Republic of the Philippines Municipality of Barobo, Province of Surigao del Sur,

SUPREME COURT to the damage and prejudice of the public and of the
Manila government; ...." 4

EN BANC In the answer of respondent Castillo as well as

the other respondent, the Provincial Board of
G.R. No. L-29755 January 31, 1969 Surigao del Sur, there was an admission of the fact
that as set forth in the petition on October 4, 1968,
DOMINGO N. SARCOS, as Mayor of Barobo, Surigao such an administrative complaint for such an alleged
del Sur, petitioner, offense was indeed filed by respondent Governor
vs. with respondent Provincial Board. What was sought
HON. RECAREDO CASTILLO, as Provincial Governor to be stressed in the answer, however, was that as
of Surigao del Sur, and THE HON. PROVINCIAL early as April 18, 1968, a charge under oath for
BOARD OF SURIGAO DEL SUR, respondents. abuse of official power in consenting to and
authorizing the violations of forestry laws was filed
against petitioner by the Municipal Council of
Sisenando Villaluz, Jr. for respondents.
Barobo, Surigao del Sur. He was then given the
Cristeto O. Cimagala for petitioner.
opportunity to answer and explain within 72 hours,
in an order of respondent Governor date May 21,
1968. The explanation offered by petitioner
contained the following: "These logs which I caused
FERNANDO, J.: to be hauled sometime within the month of January,
1968, were the same logs cut and tumbled down by
Is the power of preventive suspension of a the persons abovementioned within the communal
municipal mayor against whom charges have been forests of Barobo, Surigao del Sur, and which were
filed still vested in the provincial governor? That is seized by the patrolmen of the undersigned. The said
the novel question presented in this petition for logs were sold in order to raise funds for the
certiorari and prohibition. Such an authority he did purchase of the police uniforms and arms." 5
possess under the former law. 1 Then came the
Decentralization Act of 1967, which took effect on It was on the basis of the above administrative
September 12 of that year. 2 complaint that respondent Governor, according to
the petition, ordered the "immediate suspension
What before could not be denied apparently [ofpetitioner] from his position as Mayor of Barobo,
no longer holds true. The statutory provision now Surigao del Sur; the same Administrative Order ...
controlling yields a contrary impression. The [containing] the immediate designation of Vice-
question must thus be answered in the negative. We Mayor [Brigido L. Mercader] of the same town as
hold that such a power has been withheld from the Acting [Mayor]." 6
provincial governor and may no longer be exercised
by him. Such administrative order for the preventive
suspension of petitioner was admitted by
Petitioner Domingo N. Sarcos, the duly elected respondent Governor and sought to be justified thus:
Mayor of Barobo, Surigao del Sur, running as an "[Considering] that the acts charged against and
independent candidate but winning, nonetheless, in admitted by the petitioner 'affects his official
the November 14, 1967 election, was charged with integrity,' as such Municipal Mayor, by his having
misconduct and dishonesty in office by respondent taken the law into his own hands; ..., there was an
Recaredo Castillo, the Provincial Governor of Surigao urgent necessity to order the immediate 'preventive
del Sur. 3 The act constituting the alleged dishonesty suspension' of the petitioner, in accordance with the
and misconduct in office consisted in petitioner provisions of Section 5, of Republic Act No. 5185,
allegedly "[conniving] with certain private individuals otherwise known as the 'Decentralization Act of
to cut and fell [timber] and [selling] the [timber] or 1967'." 7
logs so cut or felled for their own use and benefit,
within the communal forest reserve of the
 The decisive issue therefore, as set forth at in computing the time of suspension: Provided,
the outset of this opinion, is whether or not however, That if the suspended officer shall have
respondent Provincial Governor is vested with power been found guilty as charged before the expiration of
to order such preventive suspension under the the thirty days, his suspension, in the case of
Decentralization Act of 1967, more specifically municipal and barrio officials, may continue until the
Section 5 thereof. For if no such authority exists, case is finally decided by the Provincial Board."
