CASE 6

De Leon v. Esguerra : 153 SCRA 602

De Leon v. Esguerra Case Digest

Facts: On May 17, 1982, petitioner Alfredo M. De Leon was elected Barangay Captain together
with the other petitioners as Barangay Councilmen of Barangay Dolores, Muncipality of Taytay,
Province of Rizal in a Barangay election held under Batas Pambansa Blg. 222, otherwise known
as Barangay Election Act of 1982.

On February 9, 1987, petitioner De Leon received a Memorandum antedated December 1, 1986

Petitoners prayed to the Supreme Court that the subject Memoranda of February 8, 1987 be
declared null and void and that respondents be prohibited by taking over their positions of
Barangay Captain and Barangay Councilmen.

Petitioners maintain that pursuant to Section 3 of the Barangay Election Act of 1982 (BP Blg.
222), their terms of office shall be six years which shall commence on June 7, 1988 and shall
continue until their successors shall have elected and shall have qualified. It was also their
position that with the ratification of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, respondent OIC
Governor no longer has the authority to replace them and to designate their successors.

On the other hand, respondents contend that the terms of office of elective and appointive
officials were abolished and that petitioners continued in office by virtue of Sec. 2, Art. 3 of the
Provisional Constitution and not because their term of six years had not yet expired; and that
the provision in the Barangay Election Act fixing the term of office of Barangay officials to six
years must be deemed to have been repealed for being inconsistent with Sec. 2, Art. 3 of the
Provisional Constitution.

Issue: Whether or not the designation of respondents to replace petitioners was validly made
during the one-year period which ended on Feb 25, 1987.

Ruling: Supreme Court declared that the Memoranda issued by respondent OIC Gov on Feb 8,
1987 designating respondents as Barangay Captain and Barangay Councilmen of Barangay
Dolores, Taytay, Rizal has no legal force and effect.

The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on Feb 2, 1987, therefore, the Provisional
Constitution must be deemed to have superseded. Having become inoperative, respondent OIC
Gov could no longer rely on Sec 2, Art 3, thereof to designate respondents to the elective
positions occupied by petitioners. Relevantly, Sec 8, Art 1 of the 1987 Constitution further
provides in part:

"Sec. 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be
determined by law, shall be three years x x x."

Until the term of office of barangay officials has been determined by aw, therefore, the term of
office of 6 years provided for in the Barangay Election Act of 1982 should still govern.

7/28/2019 De Leon vs Esguerra Case Digest 1/1De Leon v. Esguerra, 153 SCRA 602, August,
31, 1987Facts: On May 17, 1982, petitioner Alfredo M. De Leon was elected Barangay Captain
together with the other petitioners as Barangay Councilmen of Barangay Dolores, Muncipality
of Taytay, Province of Rizal in a Barangay election held under Batas Pambansa Blg. 222,
otherwise known as Barangay Election Act of 1982.On February 9, 1987, petitioner De Leon
received a Memorandum antedated December 1, 1986but signed by respondent OIC Governor
Benjamin Esguerra on February 8, 1987 designating respondent Florentino G. Magno as
Barangay Captain of Barangay Dolores and the other respondents as members of Barangay
Council of the same Barangay and Municipality. Petitoners prayed to the Supreme Court that
the subject Memoranda of February 8, 1987 be declared null and void and that respondents be
prohibited by taking over their positions of Barangay Captain and Barangay Councilmen.
Petitioners maintain that pursuant to Section 3 of the Barangay Election Act of 1982 (BP
CASE 6

