Title
Supreme Court
Sangguniang Barangay of Barangay Don Mariano Marcos vs. Martinez
Case
G.R. No. 170626
Decision Date
Mar 3, 2008
A barangay official challenged his removal by the Sangguniang Bayan; the Supreme Court ruled only courts can remove elective local officials, affirming judicial authority under the Local Government Code.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 170626)

Petitioners’ Administrative Actions Against the Punong Barangay

The Sangguniang Barangay of Barangay Don Mariano Marcos filed an administrative complaint against Severino Martinez, the incumbent Punong Barangay, charging him with dishonesty, misconduct, graft, and corruption. The allegations included failure to remit income generated from solid waste projects, unauthorized use of the barangay garbage truck for private purposes, improper use of barangay funds for garbage truck expenses, and unliquidated travel advances. After Martinez failed to answer, he was declared in default, placed under preventive suspension, and ultimately removed from office by the Sangguniang Bayan of Bayombong, the municipal legislative authority acting as disciplining body under the Local Government Code.

Trial Court’s Ruling on Jurisdiction and Validity of Removal

Martinez filed a special civil action questioning the validity of the removal. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27, ruled that the Sangguniang Bayan exceeded its jurisdiction in imposing the penalty of removal from office, declaring the Sangguniang Bayan’s decision and the Municipal Mayor's memorandum implementing it void. The court held that only proper courts have the authority to remove elective local officials, pursuant to Section 60 of the Local Government Code, and that administrative remedies before legislative bodies do not extend to removal. Martinez’s resort to the courts was deemed proper since the removal order was a patent nullity.

Supreme Court’s Affirmation of Trial Court’s Decision: Jurisdictional Limits on Removal Power

The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC’s ruling, emphasizing that under Section 60 of the Local Government Code, the power to remove elective local officials is exclusively vested in the courts. The Sangguniang Bayan, as a legislative body of the municipality, does not possess the authority to remove an elected Punong Barangay. Legislative history and prior jurisprudence, notably Salalima v. Guingona Jr., reinforce that removal can only be effected by orders of proper courts, not by administrative or legislative bodies. The Court invalidated any administrative rule or practice granting disciplining authorities removal powers beyond suspension.

The Rationale Behind Exclusive Judicial Power to Remove Elective Officials

The removal power is judicial to safeguard the electorate's right, preventing capricious or partisan removals by political bodies. Exclusive judicial jurisdiction ensures impartiality and adherence to procedural due process, as courts apply rules of evidence and procedure to protect officials’ constitutional right to suffrage. Permitting local legislative bodies to remove officials and relegating courts to mere implementers of such decisions would violate separation of powers and subvert judicial review, potentially turning removal into a political tool.

Distinction Between Administrative Discipline and Removal Proceedings

While the Local Government Code allows administrative complaints against elective barangay officials to be filed and decided by the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan, these bodies may impose penalties short of removal, such as suspension. Where removal is warranted by the gravity of the offense, the administrative body must refer the case to the appropriate court with jurisdiction. The court then assumes jurisdiction over the case, even if a lesser penalty is eventually deemed appropriate.

Alleged Violation of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers

The petitioner’s argument that granting removal power to courts violates separation of powers was rejected. The Constitution explicitly grants courts judicial power to resolve controversies, including reviewing and nullifying grave abuses of discretion by political departments. Judicial restraint, as part of the doctrine, coexists with the principle of checks and balances; judicial review of removal of elective officials is a constitutional check on political arbitrariness.

Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies and Its Exception

The trial court’s acceptance of the Special Civil Action without requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies was upheld. The doctrine generally mandates exhausting administrative remedies before judicial intervention, but an exception exists where the administrative act is patently illegal or constitutes lack of jurisdiction. Since the Sangguniang Bayan’s remova

...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.

About Privacy Terms