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 Gonzaga’s 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. Gonzaga’s 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impliedly repealed by the Election Code of 1971.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voted that the provision was impliedly repealed.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 Second, said section 2175 is superseded by the Constitution.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has been repealed by Sec. 23 of the Election Code (1971): “Appointive public office holders and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.