EN BANC

[G.R. No. 90336. August 12, 1991.]

RUPERTO TAULE, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY LUIS T. SANTOS and
GOVERNOR LEANDRO VERCELES, Respondents.
1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; ELECTION LAW; COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS; JURISDICTION OVER ELECTIVE BARANGAY OFFICIALS
LIMITED TO APPELLATE JURISDICTION FROM DECISIONS OF THE
TRIAL COURTS. The jurisdiction of the COMELEC over contests
involving elective barangay officials is limited to appellate jurisdiction from
decisions of the trial courts. Under the law, the sworn petition contesting the
election of a barangay officer shall be filed with the proper Municipal or
Metropolitan Trial Court by any candidate who has duly filed a certificate of
candidacy and has been voted for the same office within 10 days after the
proclamation of the results. A voter may also contest the election of any
barangay officer on the ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic
of the Philippines by filing a sworn petition for quo warranto with the
Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Court within 10 days after the proclamation of
the results of the elections. Only appeals from decisions of inferior courts on
election matters as aforestated may be decided by the COMELEC.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; JURISDICTION OVER POPULAR ELECTIONS,
CONSTRUED. The jurisdiction of the COMELEC is over popular
elections, the elected officials of which are determined through the will of the
electorate. An election is the embodiment of the popular will, the expression
of the sovereign power of the people. It involves the choice or selection of
candidates to public office by popular vote. Specifically, the term "election,"
in the context of the Constitution, may refer to the conduct of the polls,
including the listing of voters, the holding of the electoral campaign, and the
casting and counting of the votes which do not characterize the election of
officers in the katipunan ng mga barangay. "Election contests" would refer to
adversary proceedings by which matters involving the title or claim of title to
an elective office, made before or after proclamation of the winner, is settled
whether or not the contestant is claiming the office in dispute and in the case
of elections of barangay officials, it is restricted to proceedings after the
proclamation of the winners as no pre-proclamation controversies are
allowed.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; JURISDICTION OF THE COMELEC DOES NOT COVER
PROTESTS OVER THE ORGANIZATIONAL SET-UP OF THE KATIPUNAN
NG MGA BARANGAY. The jurisdiction of the COMELEC does not cover
protests over the organizational set-up of the katipunan ng mga barangay
composed of popularly elected punong barangays as prescribed by law
whose officers are voted upon by their respective members. The authority of
the COMELEC over the katipunan ng mga barangay is limited by law to
supervision of the election of the representative of the katipunan concerned
to the sanggunian in a particular level conducted by their own respective
organization.
4. ID.; ID.; SECRETARY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT; WITHOUT
JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN PROTESTS INVOLVING THE ELECTION
OF OFFICERS OF THE FABC. The Secretary of Local Government is not
vested with jurisdiction to entertain any protest involving the election of
officers of the FABC. There is no question that he is vested with the power to
promulgate rules and regulations as set forth in Section 222 of the Local
Government Code. Likewise, under Book IV, Title XII, Chapter 1, Sec. 3(2)
of the Administrative Code of 1987, the respondent Secretary has the power

