Case Summary (G.R. No. L-14129)
Key Dates
July 31, 1962 – Decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
August 30, 1962 – Resolution denying reconsideration.
Applicable Constitution and Law
1935 Philippine Constitution.
Section 54, Revised Election Code (Rep. Act No. 180):
“No justice, judge, fiscal, treasurer, or assessor of any province, no officer or employee of the Army, no member of the national, provincial, city, municipal or rural police force, and no classified civil service officer or employee shall aid any candidate, or exert any influence in any manner in any election or take part therein, except to vote, if entitled thereto, or to preserve public peace, if he is a peace officer.”
Issue
Whether a Justice of the Peace is included among the officers prohibited by Section 54 from participating in or influencing elections.
Legislative History
– Act No. 1582 (1907) and Act No. 1709 (1907): Prohibited “judge of the First Instance, justice of the peace, provincial fiscal…”
– Administrative Code, Sec. 449 (1917): Same enumeration.
– Act No. 3387 (1927): Restated prohibition including JPs.
– Commonwealth Act No. 357 (1938): First omitted “justice of the peace” but replaced “judge of the First Instance” and “justice of the peace” with unqualified “judge.”
– Revised Election Code (1947) and subsequent amendments: Retained the generic term “judge” without qualification.
Interpretation of the Term “Judge”
The Court held that the legislature’s use of the broad, unmodified term “judge” was intentional to encompass all judicial officers, including Justices of the Peace, judges of special courts, and appellate courts. Historical usage shows that when “judge” was modified by “of the First Instance,” JPs were separately named; when unmodified, the generic term includes them.
Omission of “Justice of the Peace” in Enumeration
The first legislative omission occurred in Commonwealth Act 357 (1938), not in the 1947 Code. In both instances where “justice of the peace” was omitted, the preceding term “judge” was left unqualified, demonstrating that JPs were intended to fall under the generic designation.
Qualification “of any province”
Defendant’s argument that “judge … of any province” excludes municipal Justices of the Peace was rejected. The phrase logically qualifies provincial officers (fiscals, treasurers, assessors) and does not restrict the generic term “judge.”
Strict Construction and “Casus Omissus”
Although penal statutes are generally strictly construed, interpretation must effectuate legislative intent. There is no clear omission of JPs; rather, terminology was consolidated. The maxim casus omissus applies only when an omission is deliberate and clear, which is not the case here.
Public Policy Considerations
Justices of the Peace exercise jurisdiction over election disputes (Secs. 103–123). Allowing them to engage in partisan activities would undermine public confidence and violate the legislative purpose of safeguarding electoral integrity and judicial impartiality.
Administrative and Executive Practice
Administrative Order No. 237 (1957), dismissing a JP for e
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-14129)
Facts and Procedural History
- The Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan filed an information against Guillermo Manantan for violating Section 54 of the Revised Election Code.
- A preliminary investigation by the Court of First Instance found probable cause.
- Manantan pleaded not guilty and moved to dismiss, arguing that as a justice of the peace he was not one of the officers enumerated in Section 54.
- The trial court denied the first motion but, upon a second motion citing People v. Macaraeg (C.A.), dismissed the information.
- The Solicitor General appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court.
- The sole legal question presented: Does Section 54 of the Revised Election Code prohibit justices of the peace from engaging in electioneering?
Statutory Provision at Issue
- Section 54, Revised Election Code, provides:
“No justice, judge, fiscal, treasurer, or assessor of any province, no officer or employee of the Army, no member of the national, provincial, city, municipal or rural police force, and no classified civil service officer or employee shall aid any candidate, or exert any influence in any manner in any election or take part therein, except to vote, if entitled thereto, or to preserve public peace, if he is a peace officer.”
Defendant’s Contentions
- The explicit omission of “justice of the peace” from Section 54 demonstrates legislative intent to exclude that officer.
- Section 54 was derived from Section 449 of the Revised Administrative Code, which named justices of the peace; its omission in the newer statute signals deliberate exclusion.
- The phrase “judge … of any province” cannot include municipal justices of the peace.
- The rule of casus omissus (omitted cases held intentionally omitted) and expressio unius (the inclusion