G.R. No. L-20508; May 16, 1963
GENARO VISARRA, petitioner, vs. CESAR MIRAFLOR, respondent.

FACTS

The dispute concerns the position of third member of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The constitutional scheme established staggered nine-year terms for the Chairman and two Members, with the first appointees in 1941 serving nine, six, and three years respectively, creating three distinct lines of succession. In the 1955 case of Republic v. Imperial, the Supreme Court traced these lines. It ruled that when a member, Vicente de Vera, was appointed Chairman in 1947, he vacated his membership line and entered the Chairman’s line. His vacated membership was then filled for the remainder of its fixed term.
Applying this precedent, Gaudencio Garcia was the third member with a term ending June 20, 1962. On May 12, 1960, Garcia was appointed Chairman, and on the same date, Genaro Visarra was appointed to the membership position Garcia vacated. In November 1962, President Diosdado Macapagal appointed Cesar Miraflor to the same membership post, believing Visarra’s term had expired in June 1962. Visarra filed suit, asserting his right to remain in office.

ISSUE

Whether Genaro Visarra’s term as COMELEC member expired on June 20, 1962, thereby making the appointment of Cesar Miraflor valid.

RULING

Yes, Visarra’s term expired on June 20, 1962. The Court, through Chief Justice Bengzon, strictly applied the doctrine of stare decisis based on its 1955 ruling in Republic v. Imperial. The legal logic is anchored on the fixed, non-extendible nature of the terms within each of the three original lines of succession established by the Constitution. When Garcia, the incumbent third member, was appointed Chairman, he necessarily vacated his position in the third membership line. Visarra’s appointment could only be for the unexpired portion of Garcia’s fixed term in that line, which ended on June 20, 1962. Visarra’s commission, which stated a term ending in 1968, could not validly alter this constitutional and jurisprudential fixity.
The Court rejected Visarra’s theory that Garcia retained his membership line, with the Chairmanship being a separate, concurrent role. This contradicted the Imperial ruling that a Commissioner moves from one line to another upon a new appointment. Consequently, the vacancy Miraflor filled in 1962 was the same third membership position, and his appointment was valid as Visarra’s rightful tenure had concluded. The decision reaffirmed that appointments to fill vacancies in these fixed terms are only for the balance of the term, not for a new nine-year period.