Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 396 views

    Case Digest - Grego Vs COMELEC GR No 125955 June 19, 1997

    Uploaded by

    Vic Rabaya
    The Supreme Court held that: 1) Section 40(b) of the Local Government Code of 1991, which disqualifies those removed from office due to an administrative case from running for elective local positions, does not apply retroactively to those removed from office before the Code's effectivity on January 1, 1992. 2) Statutes are presumed to apply prospectively only, unless retroactive effect is expressly declared or clearly implied. Section 40(b) did not clearly state it applied retroactively. 3) Therefore, Section 40(b) did not disqualify Basco, who was removed from office in 1981 prior to the Code, from running for and serving as council

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Digest - Grego Vs COMELEC GR No 125955 June 19, 1997

    Uploaded by

    Vic Rabaya
    396 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court held that: 1) Section 40(b) of the Local Government Code of 1991, which disqualifies those removed from office due to an administrative case from running for elective local positions, does not apply retroactively to those removed from office before the Code's effectivity on January 1, 1992. 2) Statutes are presumed to apply prospectively only, unless retroactive effect is expressly declared or clearly implied. Section 40(b) did not clearly state it applied retroactively. 3) Therefore, Section 40(b) did not disqualify Basco, who was removed from office in 1981 prior to the Code, from running for and serving as council

    Original Description:

    Case Digest - Grego vs COMELEC GR No 125955 June 19, 1997

    Original Title

    Case Digest - Grego vs COMELEC GR No 125955 June 19, 1997

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court held that: 1) Section 40(b) of the Local Government Code of 1991, which disqualifies those removed from office due to an administrative case from running for elective local positions, does not apply retroactively to those removed from office before the Code's effectivity on January 1, 1992. 2) Statutes are presumed to apply prospectively only, unless retroactive effect is expressly declared or clearly implied. Section 40(b) did not clearly state it applied retroactively. 3) Therefore, Section 40(b) did not disqualify Basco, who was removed from office in 1981 prior to the Code, from running for and serving as council

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    396 views2 pages

    Case Digest - Grego Vs COMELEC GR No 125955 June 19, 1997

    Uploaded by

    Vic Rabaya
    The Supreme Court held that: 1) Section 40(b) of the Local Government Code of 1991, which disqualifies those removed from office due to an administrative case from running for elective local positions, does not apply retroactively to those removed from office before the Code's effectivity on January 1, 1992. 2) Statutes are presumed to apply prospectively only, unless retroactive effect is expressly declared or clearly implied. Section 40(b) did not clearly state it applied retroactively. 3) Therefore, Section 40(b) did not disqualify Basco, who was removed from office in 1981 prior to the Code, from running for and serving as council

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    G.R. No.

    125955 June 19, 1997

    WILMER GREGO, petitioner,


    vs.
    COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and HUMBERTO BASCO, respondents.

    ROMERO, J.:

    FACTS:

    On October 31, 1981, before the effectivity of the Local Government Code of 1991, private
    respondent Humberto Basco was removed from his position as Deputy Sheriff by no less
    than the Supreme Court upon a finding of serious misconduct in an administrative
    complaint.

    Subsequently, Basco ran as a candidate for councilor in the Second District of the City of
    Manila in the January 18, 1988 local elections. He won and assumed office. He was
    successfully re-elected in 1992 and 1995.

    It was his latest re-election which is the subject of the present petition on the ground that
    he is disqualified under Section 40(b) of the LGC of 1991. Under said section, those
    removed from office as a result of an administrative case are disqualified to run for any
    elective local position.

    Issue/Held

    - WoN Section 40(b) of the Local Government Code of 1991 apply


    retroactively to those removed from office before it took effect on January 1,
    1992?

    a.) NO. The Supreme Court held that its refusal to give retroactive application to
    the provision of Section 40(b) is already a settled issue and there exist no
    compelling reason for the Court to depart therefrom. That the provision of the Code
    in question does not qualify the date of a candidate’s removal from office and that it
    is couched in the past tense should not deter the Court from applying the law
    prospectively. A statute, despite the generality in its language, must not be so
    construed as to overreach acts, events or matters which transpired before its
    passage.

    Section 40 (b) of the Local Government Code under which petitioner anchors
    Basco's alleged disqualification to run as City Councilor states:

    Sec. 40. Disqualifications. — The following persons are


    disqualified from running for any elective local position:

    xxx xxx xxx

    (b) Those removed from office as a result of an administrative


    case;
    xxx xxx xxx

    b.) In this regard, petitioner submits that although the Code took effect only on
    January 1, 1992, Section 40 (b) must nonetheless be given retroactive effect and
    applied to Basco's dismissal from office which took place in 1981. It is stressed that
    the provision of the law as worded does not mention or even qualify the date of
    removal from office of the candidate in order for disqualification thereunder to
    attach. Hence, petitioner impresses upon the Court that as long as a candidate was
    once removed from office due to an administrative case, regardless of whether it
    took place during or prior to the effectivity of the Code, the disqualification applies.
    9 To him, this interpretation is made more evident by the manner in which the
    provisions of Section 40 are couched. Since the past tense is used in enumerating
    the grounds for disqualification, petitioner strongly contends that the provision must
    have also referred to removal from office occurring prior to the effectivity of the
    Code.10

    Republic Act 7160 took effect only on January 1, 1992.

    The rule is:

    xxx xxx xxx

    . . . Well-settled is the principle that while the Legislature has the


    power to pass retroactive laws which do not impair the obligation of
    contracts, or affect injuriously vested rights, it is equally true that
    statutes are not to be construed as intended to have a retroactive
    effect so as to affect pending proceedings, unless such intent is
    expressly declared or clearly and necessarily implied from the
    language of the enactment. . . . (Jones v. Summers, 105 Cal. App. 51,
    286 Pac. 1093; U.S. v. Whyel 28 (2d) 30; Espiritu v. Cipriano, 55 SCRA
    533 [1974], cited in Nilo v. Court of Appeals, 128 SCRA 519 [1974].
    See also Puzon v. Abellera, 169 SCRA 789 [1989]; Al-Amanah Islamic
    Investment Bank of the Philippines v. Civil Service Commission, et al.,
    G.R. No. 100599, April 8, 1992).

    There is no provision in the statute which would clearly indicate


    that the same operates retroactively.

    It, therefore, follows that [Section] 40 (b) of the Local


    Government Code is not applicable to the present case.
    (Emphasis supplied).

    You might also like