then whatever be the alleged justification for
preventive suspension cannot validate the action Considering that Section 5 leaves no doubt as
taken by theGovernor. To assert otherwise would be to this particular paragraph governing exclusively the
to negate the rule of law. suspension and removal of elective local officials, it
must be apparent why, as previously stated,
What does Section 5 provide? It opens with respondent Provincial Governor lacks the authority
the categorical declaration: "Any provision of law to to order the preventive suspension of petitioner.
the contrary notwithstanding, the suspension and
removal of elective local officials shall be governed 1. Under the former law then in force which
exclusively by the provisions of this section." stands repealed by virtue of the Decentralization
Act, 8 the provincial governor, if the charge
After setting forth in the next paragraph the against a municipal official was one affecting his
grounds for suspension and removal of elective local official integrity could order his preventive
officials, namely, disloyalty to the Republic of the suspension. 9 At present, the law is anything but
Philippines, dishonesty, oppression, and misconduct that. A reading of the pertinent paragraph above
in office, it continues: "Written subscribed and sworn quoted makes manifest that it is the provincial
charges against any elective provincial and city board to which such a power has been granted
official shall be preferred before the President of the under conditions therein specified. The statutory
Philippines; against any elective municipal official provision is worded differently. The principle,
before the provincial governor or the secretary of that the deliberate selection of language other
the provincial board concerned; and against any than that used in an earlier act is indicative that
elective barrio official before the municipal or city a change in the law was intended, calls for
mayor or the municipal or city secretary concerned." application. 10

Then comes the portion specifically dealing 2. This conclusion has reinforcement from a
with preventive suspension. This paragraph reads fundamental postulate of constitutional law.
thus: "Within seven days after the charges are Public officials possess powers, not rights. There
preferred, the President, Governor, or Mayor, as the must be, therefore, a grant of authority whether
case may be, or his duly authorized representative, express or implied, to justify any action taken by
as provided in the preceding paragraph, shall notify them. In the absence thereof, what they do as
the respondent of such charges. The President, public officials lacks validity and, if challenged,
Provincial Board and City or Municipal Council, as the must be set aside. To paraphrase a leading
case may be, shall hear and investigate the truth or American decision, 11 law is the only supreme
falsity of the charges within ten days after receipt of power under constitutional government, and
such notice: Provided, That no investigation shall every man who by accepting office participates
commence or continue within ninety days in its function is only the more strongly bound to
immediately prior to an election. The preventive submit to that supremacy, and to observe the
suspension of the respondent officer shall not limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of
extend beyond sixty days after the date of his the authority which it gives.
suspension. At the expiration of sixty days, the
suspended officer, shall be reinstated in office Here, clearly, no such authority is vested in
without prejudice to the continuation of the the provincial governor. Instead, the statutory
proceedings against him until their completion, scheme, complete on its face, would locate such
unless the delay in the decision of the case is due to power in the provincial board. There would be no
the fault, neglect or request of the suspended officer, support for the view, then, that the action taken by
in which case, the time of delay shall not be counted the provincial governor in issuing the order of
preventive suspension in this case was in accordance more important aid to the meaning than any rule
with law. which grammar or formal logic may lay down." And it
was Holmes who chided courts for being 'apt to err
3. Moreover, any other view would be to betray by sticking too closely to the words of a law where
lack of fidelity to the purpose so manifest in the those words import a policy that goes beyond them.'
controlling legal provision. It is fundamental that Note, however, that he found the policy in 'those
once the policy or purpose of the law has been words'." 22
ascertained, effect should be given to it by the
judiciary. From Ty Sue v. Hord, 12 decided in 1909, It may be noted parenthetically that earlier,
it has been our constant holding that the choice the United States Supreme Court was partial more to
between conflicting theories falls on that which the term "objective" or "policy" rather than
best accords with the letter of the law and with "purpose." So it was in the first decision where this
its purpose. The next year, in an equally leading fundamental principle of construction was relied
decision, United States v. Toribio, 13 there was a upon, the opinion coming from Chief Justice
caveat against a construction that would tend Marshall. Thus: "The two subjects were equally
"to defeat the purpose and object of the within the province of the legislature, equally
legislator." Then came the admonition in Riera v. demanded their attention, and were brought
Palmaroli, 14 against an application so narrow "as together to their view. If, then, the words making
to defeat the manifest purpose of the legislator." provision for each, fairly admit of an equally
This was repeated in the latest case, extensive interpretation,and of one of which will
Commissioner of Customs v. Caltex, 15 in almost effect the object that seems to have been in
identical language.1awphil.ñêt contemplation, and which was certainly desirable,
they ought to receive that interpretation." 23
So it is in the United States. 16 Thus, in an 1898
decision, the then Justice, later Chief Justice, White So, too, with his successor, Chief Justice Taney.
