DAVID vs. COMELEC (Public Corporation)

[G.R. No. 127116. April 8, 1997]

ALEX L. DAVID, in his own behalf as Barangay Chairman of Barangay 77, Zone 7, Kalookan City and as President of the LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY SA PILIPINAS, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE HONORABLE SECRETARY, Department of Interior and Local Government, and THE HONORABLE SECRETARY, Department of Budget and Management, Respondents.

FACTS:

In his capacity as barangay chairman of Barangay 77, Zone 7, Kalookan City and as president of the Liga ng mga Barangay sa Pilipinas, Petitioner Alex L. David filed on December 2, 1996 a petition for prohibition docketed in this Court as G.R. No. 127116, under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, to prohibit the holding of the barangay election scheduled on the second Monday of May 1997.

Petitioners contend that under Sec. 2 of Republic Act No. 6653, approved on May 6, 1988, (t)he term of office of barangay officials shall be for five (5) years x x x. This is reiterated in Republic Act No. 6679, approved on November 4, 1988, which reset the barangay elections from the second Monday of November 1988 to March 28, 1989 and provided in Sec. 1 thereof that such five-year term shall begin on the first day of May 1989 and ending on the thirty-first day of May 1994.

Petitioners further aver that although Sec. 43 of RA 7160 reduced the term of office of all local elective officials to three years, such reduction does not apply to barangay officials because (1) RA 6679 is a special law applicable only to barangays while RA 7160 is a general law which applies to all other local government units; (2) RA 7160 does not expressly or impliedly repeal RA 6679 insofar as the term of barangay officials is concerned; (3) while Sec. 8 of Article X of the 1987 Constitution fixes the term of elective local officials at three years, the same provision states that the term of barangay officials shall be determined by law; and (4) thus, it follows that the constitutional intention is to grant barangay officials any term, except three years; otherwise, there would be no rhyme or reason for the framers of the Constitution to except barangay officials from the three year term found in Sec. 8 (of) Article X of the Constitution.

ISSUE:

1.      Which law governs the term of office of barangay officials: RA 7160 or RA 6679?

2. Is RA 7160 insofar as it shortened such term to only three years constitutional?

RULING:

1. RA 7160. 

RA 7160, the Local Government Code, was enacted later than RA 6679. It is basic that in case of an irreconciliable conflict between two laws of different vintages, the later enactment prevails.31 Legis posteriores priores contrarias abrogant. The rationale is simple: a later law repeals an earlier one because it is the later legislative will. It is to be presumed that the lawmakers knew the older law and intended to change it.

Petitioner may be correct in alleging that RA 6679 is a special law, but they are incorrect in stating (without however giving the reasons therefor) that RA 7160 is necessarily a general law. It is a special law insofar as it governs the term of office of barangay officials. In its repealing clause, RA 7160 states that all general and special laws x x x which are inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. There being a clear repugnance and incompatibility between the two specific provisions, they cannot stand together. The later law, RA 7160, should thus prevail in accordance with its repealing clause. When a subsequent law encompasses entirely the subject matter of the former enactments, the latter is deemed repealed.

2. Yes, 

Sec. 8, Article X of the Constitution states:

"The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be three years, and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected."

Thus, the Constitution did not expressly prohibit Congress from fixing any term of office for barangay officials. It merely left the determination of such term to the lawmaking body, without any specific limitation or prohibition, thereby leaving to the lawmakers full discretion to fix such term in accordance with the exigencies of public service. It must be remembered that every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality.38 For a law to be nullified, it must be shown that there is a clear and unequivocal (not just implied) breach of the Constitution.39 To strike down a law as unconstitutional, there must be a clear and unequivocal showing that what the fundamental law prohibits, the statute permits. The petitioners have miserably failed to discharge this burden and to show clearly the unconstitutionality they aver.