GR 184935; (December, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 184935 & 184938, December 21, 2009
DESEDERIO O. MONREAL, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND FELIPE M. ALDAY, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 184938] NESTOR RACIMO FORONDA, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND LEOPOLDO CRUZ MANALILI, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioners Desederio Monreal and Nestor Racimo Foronda were elected Punong Barangay in the October 2007 barangay elections. Their respective opponents, respondents Felipe Alday and Leopoldo Manalili, filed disqualification cases against them before the COMELEC under Section 2 of Republic Act 9164, which imposes a three-term limit on barangay officials, with the term limit reckoned from the 1994 elections. Petitioners moved to suspend the COMELEC proceedings, citing a pending case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City (SCA C-914) that challenged the constitutionality of this retroactive reckoning provision.
The COMELEC proceeded to disqualify both petitioners, cancel their certificates of candidacy, and annul Foronda’s proclamation. Petitioners filed motions for reconsideration, invoking a subsequent RTC decision that declared the challenged provision unconstitutional. The COMELEC En Banc denied their motions. Meanwhile, the RTC decision was appealed, and its finality remained pending.
ISSUE
Whether the pendency of a case challenging the constitutionality of Section 2 of R.A. 9164 constitutes a prejudicial question that should have suspended the COMELEC’s disqualification proceedings.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative and dismissed the petitions. The Court held that the doctrine of prejudicial question was inapplicable. A prejudicial question exists when the resolution of an issue in one case is logically antecedent to and determinative of an issue in another pending case. Here, the COMELEC’s disqualification cases were not dependent on a prior ruling from the RTC on constitutionality.
The Court emphasized the settled doctrine that all laws are presumed constitutional until otherwise declared by a competent court in an appropriate case. To suspend the disqualification proceedings based on a pending, non-final challenge to the law’s constitutionality would contravene this presumption and effectively enjoin the law’s implementation without legal basis. Since the RTC decision annulling the provision was not final and executory, the law remained in full force and effect. The COMELEC was therefore correct in applying the three-term limit rule under R.A. 9164 to disqualify the petitioners. The Court also clarified that the doctrine rejecting the second placer, as stated in Labo, Jr. v. COMELEC, applied, as the disqualification occurred post-election.