to "establish and prescribe rules, regulations and other issuances and

implementing laws on the general supervision of local government units and
on the promotion of local autonomy and monitor compliance thereof by said
units." Also, the respondent Secretarys rule making power is provided in
Sec. 7, Chapter II, Book IV of the Administrative Code. Thus, DLG Circular
No. 89-09 was issued by respondent Secretary in pursuance of his rulemaking power conferred by law and which now has the force and effect of
law. It is a well-settled principle of administrative law that unless expressly
empowered, administrative agencies are bereft of quasi-judicial powers. The
jurisdiction of administrative authorities is dependent entirely upon the
provisions of the statutes reposing power in them; they cannot confer it upon
themselves. Such jurisdiction is essential to give validity to their
determinations. There is neither a statutory nor constitutional provision
expressly or even by necessary implication conferring upon the Secretary of
Local Government the power to assume jurisdiction over an election protest
involving officers of the katipunan ng mga
barangay.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
5. ID.; GENERAL SUPERVISION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE; CONCEPT.
Presidential power over local governments is limited by the Constitution
to the exercise of general supervision "to ensure that local affairs are
administered according to law." The general supervision is exercised by the
President through the Secretary of Local Government. In administrative law,
supervision means overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see
that the subordinate officers perform their duties. If the latter fails or neglects
to fulfill them the former may take such action or step as prescribed by law
to make them perform their duties. Control, on the other hand, means the
power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a
subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to
substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter. The fundamental
law permits the Chief Executive to wield no more authority than that of
checking whether said local government or the officers thereof perform their
duties as provided by statutory enactments. Hence, the President cannot
interfere with local governments so long as the same or its officers act within
the scope of their authority. Supervisory power, when contrasted with
control, is the power of mere oversight over an inferior body; it does not
include any restraining authority over such body.
6. ID.; ID.; CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION DEPRIVES SECRETARY OF
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY TO PASS UPON VALIDITY OR
REGULARITY OF THE ELECTION OF THE OFFICERS OF THE
KATIPUNAN. Construing the constitutional limitation on the power of
general supervision of the President over local governments, We hold that
respondent Secretary has no authority to pass upon the validity or regularity
of the election of the officers of the katipunan. To allow respondent Secretary
to do so will give him more power than the law or the Constitution grants. It
will in effect give him control over local government officials for it will permit
him to interfere in a purely democratic and non-partisan activity aimed at
strengthening the barangay as the basic component of local governments so
that the ultimate goal of fullest autonomy may be achieved. In fact, his order
that the new elections to be conducted be presided by the Regional Director
is a clear and direct interference by the Department with the political affairs
of the barangays which is not permitted by the limitation of presidential
power to general supervision over local governments.
7. ID.; AUTONOMY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS; STATE POLICY
REFLECTED IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. It is the policy of the
state to ensure the autonomy of local governments. This state policy is

echoed in the Local Government Code wherein it is declared that "the State
shall guarantee and promote the autonomy of local government units to
ensure their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them
more effective partners in the pursuit of national development and social
progress." To deny the Secretary of Local Government the power to review
the regularity of the elections of officers of the katipunan would be to
enhance the avowed state policy of promoting the autonomy of local
governments.
8. ID.; ID.; DOUBT AS TO THE POWER OF SECRETARY OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENT TO INTERFERE WITH LOCAL AFFAIRS, RESOLVED IN
FAVOR OF GREATER AUTONOMY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
Although the Department is given the power to prescribe rules, regulations
and other issuances, the Administrative Code limits its authority to merely
"monitoring compliance" by local government units of such issuances. To
monitor means to "watch, observe or check." Even the Local Government
Code which grants the Secretary power to issue implementing circulars,
rules and regulations is silent as to how these issuances should be
enforced. Since the respondent Secretary exercises only supervision and
not control over local governments, it is truly doubtful if he could enforce
compliance with the DLG Circular. Any doubt therefore as to the power of
the Secretary to interfere with local affairs should be resolved in favor of the
greater autonomy of the local government.
9. ID.; ELECTION PROTEST IN THE ELECTION OF THE OFFICERS OF
THE FABC; REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS ACCORDED EXCLUSIVE
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION. The respondent Secretary not having the
jurisdiction to hear an election protest involving officers of the FABC, the
recourse of the parties is to the ordinary courts. The Regional Trial Courts
have the exclusive original jurisdiction to hear the protest.
10. ID.; LOCAL GOVERNMENT; CIRCULARS AND REGULATIONS
ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT; CANNOT BE
APPLIED RETROACTIVELY. The provision in DLG Circular No. 89-15
amending DLG Circular No. 89-09 which states that "whenever the
guidelines are not substantially complied with, the election shall be declared
null and void by the Department of Local Government and an election shall
conduct anew," being invoked by the Solicitor General cannot be applied.
DLG Circular No. 89-15 was issued on July 3, 1989 after the June 18, 1989
elections of the FABC officers and it is the rule in statutory construction that
laws, including circulars and regulations, cannot be applied retrospectively.
Moreover, such provision is null and void for having been issued in excess
of the respondent Secretarys jurisdiction, inasmuch as an administrative
authority cannot confer jurisdiction upon itself.
11. ID.; ID.; GOVERNOR, PROPER PARTY TO FILE ELECTION PROTEST
OVER ELECTION OF OFFICERS OF FABC. Under Section 205 of the
Local Government Code, the membership of the sangguniang panlalawigan
consists of the governor, the vice-governor, elective members of the said
sanggunian, and the presidents of the katipunang panlalawigan and the
kabataang barangay provincial federation. The governor acts as the
presiding officer of the sangguniang panlalawigan. As presiding officer of the
sangguniang panlalawigan, the respondent governor has an interest in the
election of the officers of the FABC since its elected president becomes a
member of the assembly. If the president of the FABC assumes his
presidency under questionable circumstances and is allowed to sit in the
sangguniang panlalawigan, the official actions of the sanggunian may be
vulnerable to attacks as to their validity or legality. Hence, respondent

