Case Digest (G.R. No. 45937)
Facts:
Juan Cailles v. Arsenio Bonifacio, G.R. No. 45937, February 25, 1938, the Supreme Court En Banc, Laurel, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Juan Cailles filed an original action in the nature of quo warranto under Section 408 of the Election Law to oust respondent Arsenio Bonifacio from the office of provincial governor of Laguna. Cailles alleged that Bonifacio, at the time he filed his certificate of candidacy and at the time of his election, was a captain in the reserve corps of the Philippine Army and therefore ineligible to hold the provincial office. The action was brought directly to the Court as an original proceeding under the Election Law provision mentioned.
The petition advanced two distinct legal grounds. First, Cailles argued that Bonifacio was disqualified from voting under Section 431 of the Election Law (as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 233) and, because being a qualified elector was a prerequisite for elective provincial office under Section 2071 of the Administrative Code, Bonifacio was thereby ineligible to be a candidate or to hold the governorship. Second, Cailles relied on the prohibition in Article XI, Section 2 of the Constitution (as then in force) and Section 449 of the Election Law, contending that members of the armed forces may not engage in partisan political activities or take part in any election except to vote, hence Bonifacio, as a military officer, could not be a lawful candidate.
Bonifacio asserted that he belonged to the reserve force, not the active service. The petition also referred to paragraph (f) of Section 405 of the Election Law (as amended) which the respondent invoked to show that filing a certificate of candidacy operated to vacate his reserve commission; the Court noted ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the respondent disqualified from voting under Section 431 of the Election Law (as amended) — and thereby ineligible for the provincial governorship under Section 2071 of the Administrative Code — because he was a captain in the reserve force at the time of his candidacy and election?
- Did Article XI, Section 2 of the Constitution and Section 449 of the Election Law prohibit the respondent, as a member of the armed forces, from being a candidate or otherwise par...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)