Digest: Pablico v. Villapando (385 SCRA 601, 2002)
Facts: An administrative complaint was filed with
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan against then Mayor Alejandro Villapando
of San Vicente, Palawan for abuse of authority and culpable violation of the
Constitution for entering into a consultancy agreement with Orlando Tiape, a
defeated mayoralty candidate. Complainants argue that this amounted to
appointment to a government position within the prohibited one-year period
under Article IX-B, Sec. 6 of the 1987 Constitution.
In his answer, Villapando invoked Opinion No. 106, s. 1992, of
the Department of Justice dated August 21, 1992, stating that the appointment
of a defeated candidate within one year from the election as a consultant does
not constitute an appointment to a government office or position as prohibited
by the Constitution.
The Sangguniang Panlalawigan found respondent guilty and imposed on him the
penalty of dismissal from service. The Office of the President affirmed the
decision. Vice-mayor Pablico took his oath as municipal mayor in place of
Villapando.
The Court of Appeals declared the decisions of the SP and OP void, and ordered
Pablico to vacate the office.
Issue: Whether or not local legislative bodies and/or the
Office of the President validly impose the penalty of dismissal from service on
erring elective local officials?
Ruling: Section 60 of the Local Government Code of 1991
provides:
Section 60. Grounds for Disciplinary
Actions. – An elective local official may be disciplined, suspended, or removed
from office on any of the following grounds:
x x x
x x x
An elective local official may be removed from office on the grounds enumerated
above by order of the proper court.
It is clear from the last
paragraph of the aforecited provision that the penalty of dismissal from
service upon an erring elective local official may be decreed only by a court
of law. Thus, in Salalima, et al. v. Guingona, et al., we held that
“[t]he Office of the President is without any power to remove elected
officials, since such power is exclusively vested in the proper courts as
expressly provided for in the last paragraph of the aforequoted Section 60.”
Article 124 (b), Rule XIX of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local
Government Code, however, adds that – “(b) An elective local official may be
removed from office on the grounds enumerated in paragraph (a) of this Article
[The grounds enumerated in Section 60, Local Government Code of 1991] by order
of the proper court or the disciplining authority whichever first acquires
jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other.” The disciplining authority
referred to pertains to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan/Panlungsod/Bayan and the
Office of the President.
As held in Salalima, this grant to the “disciplining authority” of the power to
remove elective local officials is clearly beyond the authority of the
Oversight Committee that prepared the Rules and Regulations. No rule or
regulation may alter, amend, or contravene a provision of law, such as the
Local Government Code. Implementing rules should conform, not clash,
with the law that they implement, for a regulation which operates to create
a rule out of harmony with the statute is a nullity.
0 Comments