governor is a proper party to question the regularity of the elections of the

officers of the FABC.
12. ID.; ID.; ELECTIONS OF THE OFFICERS OF THE FABC;
NULLIFICATION FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DLG CIRCULAR NO.
89-09. Section 2.4 of DLG Circular No. 89-09 provides that "the
incumbent FABC President or the Vice-President shall preside over the
reorganizational meeting, there being a quorum." The rule specifically
provides that it is the incumbent FABC President or Vice-President who shall
preside over the meeting. The word "shall" should be taken in its ordinary
signification, i.e., it must be imperative or mandatory and not merely
permissive, as the rule is explicit and requires no other interpretation. If it
had been intended that any other official should preside, the rules would
have provided so, as it did in the elections at the town and city levels as well
as the regional level. It is admitted that neither the incumbent FABC
President nor the Vice-President presided over the meeting and elections
but Alberto P. Molina, Jr., the Chairman of the Board of Election
Supervisors/Consultants. Thus, there was a clear violation of the aforesaid
mandatory provision. On this ground, the election should be nullified.
13. ID.; ID.; APPOINTEES TO THE SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD;
QUALIFICATIONS SET BY LAW; SHOULD BE MET. In Ignacio v.
Banate, J. the Court, interpreting similarly worded provisions of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 337 and Batas Pambansa Blg. 51 on the composition of the
sangguniang panlungsod, declared as null and void the appointment of
private respondent Leoncio Banate, Jr. as member of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of the City of Roxas representing the katipunang panlungsod ng
mga barangay for he lacked the eligibility and qualification required by law,
not being a barangay captain and for not having been elected president of
the association of barangay councils. The Court held that an unqualified
person cannot be appointed a member of the sanggunian, even in an acting
capacity. In Reyes v. Ferrer, the appointment of Nemesio L. Rasgo, Jr. as
representative of the youth sector to the sangguniang panlungsod of Davao
City was declared invalid since he was never the president of the kabataang
barangay city federation as required by Sec. 173, Batas Pambansa Blg.
337.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red
14. ID.; ID.; APPOINTEES TO THE SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN;
QUALIFICATIONS SET BY LAW SHOULD ALSO BE MET. Involving the
sangguniang panlalawigan, the law is likewise explicit. To be appointed by
the President of the Philippines to sit in the sangguniang panlalawigan is the
president of the katipunang panlalawigan. The appointee must meet the
qualifications set by law. The appointing power is bound by law to comply
with the requirements as to the basic qualifications of the appointee to the
sangguniang panlalawigan. The President of the Philippines or his alter ego,
the Secretary of Local Government, has no authority to appoint anyone who
does not meet the minimum qualification to be the president of the
federation of barangay councils. Augusto Antonio is not the president of the
federation. He is a member of the federation but he was not even present
during the elections despite notice. The argument that Antonio was
appointed as a remedial measure in the exigency of the service cannot be
sustained. Since Antonio does not meet the basic qualification of being
president of the federation, his appointment to the sangguniang
panlalawigan is not qualified notwithstanding that such appointment is
merely in a temporary capacity. If the intention of the respondent Secretary
was to protect the interests of the federation in the sanggunian, he should
have appointed the incumbent FABC President in a hold-over capacity. The
appointment of Antonio, allegedly the protege of respondent Governor, gives

