CHAPTER III - AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GUILLERMO MANANTAN

G.R. No. L-14129 | August 30, 1962

Facts:
Guillermo Manantan was charged with a violation of Section 54, Revised Election Code. However,
Manantan claims that as "justice of peace", the defendant is not one of the officers enumerated in the said
section. The lower court denied the motion to dismiss holding that a justice of peace is within the purview of
Section 54.

Under Section 54, "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 a election or take part
therein, except to vote, if entitled thereto, or to preserve public peace, if he is a peace officer.".

Defendant submits that the said election was taken from Section 449 of the Revised Administration Code
wherein, "No judge of the First Instance, justice of the peace, or treasurer, fiscal or assessor of any province and no
officer or employee of the Philippine Constabulary, or any Bureau or employee of the classified civil service, shall
aid any candidate or exert influence in any manner in any election or take part therein otherwise than exercising
the right to vote.". He claims that the words "justice of peace" was omitted revealed the intention of Legislature to
exclude justices of peace from its operation.

Issue:
Is justice of peace included in the prohibition of Section 64 of the Revised Election Code?

Held:
Yes, it is included in Section 54. Justices of the peace were expressly included in Section 449 of the
Revised Administrative Code because the kinds of judges therein were specified. In Section 54, however, there was
no necessity therefore to include justices of the peace in the enumeration because the legislature had availed itself
of the more generic and broader term, "judge.", which includes all kinds of judges.

A "justice of the peace" is a judge. A "judge" is a public officer, who, by virtue of his office, is clothed with
judicial authority. This term includes all officers appointed to to decide litigated questions while acting in that
capacity, including justices of the peace, and even jurors, it is said, who are judges of facts.

The rule of "casus omisus pro omisso habendus est" ​is likewise invoked by the defendant-appellee. Under
the said rule, a person, object or thing omitted from an enumeration must be held to have been omitted
intentionally. However, it is applicable only if the omission has been clearly established.

In the case at bar, the legislature did not exclude or omit justices of the peace from the enumeration of
officers precluded from engaging in partisan political activities. In Section 54, justices of the peace were just called
"judges".

The rule ​"expressio unius est exclusion alterius" has been erroneously applied by CA and lower courts
because they were not able to give reasons for the exclusion of the legislature for the term "justices of peace".

● Change in Phraseology by Amendments, Amendments by Deletion