of four essential freedoms — "to determine The obligation to compensate may not perhaps be fully comprehended
for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it unless we view the case in the environment in which Prof. Jamias' service
shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study." Petitioners insist that was extended.
Commonwealth Act 186, as amended, would trample upon U.P.'s freedom to
decide who may teach. At the time Prof. Jamias reached 65 years, he was assigned a specific job,
namely, to write the history of the University of the Philippines. Retirement
We do not discern in the statute just referred to a meaning violative of U.P.'s age caught him half through with this undertaking. There is the desirability of
academic freedom. It does not erode the substance of the freedom in any having Prof. Jamias complete this assignment which he started. Besides,
way. It must be stressed that what we are concerned with here is retirement, Prof. Jamias was then the head of the University Publications. Retirement
not appointment. We hold that the law here involved is a reasonable would create a vacuum. U.P. had yet to find a qualified fill up. Then, also, Dr.
regulation. It is an expression by Congress of sound judgment on when an Dionisia Rola, who was to relieve Prof. Jamias of his teaching courses, was
employee shall, because of age, stop. The purpose was summed up in the still assigned to Baguio. The discipline of English had yet to adjust itself to
explanatory note to the bill that "continuance in the service of those who are the teaching of the courses he handled. Again, Prof. Jamias had to stay. The
already eligible to compulsory retirement should no longer be allowed."15 That interests of the students so demanded.
law lays down the rule that at the age of 65, a person is ripe for retirement.
There is no discrimination. All government employees who are members of It is in this factual configuration that the university authorities took it upon
the System and similarly situated are governed thereby. U.P. professors are themselves to engage the services of Prof. Jamias until the termination of the
not exempt therefrom. school year, which was April 15, 1962. The unique and peculiar
circumstances under which Prof. Jamias' services were sought, engaged and
Barenblatt vs. U.S.16 is illuminating. It was there held that the academic harnessed anew, sufficiently justified a special contract of services up to April
freedom of a university has not been violated because the congressional 15, 1962. This the Board of Regents had authority to do, even as it had no
investigation into communist infiltration into the field of education is not power to extend his original term. The questioned resolution must be viewed
shown to be directed at controlling what has been taught at the university. in this sense. He is thus entitled to payment of his salary up to the last named
Pertinent is the following passage found in said case: "The claims of date.
academic freedom cannot be asserted unqualifiedly. The social interest it
embodies is but one of the larger set, within which the interest in national Upon the view we take of this case —
self-preservation and enlightened and well-informed lawmaking also
prominently appeal. When two major interests collide, as they do in the (1) We vote to grant the writ of prohibition prayed for by petitioners;
present case, neither the one nor the other can claim a priori supremacy. But
it is in the nature of our system of laws that there must be demonstrable
(2) Respondent Auditor General and his representatives are hereby
justification for an action by the Government which endangers or denies the
permanently enjoined from withholding the salary of petitioner Cristino
freedom guaranteed by the Constitution." 17
Jamias corresponding to the extended period of service from July 20, 1961 to
April 15, 1962; and, in the event the Auditor General and his representatives
We accordingly, hold that the constitutionally-guaranteed academic freedom have already done so, they are hereby directed to return to petitioner Jamias
has not been here violated. the compensation due the latter for the said period; and

6. Having reached the conclusion that the Board of Regents was bereft of (3) Respondent Government Service Insurance System is hereby
authority to extend Prof. Jamias' tenure for one school year, there remains for permanently enjoined from deducting any amount from petitioner Jamias'
consideration this last question: Is Prof. Jamias to be compensated during five-year retirement annuity; and if said System has already done so, it is
the extended period in which he worked? hereby directed to return to petitioner Jamias what it has already deducted.

No costs allowed. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, 5
 The deletion of U.P. from the exceptions remained in subsequent
Fernando, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur. statutes: Republic Act 1573 approved June 16, 1956; and Republic
Act 1820, June 22, 1957.

 See: Section 4(b), Commonwealth Act 186, as amended by

6

Republic Act 660.

Footnotes
7
 The newest amendment to Section 12(e) has been effected by
1
 Section 2, Act 1870. Republic Act 4968, effective June 2, 1967. Said Section 12(e) as it
is now composed in part reads:
2
 Section 5, Article XIV, Constitution.
"(e) Retirement shall be automatic and compulsory at the age
 By Republic Act 4968, which took effect on June 17, 1967, said
3 of sixty-five years with lump-sum payment of present value of
Section 4(a) of Commonwealth Act 186 now reads: annuity for the first five years and future annuity to be paid
monthly, and other benefits given to a compulsorily retired
member as provided for in Republic Act Numbered Six
(a) Membership in the System shall be compulsory upon all hundred and sixty, as amended, if he has completed fifteen
appointive officers and employees in the executive, years of service and if he has not been separated from the
legislative, and judicial branches of the government, including service during the last three years of service prior to
those whose tenure of office is fixed or limited by the retirement; otherwise he shall be allowed to continue in the
Constitution or by law; upon all regular employees of the service until he shall have completed the required length of
Philippine Tuberculosis Society and the Philippine National service, unless he is otherwise eligible for disability
Red Cross, and other employees of the government-owned or retirement. This paragraph shall not apply to elective officials
controlled corporations; upon all regular officers and enlisted and constitutional officers whose tenure of office is
men of the Armed Forces of the Philippines; and upon all guaranteed. Upon specific approval of the President of the
elective officials receiving compensation as defined in this Philippines, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the
Act: Provided, That casual, substitute, or temporary House of Representatives or the Chief Justice of the
employees and substitute or temporary teachers shall be Supreme Court, as the case may be, an employee may be
hereby covered for purposes of term insurance for two allowed to continue to serve in the executive, legislative or
thousand seven hundred and fifty pesos if appointed for a judicial branch of the government after the age of sixty-five
period of not less than two months, the term insurance to be years if he possesses special qualifications and the
effective in the month next following the month in which the corresponding Department Secretary certifies in writing that
premium prescribed in Section five hereof has been his service(s) are needed."
paid: And provided, further, That said casual, substitute or
temporary employees and substitute or temporary teachers
shall not be covered by the retirement insurance plan
8
 50 Am. Jur. 556-557; Crawford, The Construction of Statutes, 1940
provided for in this Act: Provided, finally, That the term ed., pp. 621-622; 1 Sutherland, Statutory Construction, Third Ed., pp.
'appointive officer and employee' as used herein shall include 419- 421.
those extended permanent appointments and provisional
appointments as used in the civil service law but excluding
9
 See: Congressional Record (House of Representatives), Fourth
those without any kind of civil service eligibility when so Congress, First Regular Session, May 7, 1958, Vol. I, No. 66, p.
required." 2155.

4
 See: Articles 266-268, Revised Code of the U.P.
10
 Id., at p. 2154; emphasis supplied.
  As successively amended by Act 2759, effective February 23, 1918
11

and Act 3745, effective November 24, 1930.

12
 50 Am. Jur., 454-455.

 As successively amended by Republic Acts 660, effective June 16,

13

1951, and 1573, effective June 16, 1956.

14
 Republic vs. Reyes (1966), 17 SCRA 170, 173, citing Crawford,
Interpretation of Laws, pp. 260-261.

15
 Congressional Record, supra, at p. 2154; emphasis supplied.

16
 (1959) 360 U.S. 109, 3 L. Ed. 2d. 1115.

 At p. 1131, footnote 29, quoting the Amicus Brief of the American
17

Association of University Professors.