minimized reliance on the subtle signification of Thus: "This construction cannot be maintained. In
words and the niceties of verbal distinction stressing expounding a statute, we must not be guided by a
the fundamental rule of carrying out the purpose single sentence or member of a sentence, but look to
and objective of legislation. 17 As succinctly put by the whole law, and to its object and policy." 24 It
the then Justice, later Chief Justice, Stone: "All should not escape attention that the above excerpt
statutes must be construed in the light of their was quoted with approval by the present Chief
purpose." 18 The same thought has been phrased Justice Warren as late as 1957. 25
differently. Thus: "The purpose of Congress is a
dominant factor in determining meaning." 19 For, to What is the purpose of the Decentralization
paraphrase Frankfurter, legislative words are not Act of 1967? It is set forth in its declaration of policy.
inert but derive vitality from the obvious purposes at 26
It is "to transform local governments gradually into
which they are aimed. 20 The same jurist likewise had effective instruments through which the people can
occasion to state: "Regard for [its] purposes should in a most genuine fashion, govern themselves and
infuse the construction of the legislation if it is to be work out their own destinies." 27 In consonance with
treated as a working instrument of government and such policy, its purpose is "to grant to local
not merely as a collection of English words." 21 In the governments greater freedom and ampler means to
sixth annual Benjamin Nathan Cardozo lecture respond to the needs of their people and promote
delivered by him, entitled "Some Reflections on the their prosperity and happiness and to effect a more
Reading of Statutes", he developed the theme equitable and systematic distribution of
further: "The generating consideration is that governmental powers and resources." 28
legislation is more than composition. It is an active
instrument of government which, for purposes of It is undeniable therefore that municipalities,
interpretation, means that laws have ends to be as much as cities and provinces, are by this act
achieved. It is in this connection that Holmes said, invested with "greater freedom and ampler means to
'words are flexible.' Again it was Holmes, the last respond to the needs of their people and promote
judge to give quarter to loose thinking or vague their prosperity and happiness." It is implicit in our
yearning, who said that "the general purpose is a constitutional scheme that full autonomy be
accorded the inhabitants of the local units to govern It is desirable therefore that such opportunity
themselves. Their choice as to who should be be limited. The statutory provision then should be
theirpublic officials must be respected. Those elected given such a construction that would be productive
must serve out their term. If they have to be of such a result. That is what we do in this case. To
removed at all it should be for cause in accordance paraphrase Justice Tuason, we test a doctrine by its
with the procedure prescribed and by the specific consequences.
officials of higher category entrusted with such
responsibility. It could be said, of course, that to deny such a
power to a provincial governor but at the same time
It is easily understandable why as held in a to affirm the existence thereof insofar as the
leading case, Lacson v. Roque, 29 "strict construction provincial board is concerned would not advance the
of law relating to suspension and removal is the cause of decentralization any. In answer, it suffices to
universal rule." As was further emphasized by Justice note that the Decentralization Act having so
Tuason who penned the opinion: "When dealing recognized such an authority in the provincial board,
with elective posts, the necessity for restricted the judiciary must perforce recognize its existence.