credence to petitioners charge of political interference by respondent

Governor in the organization. This should not be allowed. The barangays
should be insulated from any partisan activity or political intervention if only
to give true meaning to local autonomy.
GANCAYCO, J.:
The extent of authority of the Secretary of Local Government over the
katipunan ng mga barangay or the barangay councils is brought to the fore
in this case.
On June 18, 1989, the Federation of Associations of Barangay Councils
(FABC) of Catanduanes, composed of eleven (11) members, in their
capacities as Presidents of the Association of Barangay Councils in their
respective municipalities, convened in Virac, Catanduanes with six members
in attendance for the purpose of holding the election of its officers.
Present were petitioner Ruperto Taule of San Miguel, Allan Aquino of Viga,
Vicente Avila of Virac, Fidel Jacob of Panganiban, Leo Sales of Caramoran
and Manuel Torres of Baras. The Board of Election Supervisors/Consultants
was composed of Provincial Government Operation Officer (PGOO) Alberto
P. Molina, Jr. as Chairman with Provincial Treasurer Luis A. Manlapaz, Jr.
and Provincial Election Supervisor Arnold Soquerata as
members.chanrobles law library : red
When the group decided to hold the election despite the absence of five (5)
of its members, the Provincial Treasurer and the Provincial Election
Supervisor walked out.
The election nevertheless proceeded with PGOO Alberto P. Molina, Jr. as
presiding officer. Chosen as members of the Board of Directors were Taule,
Aquino, Avila, Jacob and Sales.
Thereafter, the following were elected officers of the FABC:chanrob1es
President - Ruperto Taule, Vice-President - Allan Aquino, Secretary - Vicente
Avila, Treasurer - Fidel Jacob, Auditor - Leo Sales 1
On June 19, 1989, respondent Leandro I. Verceles, Governor of
Catanduanes, sent a letter to respondent Luis T. Santos, the Secretary of
Local Government, ** protesting the election of the officers of the FABC and
seeking its nullification in view of several flagrant irregularities in the manner
it was conducted. 2
In compliance with the order of respondent Secretary, petitioner Ruperto
Taule as President of the ABC, filed his comment on the letter-protest of
respondent Governor denying the alleged irregularities and denouncing said
respondent Governor for meddling or intervening in the election of FABC
officers which is a purely non-partisan affair and at the same time requesting
for his appointment as a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the
province being the duly elected President of the FABC in Catanduanes. 3
On August 4, 1989, respondent Secretary issued a resolution nullifying the
election of the officers of the FABC in Catanduanes held on June 18, 1989
and ordering a new one to be conducted as early as possible to be presided
by the Regional Director of Region V of the Department of Local
Government. 4
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution of August 4,
1989 but it was denied by respondent Secretary in his resolution of
September 5, 1989. 5

In the petition for certiorari before Us, petitioner seeks the reversal of the
resolutions of respondent Secretary dated August 4, 1989 and September 5,
1989 for being null and void.
Petitioner raises the following issues:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1) Whether or not the respondent Secretary has jurisdiction to entertain an
election protest involving the election of the officers of the Federation of
Association of Barangay Councils;
2) Whether or not the respondent Governor has the legal personality to file
an election protest;
3) Assuming that the respondent Secretary has jurisdiction over the election
protest, whether or not he committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction in nullifying the election;
The Katipunan ng mga Barangay is the organization of all sangguniang
barangays in the following levels: in municipalities to be known as
katipunang bayan; in cities, katipunang panlungsod; in provinces,
katipunang panlalawigan; in regions, katipunang pampook; and on the
national level, katipunan ng mga barangay. 6
The Local Government Code provides for the manner in which the katipunan
ng mga barangay at all levels shall be organized:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"SECTION 110. Organization. (l) The katipunan at all levels shall be
organized in the following manner:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(a) The katipunan in each level shall elect a board of directors and a set of
officers. The president of each level shall represent the katipunan concerned
in the next higher level of organization.
(b) The katipunan ng mga barangay shall be composed of the katipunang
pampook, which shall in turn be composed of the presidents of the
katipunang panlalawigan and the katipunang panlungsod. The presidents of
the katipunang bayan in each province shall constitute the katipunang
panlalawigan. The katipunang panlungsod and the katipunang bayan shall
be composed of the punong barangays of cities and municipalities,
respectively.
The respondent Secretary, acting in accordance with the provision of the
Local Government Code empowering him to "promulgate in detail the
implementing circulars and the rules and regulations to carry out the various
administrative actions required for the initial implementation of this Code in
such a manner as will ensure the least disruption of on-going programs and
project," 7 issued Department of Local Government Circular No. 89-09 on
April 7, 1989, 8 to provide the guidelines for the conduct of the elections of
officers of the Katipunan ng mga Barangay at the municipal, city, provincial,
regional and national levels.
It is now the contention of petitioner that neither the constitution nor the law
grants jurisdiction upon the respondent Secretary over election contests
involving the election of officers of the FABC, the katipunan ng mga
barangay at the provincial level. It is petitioners theory that under Article IX,
C, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, it is the Commission on Elections
which has jurisdiction over all contests involving elective barangay officials.
On the other hand, it is the opinion of the respondent Secretary that any

