GR 154616; (July, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 154616 July 12, 2004
GOV. ANTONIO CALINGIN, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SPECIAL 17TH DIVISION, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY RENATO S. DE VILLA, DEPT. OF INTERIOR & LOCAL GOVERNMENT SECRETARY JOEY LINA, UNDERSECRETARY EDUARDO R. SOLIMAN, JR., DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR & LOCAL GOVERNMENT, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 10, DIRECTOR RODOLFO Z. RAZUL, respondents.
FACTS
The Office of the President issued a Resolution dated March 22, 2001, suspending Misamis Oriental Governor Antonio Calingin for 90 days. On April 30, 2001, the DILG, by authority of its Secretary, issued a Memorandum implementing the suspension. Governor Calingin filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Office of the President on May 3, 2001. Simultaneously, he challenged the implementation before the Court of Appeals via a petition for prohibition, arguing the suspension was not yet final and its execution during the election period violated the COMELEC ban. The DILG’s implementation was backed by COMELEC Resolution No. 3992, which granted an exemption from the election ban. The Court of Appeals dismissed Calingin’s petition, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
The core issues are: (1) Whether the decision of the Office of the President suspending an elective provincial governor is immediately final and executory, rendering a motion for reconsideration ineffective to stay its execution; and (2) Whether the COMELEC validly granted an exemption from the election ban to allow the suspension’s implementation.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the suspension’s immediate execution. On the first issue, the Court ruled that the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. 7160), being a special and later law governing disciplinary actions against local officials, prevails over the general provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987. Under Section 67 of the Local Government Code, decisions of the Office of the President in such cases are final and executory. Citing Lapid v. Court of Appeals, the Court emphasized that these decisions are immediately executory even pending an appeal to the Court of Appeals. Therefore, Calingin’s filing of a motion for reconsideration did not suspend the execution of the suspension order. On the second issue, the Court found the COMELEC exemption valid. The records showed the Office of the President’s resolution was approved on March 22, 2001, and a proper request for implementation was filed, complying with COMELEC rules. COMELEC Resolution No. 3992, promulgated on April 24, 2001, validly exempted the suspension from the election ban. The Court found no merit in the claim that the exemption was based on a mere draft, as the supporting resolution was duly signed and promulgated.