Title
Flores vs. Drilon
Case
G.R. No. 104732
Decision Date
Jun 22, 1993
The Supreme Court ruled Section 13(d) of RA 7227 unconstitutional, as it violated the prohibition on appointing elective officials to other public offices and encroached on the President’s appointing power by mandating the Mayor of Olongapo City as SBMA head. Gordon’s appointment was invalid, but his acts as a de facto officer were upheld.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 104732)

Key Dates

– R.A. 7227 Approved: March 13, 1992
– Appointment of Gordon: April 3, 1992
– National Elections: May 11, 1992

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution
• Art. IX-B, Sec. 7 (first paragraph): “No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any public office or position during his tenure.”
• Art. VII, Sec. 16: Presidential appointment powers.
Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881)
• Sec. 261(g): Prohibits appointment or creation of positions within 45 days before a regular election.

Issues

  1. Whether the proviso in Sec. 13(d), R.A. 7227, violates the constitutional ban on appointing an incumbent elective official.
  2. Whether Congress’s directive unconstitutionally restricts the President’s discretionary appointment power.
  3. Whether the April 3, 1992 appointment contravened the Election Code’s 45-day prohibition.

Constitutional Proscription on Elective Officials

  • Art. IX-B, Sec. 7, first paragraph imposes an absolute bar on appointing or designating an elective official to any public office during tenure, with no general exceptions.
  • Exceptions in the Constitution itself (e.g., Vice-President in Cabinet) cannot be extended by statute.
  • The proviso directly commands the appointment of the Mayor of Olongapo City, thus contravening Sec. 7.

Encroachment on Presidential Appointment Power

  • Appointment is intrinsically discretionary; vesting “appointment power” in the President necessarily includes choice.
  • By specifying a single eligible appointee (the incumbent mayor), Congress nullifies presidential discretion, converting appointment into a ministerial formality.
  • Such an indirect limitation on executive prerogative violates the separation of powers.

Violation of Election-Period Ban

  • Omnibus Election Code Sec. 261(g) forbids creation or filling of positions within 45 days before a regular election without Commission authority.
  • Gordon’s April 3 appointment occurred during this prohibited period and is thus null and void.

Ex Officio Argument Rejected

  • The statute’s use of “shall be appointed” demonstrates Congress intended an appointive office, not an automatic ex officio attachment to the mayoralty.
  • Had Congress intended an ex officio role, it would have omitted any appointment requirement.

De Facto Officer Doctrine

  • Although Gordon’s appointment is void, his actions as SBMA Chairman/CEO are validated under the de facto officer doc

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.