construction is greater." Deference to such a doctrine Until after the legislature decrees otherwise, the
possessed of intrinsic merit calls for due care lest by courts have no alternative but to accord deference to
inadvertence the power to suspend preventively is such declared congressional policy. It may also be
given to officials other than those specifically stated that the provincial board being a collective
mentioned in the act. For any other view would body, the first, second and third class provinces
result in a dilution of the avowed purpose to vest as being composed of the provincial governor, the vice-
great a degree of local autonomy as is possible to governor and three other members elected at large
municipal corporations. That would be to defeat and by the qualified electors of the province, and that in
frustrate rather than to foster the policy of the the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh class provinces
act.1awphil.ñêt having in addition to the provincial governor and the
vice-governor two other members likewise elected at
4. Lastly, the construction here reached, as to large, 30 there is a safeguard against the temptation
the absence of power on the part of provincial to utilize this power of preventive suspension for
governors to suspend preventively a municipal purely partisan ends. What one person may feel free
mayor is buttressed by the avoidance of to do, fully conscious as he is that the authority
undesirable consequences flowing from a belongs to him alone, may not even be attempted
different doctrine. Time and time again, it has when such an individual shares such power with
been stressed that while democracy others who could possibly hold dissenting views. At
presupposes the right of the people to govern any rate, there is a brake, which it is hoped would
themselves in elections that call for political suffice on most if not all occasions.
parties contending for supremacy, once the
election is over the equally pressing and urgent Such a restraining influence is indeed needed
concern for efficiency would necessitate that for the undeniable facts of the contemporary
purely partisan considerations be ignored, and if political scene bear witness to efforts, at times
not entirely possible, be restricted to a disguised, at other times quite blatant, on the part of
minimum. local officials to make use of their positions to gain
partisan advantage. Harassment of those belonging
The present litigation gives rise to the to opposing factions or groups is not unknown.
suspicion that politics did intrude itself. Petitioner Unfortunately, no stigma seems to attach to what
Municipal Mayor, an independent candidate, and really amounts to a misuse of official power. The
thus of a different political persuasion, appeared to truism that a public office is a public trust, implicit in
have been placed at a disadvantage. It would be a which is the recognition that public advantage and
realistic assumption that there is the ever present not private benefit should be the test of one's
temptation on the part of provincial governors, to conduct, seems tohave been ignored all too often.
utilize every opportunity to favor those belonging to The construction of any statute therefore, even
his party. At times, it may even prove irresistible. assuming that it is tainted by ambiguity, which would
reduce the opportunity of any public official to make
use of his position for partisan ends, has much to and if a more severe punishment seems to be
recommend it. desirable, he shall submit written charges touching
the matter to the provincial board, furnishing a copy
5. We hold, therefore, that under Section 5 of of such charges to the accused either personally or
the Decentralization Act of 1967, the power of by registered mail, and he may in such case suspend
preventive suspension is not lodged in the provincial the officer (not being the municipal treasurer)
governor. To rule otherwise would be at war with the pending action by the board, if in his opinion the
plain purpose of the law and likewise fraught with charge be one affecting the official integrity of the
consequences far from desirable. We close with this officer in question. Where suspension is thus
appropriate excerpt from an opinion of Justice effected, the written charges against the officer shall
Holmes rendered on circuit duty: "The Legislature be filed with the board within five days." (Cf. Hebron
has the power to decide what the policy of the law v. Reyes, 104 Phil. 175 (1958) and Ochate v. Deling,
shall be, and if it has intimated its will, however 105 Phil. 384 (1959).
2
indirectly, that should be recognized and obeyed. Republic Act No. 5185.
3
The major premise of the conclusion expressed in a Petition, I, par. 1, and Annex A.
4
statute, the changeof policy that induces the Ibid. II, par. 2.
5
enactment, may not be set out in terms, but it is not Answer, pars. 1 to 3.
6
an adequate discharge of duty for the courts to say: Petition, par. 3.
7
We see what you are driving at but you have not said Answer, par. 5.
8
it, and therefore, we shall go on as before." 31 Section 25.
9
Section 2188, Rev. Adm. Code. Cf. Hebron v. Reyes,
WHEREFORE, the writs prayed for are granted, 104 Phil. 175 (1958) and Ochate v. Deling, 105 Phil.
the preventive suspension of petitioner by 384 (1959).
10
respondent Castillo annulled and set aside with the Brewster v. Gage, 280 US 327 (1930).
11
result that his immediate reinstatement to his United States v. Lee (1882) 106 US 196. According
position as Municipal Mayor of Barobo, Surigao del to Justice Miller: "No man in this country is so high
Sur, is ordered, without prejudice to any further that he is above the law. No officer of the law may
proceedings to be taken by respondent Provincial set the law at defiance, with impunity. All the officers
Board in connection with the charge of misconduct of the Government, from the highest to the lowest,
and dishonesty in office against petitioner, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it."
respondent Provincial Board being strictly enjoined (p. 220).