Blg.222), their terms of office shall be six years which shall commence on June 7, 1988 and
shall continue until their successors shall have elected and shall have qualified. It was also
their position that with the ratification of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, respondent OIC
Governor no longer has the authority to replace them and to designate their successors. On the
other hand, respondents contend that the terms of office of elective and appointive officials
were abolished and that petitioners continued in office by virtue of Sec. 2, Art. 3 of the
Provisional Constitution and not because their term of six years had not yet expired; and that
the provision in the Barangay Election Act fixing the term of office of Barangay officials to six
years must be deemed to have been repealed for being inconsistent with Sec. 2, Art. 3 of the
Provisional Constitution. Issue: Whether or not the designation of respondents to replace
petitioners was validly made during the one-year period which ended on Feb 25, 1987.Ruling:
Supreme Court declared that the Memoranda issued by respondent OIC Gov on Feb 8,1987
designating respondents as Barangay Captain and Barangay Councilmen of Barangay Dolores,
Taytay, Rizal has no legal force and effect. The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on
Feb 2, 1987, therefore, the Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have superseded.
Having become inoperative, respondent OICGov could no longer rely on Sec 2, Art 3, thereof to
designate respondents to the elective positions occupied by petitioners. Relevantly, Sec 8, Art 1
of the 1987 Constitution further provides in part: "Sec. 8. The term of office of elective local
officials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be three years x x x.
"Until the term of office of barangay officials has been determined by law, therefore, the term of
office of 6 years provided for in the Barangay Election Act of 1982 should still govern.

Citation preview

De Leon vs. Esguerra 153 SCRA 602 No. L-78059, August 31, 1987 FACTS: On May 17, 1982,
Alfredo De Leon won as Brgy. Captain and other petitioners won as Councilmen of Brgy.
Dolores, Taytay, Rizal. Under the Barangay Election Act of 1982, their terms of office shall be
six years, which commenced on June 7, 1982 up to June 7, 1988. On Feb. 8, 1987, while the
petitioners still have one year and four months, Gov. Benjamin Esguerra of Rizal Province,
issued a memorandum designating Florentino Magno as the new Brgy. Captain and other
respondents as the new Councilmen of the said barrangay. The respondents relied on the
Provisional Constitution of 1986, which grants the governor to appoint or designate new
successors within the one year period which ended on Feb. 25 1987. They also contended that
the terms of office of the petitioners were already been abolished and that they continued in
office simply because no new successors were appointed yet; and that the provision in the
Barangay Election Act fixing the term of office of Barangay officials up to six years must have
been deemed repealed for being inconsistent with the Provisional Constitution. Petitioners
instituted an original action for prohibition to review the order of the governor. ISSUE: Whether
the designation was valid? HELD: The Supreme Court held that the memoranda issued by Gov.
Esguerra has no legal effect. Though the designation was within the one year period which
ended on Feb. 25, 1987, however, it was cut short when the 1987 Constitution took effect on
Feb. 2, 1987. When the 1987 Constitution was in effect, the governor no longer had the
authority to designate successors under the Provisional Constitution which was deemed to
have been superseded. There has been no proclamation or executive order terminating the term
of elective Barangay officials; and the Barangay Election Act is not inconsistent with the
Constitution. The writ of prohibition was granted and the petitioners have acquired the security
of tenure. Notes: When did the 1987 Constitution take effect?

- The Supreme Court, with only one dissent, ruled in De leon vs. Esguerra that the 1987
Constitution took effect on February 2, 1987 which is the date of its ratification in the
plebiscite, by virtue of its provision under Article XVIII, Section 27 that it “shall take effect
immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the
purpose.” (This provision was unanimously approved by thirty-five votes in favor and none
against in the Con Com of 1986) - The effectivity of the Constitution should commence on the
date of the ratification that is the date the people have cast their votes in favor of the
Constitution. The act of voting by the people is the act of ratification. It should not be on the
date of the proclamation of the President since it is the act of the people. In fact, there should
be no need to wait for any proclamation on the part of the President, if there is, it is merely the
official confirmatory declaration of an act done by the people. The COMELEC, on the other
hand, should make the official announcement that the votes show that the Constitution was
ratified, but the canvass is merely a mathematical confirmation of what was done during the
plebiscite.