violation of the guidelines as set forth in said circular would be a ground for
filing a protest and would vest upon the Department jurisdiction to resolve
any protest that may be filed in relation thereto.
Under Article IX, C, Section 2(2) of the 1987 Constitution, the Commission
on Elections shall exercise "exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests
relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional,
provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests
involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general
jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of
limited jurisdiction." The 1987 Constitution expanded the jurisdiction of the
COMELEC by granting it appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving
elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction or
elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction. 9
The jurisdiction of the COMELEC over contests involving elective barangay
officials is limited to appellate jurisdiction from decisions of the trial courts.
Under the law, 10 the sworn petition contesting the election of a barangay
officer shall be filed with the proper Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Court by
any candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been
voted for the same office within 10 days after the proclamation of the results.
A voter may also contest the election of any barangay officer on the ground
of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines by filing a
sworn petition for quo warranto with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Court
within 10 days after the proclamation of the results of the election. 11 Only
appeals from decisions of inferior courts on election matters as aforestated
may be decided by the COMELEC.
The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that the jurisdiction of the
COMELEC is over popular elections, the elected officials of which are
determined through the will of the electorate. An election is the embodiment
of the popular will, the expression of the sovereign power of the people. 12 It
involves the choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular
vote. 13 Specifically, the term "election," in the context of the Constitution,
may refer to the conduct of the polls, including the listing of voters, the
holding of the electoral campaign, and the casting and counting of the votes
14 which do not characterize the election of officers in the Katipunan ng mga
barangay. "Election contests" would refer to adversary proceedings by which
matters involving the title or claim of title to an elective office, made before or
after proclamation of the winner, is settled whether or not the contestant is
claiming the office in dispute 15 and in the case of elections of barangay
officials, it is restricted to proceedings after the proclamation of the winners
as no pre-proclamation controversies are allowed. 16
The jurisdiction of the COMELEC does not cover protests over the
organizational set-up of the katipunan ng mga barangay composed of
popularly elected punong barangays as prescribed by law whose officers are
voted upon by their respective members. The COMELEC exercises only
appellate jurisdiction over election contests involving elective barangay
officials decided by the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts which likewise
have limited jurisdiction. The authority of the COMELEC over the katipunan
ng mga barangay is limited by law to supervision of the election of the
representative of the katipunan concerned to the sanggunian in a particular
level conducted by their own respective organization. 17
However, the Secretary of Local Government is not vested with jurisdiction
to entertain any protest involving the election of officers of the FABC.

