GR 48054; (March, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. 48054. March 11, 1941.
BENEDICTO AUSTRIA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
The petitioners were elected as mayor, vice-mayor, and municipal councilors of San Pedro, Laguna, in the general election of December 10, 1940. Their election was proclaimed by the municipal board of canvassers on December 23, 1940, and they took their oaths of office on January 1, 1941. On January 2, 1941, certain electors filed charges of disloyalty to the Commonwealth Government against the petitioners under section 166 of the Election Code (Commonwealth Act No. 357). On January 3, 1941, the petitioners were served copies of the charges and a notice from the First Assistant Solicitor General requiring them to answer within ten days. The petitioners filed motions to dismiss on January 10 and 12, 1941, which were denied by the Solicitor General on January 10 and 14, 1941, respectively. The petitioners then instituted this original action for prohibition to enjoin the respondents from proceeding with the investigation.
ISSUE
Whether the writ of prohibition should be issued to stop the investigation of the disloyalty charges under section 166 of the Election Code, based on the petitioners’ contentions regarding due process, equal protection, timeliness of the filing, and the Solicitor General’s authority.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the action.
1. On Due Process and Equal Protection: The Court held that section 166 of the Election Code satisfies the requirements of due process, as it provides the accused officer sufficient notice and ample opportunity to be heard and defend themselves. The process, though administrative or executive, constitutes due process. The law does not violate the equal protection clause as it applies uniformly to all persons similarly situated.
2. On Timeliness of the Protest: The Court ruled that the protest was filed within the one-week period prescribed by law. The proclamation was on December 23, 1940, and the protest was filed on January 2, 1941. Considering that December 29, 30, 31, 1940, and January 1, 1941, were legal holidays, the filing period was properly extended.
3. On the Solicitor General’s Authority: The Court held that section 166 grants the Solicitor General the power to investigate charges of disloyalty, which includes the necessary powers to carry out that function. In conducting such an investigation, the Solicitor General acts for the President, who is ultimately tasked with deciding the case.
The Court found no merit in the petitioners’ other contentions. Costs were imposed against the petitioners.