GR L 37645; (July 1975) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-37645 July 17, 1975
JESUS L. SANTOS, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE MARIANO CASTANEDA, JR., Presiding Judge, Branch III, Court of First Instance of Pampanga, and TOMAS GUEVARRA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Jesus L. Santos filed an election protest on November 16, 1971, contesting the proclamation of private respondent Tomas Guevarra as mayor-elect of Mexico, Pampanga, by a margin of 41 votes. The protest proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga were underway when, on May 15, 1973, Guevarra filed a motion to dismiss. He argued the protest had become moot and academic upon the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution.
Guevarra specifically relied on Section 9, Article XVII (Transitory Provisions), which stated that all incumbent officials “shall continue in office until otherwise provided by law or decreed by the incumbent President.” His submission was that during the transition, the President had the exclusive power to determine the right and tenure of incumbent elective officials. The respondent judge, on August 25, 1973, granted the motion and dismissed the election protest, prompting Santos to elevate the case via certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge correctly dismissed the pending election protest based on Section 9, Article XVII of the 1973 Constitution’s Transitory Provisions.
RULING
The Supreme Court set aside the order of dismissal. The constitutional grant allowing incumbents to continue in office cannot be construed to indiscriminately benefit every person merely performing the duties of an elective office at the time the new Constitution took effect, especially if their right to that office is under judicial protest. The framers did not intend to disregard the statutory right of a candidate who timely commenced proceedings aimed at the judicial determination of a proclaimed candidate-elect’s right to the contested office.
The Court, citing recent precedents, clarified that the “right” to continue in office indefinitely under the Transitory Provisions arises not only from the Constitution but principally from having been duly proclaimed elected. If, through a proper election protest, it is judicially determined that the proclaimed official was not in fact duly elected, then they have no rightful claim to the office and should not be shielded by the constitutional provision. The indefinite term under the transition is still the term to which they were elected; it expires only when the President, by law or decree, ends their service. Therefore, a pending election contest must be resolved to first ascertain the legitimacy of the proclamation. The lower court was ordered to continue the trial of the election protest with deliberate speed.