There is no question that he is vested with the power to promulgate rules

and regulations as set forth in Section 222 of the Local Government Code.
Likewise, under Book IV, Title XII, Chapter 1, Sec. 3(2) of the Administrative
Code of 1987, *** the respondent Secretary has the power to "establish and
prescribe rules, regulations and other issuances and implementing laws on
the general supervision of local government units and on the promotion of
local autonomy and monitor compliance thereof by said units."cralaw
virtua1aw library
Also, the respondent Secretarys rule making power is provided in Sec. 7,
Chapter II, Book IV of the Administrative Code, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"(3) Promulgate rules and regulations necessary to carry out department
objectives, policies, functions, plans, programs and projects;"
Thus, DLG Circular No. 89-09 was issued by respondent Secretary in
pursuance of his rule-making power conferred by law and which now has
the force and effect of law. 18
Now the question that arises is whether or not a violation of said circular
vests jurisdiction upon the respondent Secretary, as claimed by him, to hear
a protest filed in relation thereto and consequently declare an election null
and void.
It is a well-settled principle of administrative law that unless expressly
empowered, administrative agencies are bereft of quasi-judicial powers. 19
The jurisdiction of administrative authorities is dependent entirely upon the
provisions of the statutes reposing power in them; they cannot confer it upon
themselves. 20 Such jurisdiction is essential to give validity to their
determinations. 21
There is neither a statutory nor constitutional provision expressly or even by
necessary implication conferring upon the Secretary of Local Government
the power to assume jurisdiction over an election protect involving officers of
the katipunan ng mga barangay. An understanding of the extent of authority
of the Secretary over local governments is therefore necessary if We are to
resolve the issue at hand.
Presidential power over local governments is limited by the Constitution to
the exercise of general supervision 22 "to ensure that local affairs are
administered according to law." 23 The general supervision is exercised by
the President through the Secretary of Local Government. 24
In administrative law, supervision means overseeing or the power or
authority of an officer to see that the subordinate officers perform their
duties. If the latter fails or neglects to fulfill them the former may take such
action or step as prescribed by law to make them perform their duties.
Control, on the other hand, means the power of an officer to alter or modify
or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the
performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for
that of the latter. The fundamental law permits the Chief Executive to wield
no more authority than that of checking whether said local government or
the officers thereof perform their duties as provided by statutory enactments.
Hence, the President cannot interfere with local governments so long as the
same or its officers act within the scope of their authority. 25 Supervisory
power, when contrasted with control, is the power of mere oversight over an
inferior body; it does not include any restraining authority over such body.
26

Construing the constitutional limitation on the power of general supervision

of the President over local governments, We hold that respondent Secretary
has no authority to pass upon the validity or regularity of the election of the
officers of the katipunan. To allow respondent Secretary to do so will give
him more power than the law or the Constitution grants. It will in effect give
him control over local government officials for it will permit him to interfere in
a purely democratic and non-partisan activity aimed at strengthening the
barangay as the basic component of local governments so that the ultimate
goal of fullest autonomy may be achieved. In fact, his order that the new
elections to be conducted be presided by the Regional Director is a clear
and direct interference by the Department with the political affairs of the
barangays which is not permitted by the limitation of presidential power to
general supervision over local governments. 27
Indeed, it is the policy of the state to ensure the autonomy of local
governments. 28 This state policy is echoed in the Local Government Code
wherein it is declared that "the State shall guarantee and promote the
autonomy of local government units to ensure their fullest development as
self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the
pursuit of national development and social progress." 29 To deny the
Secretary of Local Government the power to review the regularity of the
elections of officers of the katipunan would be to enhance the avowed state
policy of promoting the autonomy of local governments.
Moreover, although the Department is given the power to prescribe rules,
regulations and other issuances, the Administrative Code limits its authority
to merely "monitoring compliance" by local government units of such
issuances. 30 To monitor means "to watch, observe or check." 31 This is
compatible with the power of supervision of the Secretary over local
governments which as earlier discussed is limited to checking whether the
local government unit concerned or the officers thereof perform their duties
as provided by statutory enactments. Even the Local Government Code
which grants the Secretary power to issue implementing circulars, rules and
regulations is silent as to how these issuances should be enforced. Since
the respondent Secretary exercises only supervision and not control over
local governments, it is truly doubtful if he could enforce compliance with the
DLG Circular. 32 Any doubt therefore as to the power of the Secretary to
interfere with local affairs should be resolved in favor of the greater
autonomy of the local government.
Thus, the Court holds that in assuming jurisdiction over the election protest
filed by respondent Governor and declaring the election of the officers of the
FABC on June 18, 1989 as null and void, the respondent Secretary acted in
excess of his jurisdiction. The respondent Secretary not having the
jurisdiction to hear an election protest involving officers of the FABC, the
recourse of the parties is to the ordinary courts. The Regional Trial Courts
have the exclusive original jurisdiction to hear the protest. 33
The provision in DLG Circular No. 89-15 amending DLG Circular No. 89-09
which states that "whenever the guidelines are not substantially complied
with, the election shall be declared null and void by the Department of Local
Government and an election shall conduct anew," being invoked by the
Solicitor General cannot be applied. DLG Circular No. 89-15 was issued on
July 3, 1989 after the June 18, 1989 elections of the FABC officers and it is
the rule in statutory construction that laws, including circulars and
regulations, 34 cannot be applied retrospectively. 35 Moreover, such
provision is null and void for having been issued in excess of the respondent
Secretarys jurisdiction, inasmuch as an administrative authority cannot
confer jurisdiction upon itself.