12
in the disposition of such administrative complaint to 12 Phil. 485.
13
act strictly in accordance with the applicable law. 15 Phil. 85.
14
Without costs. 40 Phil. 105 (1919).
15
106 Phil. 829 (1959). Cf. Philippine Sugar Centrals
Agency v. Collector of Customs, 51 Phil. 131 (1927);
Concepcion. C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon,
Torres v. Limjap, 56 Phil. 141 (1931); Co Chiong v.
Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Capistrano,
Cuaderno, 83 Phil. 242 (1949); Sibulo v. Altar, 83 Phil.
Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.
513 (1949); Araneta v. Dinglasan, 84 Phil. 368 (1949).
16
Wayman v. Southward, 10 Wheat. 1 (1825); Wilson
v. Rousseau, 4 How. 646 (1846); United States v.
Heirs of Boisdoire, 8 How, 113 (1850); Marriott v.
Footnotes Bruse, 9 How. 619 (1850); Griffith v. Bogert, 18 How.
158 (1856); Re Yerger, 8 Wall. 85 (1869); Platt v.
1
Section 2188 of the Revised Administrative Code Union R. R. Co., 99 US 48 (1879); United States v.
provides: "Supervisory authority of provincial Saunders, 120 US 126 (1887); Bate Refrigerator Co. v.
governor over municipal officers. — The provincial Sulzberger, 157 US 1 (1857); Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 US
governor shall receive and investigate complaints 412 (1898); First Nat. Bank v. Chapman, 173 US 205
made under oath against municipal officers for (1899); Reid v. Colorado, 187 US 137 (1902); Amer.
neglect of duty, oppression, corruption or other form Tobacco Corp. v. Werckmeister, 207 US 284 (1907);
of maladministration of office, and conviction by final Lo Wah Suey v. Backus, 225 US 460 (1912); United
judgment of any crime involving moral turpitude. For States v. Sischo, 262 US 165 (1923); St. Louis and
minor delinquency, he may reprimand the offender; O'Fallon Ry. Co. v. United States, 279 US 461 (1931);
Brewster v. Gage, 280 US 327 (1932); Norwegian
Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States, 288 US 294
(1933); Royal Indemnity Co. v. Amer. Bond & M. Co.,
209 US 165 (1933); People v. Shell Co., 320 US 253
(1937); Nardone v. United States, 308 US 338 (1939);
Griffiths v. Helvering, 308 US 355 (1939); Haggar Co.
v. Helvering, 308 US 389 (1940); Inland Waterways
Corp. v. Young, 309 US 517 (1940); United States v.
Cooper Corp., 312 US 600 (1941); United States v.
Dotterweich, 320 US 277 (1943); Colgate Palmolive
Products Co. v. United States, 330 US 422 (1943);
Markham v. Cabell, 326 US 404 (1945); Chatwin v.
United States, 326 US 455 (1946); United States v.
CIO, 335 US 106 (1948); Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath,
339 US 33 (1950); 62 Cases of Jam v. United States,
340 US 593 (1951); Johansen v. United States, 343 US
427 (1952); Cox v. Roth, 348 US 207 (1955); United
States v. Shirey, 359 US 255 (1959); Richards v.
United States, 369 US (1962).
17
Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 US 412 (1898).
18
Haggar Company v. Helvering, 308 US 389, 394
(1940).
19
United States v. CIO, 335 US 106, 112 (1948).
20
Griffiths v. Helvering, 308 US 355 (1939).
21
United States v. Dotterweich, 320 US 277, 280
(1943).
22
47 Col. Law Rev. 527, 538 (1947) .
23
Waymen v. Southward, 10 Wheat. 1, (1825).
24
United States v. The Heirs of Boisdoire, 8 How. 113,
122 (1850).
25
NLRB v. Lion Oil Co., 352 US 282 (1957).
26
Section 2, Republic Act No. 5185.
27
Ibid.
28
Ibid.
29
92 Phil. 456 (1953).
30
Section 5, Republic Act No. 2264..
31
Johnson v. United States, 163 Fed. 30, 32 (C.C.A.,
1st, 1908).