Case Digest

WILMER GREGO, petitioner, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND HUMBERTO BASCO, respondents
(DIGEST)

G.R. No. 125955, June 19, 1997

FACTS:

In 1981, Basco was removed from his position as Deputy Sheriff for serious misconduct. Subsequently,
he ran as a candidate for councilor in the Second District of the City of Manila during the 1988, local
elections. He won and assumed office. After his term, Basco sought re-election. Again, he won.
However, he found himself facing lawsuits filed by his opponents who wanted to dislodge him from his
position.

Petitioner argues that Basco should be disqualified from running for any elective position since he had
been “removed from office as a result of an administrative case” pursuant to Section 40 (b) of Republic
Act No. 7160.

For a third time, Basco was elected councilor in 1995. Expectedly, his right to office was again contested.
In 1995, petitioner Grego filed with the COMELEC a petition for disqualification. The COMELEC
conducted a hearing and ordered the parties to submit their respective memoranda.

However, the Manila City BOC proclaimed Basco in May 1995, as a duly elected councilor for the Second
District of Manila, placing sixth among several candidates who vied for the seats. Basco immediately
took his oath of office.

COMELEC resolved to dismiss the petition for disqualification. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of
said resolution was later denied by the COMELEC,, hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not COMELEC acted in with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for
disqualification.
RULING:

No. The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of COMELEC in dismissing the
petition for disqualification, however, the Court noted that they do not agree with its conclusions and
reasons in the assailed resolution.

The Court reiterated that being merely an implementing rule, Sec 25 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure must not override, but instead remain consistent with and in harmony with the law it seeks
to apply and implement. Administrative rules and regulations are intended to carry out, neither to
supplant nor to modify, the law. The law itself cannot be extended to amending or expanding the
statutory requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute. An administrative agency
cannot amend an act of Congress.

In case of discrepancy between the basic law and a rule or regulation issued to implement said law, the
basic law prevails because said rule or regulations cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the
basic law. Since Section 6 of Rep. Act 6646, the law which Section 5 of Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure seeks to implement, employed the word “may,” it is, therefore, improper and highly irregular
for the COMELEC to have used instead the word “shall” in its rules.

Still, the Court DISMISSED the petition for lack of merit.

Grego vs COMELEC [274 SCRA 481]

Pius Morados

7 years ago

(Municipal Government, Disqualification, Non-Retroactive effect)

Facts: Sec 40 (b) of Republic Act 7160 (the Local Government Code) which took effect on January 1,
1992, disqualifies a person for any elective position on the ground that “had been removed from office
as a result of an administrative case”.

On October 31, 1981, Basco was removed from his position as Deputy Sheriff upon a finding of serious
misconduct in an administrative complaint.
He ran as a candidate for Councilor, won and assumed office for three terms during the Elections of
January 18, 1988; May 11, 1992 and May 8, 1995. As in the past, respondent’s right to office was
contested.

On May 13, 1995, petitioner, seeks for the respondent’s disqualification, pursuant to the above
provision, contending that as long as a candidate was once removed from office due to an
administrative case, regardless of whether it took place during or prior to the effectivity of the Code, the
disqualification applies.

Respondent contends that the petitioner is not entitled to said relief because Section 40 par. b of the
LGC may not be validly applied to persons who were dismissed prior to its effectivity. To do so would
make it ex post facto, bill of attainder, and retroactive legislation which impairs vested rights

Issue: WON Section 40 (b) of Republic Act No. 7160 applies retroactively to those removed from office
before it took effect on January 1, 1992.

Held: No. It is a settled issue that Section 40 (b) of Republic Act No. 7160 does not have any retroactive
effect. Laws operate only prospectively and not retroactively.

A statute, despite the generality in its language, must not be so construed as to overreach acts, events
or matters which transpired before its passage: “Lex prospicit, non respicit.” The law looks forward, not
backward.