As regards the second issue raised by petitioner, the Court finds that
respondent Governor has the personality to file the protest. Under Section
205 of the Local Government Code, the membership of the sangguniang
panlalawigan consists of the governor, the vice-governor, elective members
of the said sanggunian, and the presidents of the katipunang panlalawigan
and the kabataang barangay provincial federation. The governor acts as the
presiding officer of the sangguniang panlalawigan. 36
As presiding officer of the sangguniang panlalawigan, the respondent
governor has an interest in the election of the officers of the FABC since its
elected president becomes a member of the assembly. If the president of the
FABC assumes his presidency under questionable circumstances and is
allowed to sit in the sangguniang panlalawigan, the official actions of the
sanggunian may be vulnerable to attacks as to their validity or legality.
Hence, respondent governor is a proper party to question the regularity of
the elections of the officers of the FABC.
As to the third issue raised by petitioner, the Court has already ruled that the
respondent Secretary has no jurisdiction to hear the protest and nullify the
elections.
Nevertheless, the Court holds that the issue of the validity of the elections
should now be resolved in order to prevent any unnecessary delay that may
result from the commencement of an appropriate action by the parties.
The elections were declared null and void primarily for failure to comply with
Section 2.4 of DLG Circular No. 89-09 which provides that "the incumbent
FABC President or the Vice-President shall preside over the reorganizational
meeting, there being a quorum." The rule specifically provides that it is the
incumbent FABC President or Vice-President who shall preside over the
meeting. The word "shall" should be taken in its ordinary signification, i.e., it
must be imperative or mandatory and not merely permissive, 37 as the rule
is explicit and requires no other interpretation. If it had been intended that
any other official should preside, the rules would have provided so, as it did
in the elections at the town and city levels 38 as well as the regional level.
39
It is admitted that neither the incumbent FABC President nor the VicePresident presided over the meeting and elections but Alberto P. Molina, Jr.,
the Chairman of the Board of Election Supervisors/Consultants. Thus, there
was a clear violation of the aforesaid mandatory provision. On this ground,
the elections should be nullified.
Under Sec. 2.3.2.7 of the same circular it is provided that a Board of
Election Supervisors/Consultants shall be constituted to oversee and or
witness the canvassing of votes and proclamation of winners. The rules
confine the role of the Board of Election Supervisors/Consultants to merely
overseeing and witnessing the conduct of elections. This is consistent with
the provision in the Local Government Code limiting the authority of the
COMELEC to the supervision of the election. 40
In case at bar, PGOO Molina, the Chairman of the Board, presided over the
elections. There was direct participation by the Chairman of the Board in the

