Pamil v Teleron G.R. No.

L-34854 November 20, 1978

FORTUNATO R. PAMIL, petitioner-appellant,
vs
HONORABLE VICTORINO C. TELERON, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Bohol,
Branch III, and REV. FR. MARGARITO R. GONZAGA, respondents-appellees.
Ponente
Fernando, J. **
Motion
Motion for certiorari to review CFI decision.
Facts
Fr. Margarito R. Gonzaga was elected municipal mayor of Alburquerque, Bohol and was
proclaimed the same.
Petitioner, also an aspirant for the same position, filed a quo warranto suit in Bohol CFI.
P cites Revised Administrative Code Section 2715 (1917): in no case shall there be elected
or appointed to a municipal office ecclesiastics . . .
CFI ruled that Election code of 1971 implicitly repealed RAC 2715 rendering it ineffective,
thus affirming legitimacy of Gonzagas claim as mayor.
Issue
WON RAC Sec. 2715 is still in effect/operative.
Held
Yes. Petitioner granted certiorari and CFI decision reversed
Tribunal vote is INDECISIVE. Seven justices voted to affirm CFI decision (that RA 2175 is
ineffective) while five voted to reverse CFI decision (that RAC Sec. 2715 is effective).
Neither side has enough votes for a majority (At least 8 is needed).
Because of this, the Tribunal has no choice but to affirm the petition (thereby reversing CFI
decision), and to declare Gonzaga ineligible as mayor. (See Rules of Court, Rule 56, Section
11)
Ratio:
Constitutional objections to RAC Sec. 2715 (1917)
-1935 and 1973 Constitutions explicitly state: No religious test shall be required for the
exercise of civil and political rights.
- Laws shall remain operative unless inconsistent with this Constitution (Art XVII, Sec. 7)
- RAC Sec. 2715 is a religious test and thus inconsistent with Constitution
Concepcion, Jr., Santos, Fernandez and Guerrero, JJ., concur.

Opinions
Castro, C.J, concur
RAC Sec. 2715 has not been superseded nor repealed, thus the law applicable to the case at
hand.
Teehankee, J. dissent
Election Code of 1971, Sec. 23 is law applicable to the case at hand, impliedly repealing RAC
Sec. 2715, as the latter is a comprehensive law governing elections.
By way of obiter dictum, RAC Sec. 2715 is also inoperative as it is inconsistent with
Constitution regarding separation of Church and State (1973 Cons, Art. XV, Sec.15) and
religious test (Art IV, Sec 8)
Barredo, J. concur
No contradiction with RAC Sec. 2715 and the freedom of religion section in Constitution
Makasiar, J. concur
Election Code of 1971, Sec. 23 does not implicitly repeal RAC Sec. 2715.
Notwithstanding, RAC Sec. 2715 is has no inconsistency with religious tests and even is
contrary to separation of Church and State
Antonio, J. concur
Election Code of 1971, Sec. 23 does not implicitly repeal RAC Sec. 2715.
Separation of Church and state is more relevant section in Constitution to the case at bar.
Munoz-Palma, J. dissent
Concur with J. Teehankee and disagrees with held ruling.
Aqiuno, J. concur
Election Code of 1971, Sec. 23 does not implicitly repeal RAC Sec. 2715.
**Note: Those in blue voted to reverse decision, those in red voted to affirm it.