elections contrary to what is dictated by the rules. Worse, there was no

Board of Election Supervisors to oversee the elections in view of the walk
out staged by its two other members, the Provincial COMELEC Supervisor
and the Provincial Treasurer. The objective of keeping the election free and
honest was therefore compromised.
The Court therefore finds that the election of officers of the FABC held on
June 18, 1989 is null and void for failure to comply with the provisions of
DLG Circular No. 89-09.
Meanwhile, pending resolution of this petition, petitioner filed a supplemental
petition alleging that public respondent Local Government Secretary, in his
memorandum dated June 7, 1990, designated Augusto Antonio as
temporary representative of the Federation to the sangguniang panlalawigan
of Catanduanes. 41 By virtue of this memorandum, respondent governor
swore into said office Augusto Antonio on June 14, 1990. 42
The Solicitor General filed his comment on the supplemental petition 43 as
required by the resolution of the Court dated September 13, 1990.
In his comment, the Solicitor General dismissed the supervening event
alleged by petitioner as something immaterial to the petition. He argues that
Antonios appointment was merely temporary "until such time that the
provincial FABC president in that province has been elected, appointed and
qualified." 44 He stresses that Antonios appointment was only a remedial
measure designed to cope with the problems brought about by the absence
of a representative of the FABC to the "sangguniang panlalawigan."cralaw
virtua1aw library
Sec. 205 (2) of the Local Government Code (B.P. Blg. 337) provides
"(2) The sangguniang panlalawigan shall be composed of the governor, the
vice-governor, elective members of the said sanggunian, and the presidents
of the katipunang panlalawigan and the kabataang barangay provincial
federation who shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines."
(Emphasis supplied.)
Batas Pambansa Blg. 51, under Sec. 2 likewise
states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
The sangguniang panlalawigan of each province shall be composed of the
governor as chairman and presiding officer, the vice-governor as presiding
officer pro tempore, the elective sangguniang panlalawigan members, and
the appointive members consisting of the president of the provincial
association of barangay councils, and the president of he provincial
federation of the kabataang barangay." (Emphasis supplied.)
In Ignacio v. Banate, Jr. 45 the Court, interpreting similarly worded
provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 and Batas Pambansa Blg. 51 on the
composition of the sangguniang panlungsod, 46 declared as null and void
the appointment of private respondent Leoncio Banate, Jr. as member of the
Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of Roxas representing the katipunang
panlungsod ng mga barangay for he lacked the eligibility and qualification
required by law, not being a barangay captain and for not having been

elected president of the association of barangay councils. The Court held

that an unqualified person cannot be appointed a member of the
sanggunian, even in an acting capacity. In Reyes v. Ferrer, 47 the
appointment of Nemesio L. Rasgo, Jr. as representative of the youth sector
to the sangguniang panlungsod of Davao City was declared invalid since he
was never the president of the kabataang barangay city federation as
required by Sec. 173, Batas Pambansa Blg 337.
In the present controversy involving the sangguniang panlalawigan, the law
is likewise explicit. To be appointed by the President of the Philippines to sit
in the sangguniang panlalawigan is the president of the katipunang
panlalawigan. The appointee must meet the qualifications set by law. 48 The
appointing power is bound by law to comply with the requirements as to the
basic qualifications of the appointee to the sangguniang panlalawigan. The
President of the Philippines or his alter ego, the Secretary of Local
Government, has no authority to appoint anyone who does not meet the
minimum qualification to be the president of the federation of barangay
councils.
Augusto Antonio is not the president of the federation. He is a member of
the federation but he was not even present during the elections despite
notice. The argument that Antonio was appointed as a remedial measure in
the exigency of the service cannot be sustained. Since Antonio does not
meet the basic qualification of being president of the federation, his
appointment to the sangguniang panlalawigan is not justified
notwithstanding that such appointment is merely in a temporary capacity. If
the intention of the respondent Secretary was to protect the interest of the
federation in the sanggunian, he should have appointed the incumbent
FABC President in a hold-over capacity. For even under the guidelines, the
term of office of officers of the katipunan at all levels shall be from the date
of their election until their successors shall have been duly elected and
qualified, without prejudice to the terms of their appointments as members of
the sanggunian to which they may be correspondingly appointed. 49 Since
the election is still under protest such that no successor of the incumbent
has as yet qualified, the respondent Secretary has no choice but to have the
incumbent FABC President sit as member of the sanggunian. He could even
have appointed petitioner since he was elected the president of the
federation but not Antonio. The appointment of Antonio, allegedly the
protege of respondent Governor, gives credence to petitioners charge of
political interference by respondent Governor in the organization. This
should not be allowed. The barangays should be insulated from any partisan
activity or political intervention if only to give true meaning to local autonomy.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED in that the resolution of respondent
Secretary dated August 4, 1989 is hereby SET ASIDE for having been
issued in excess of jurisdiction.
The election of the officials of the ABC Federation held on June 18, 1989 is
hereby annulled. A new election of officers of the federation is hereby
ordered to be conducted immediately in accordance with the governing rules
and regulations.
The Supplemental petition is hereby GRANTED. The appointment of
Augusto Antonio as representative to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in a
temporary capacity is declared null and void.
No costs.