Date of case: July 31, 1962
Law involved:
Section 54 of the Revised Election Code:
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 an election or take part therein, except to vote, if entitled thereto, or to preserve public peace, if he is a peace officer.
Maxim/Rules cited that was used incorrectly in the case:
"casus omisus pro omisso habendus est'' meaning a person, object or thing omitted from an enumeration must be held to have been omitted intentionally. - NOT APPLICABLE
"expressio unius, est exclusion alterius" meaning rule of exclusion
Facts:
1. The case is an appeal of the Solicitor General against the order of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan which dismissed the information against the defendant.
2. Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan filed an information in the Court of First Instance of that Province charging the defendant Guillermo Manantan with a violation Section 54 of the Revised Election Code. A preliminary investigation was conducted which resulted in finding probable cause that the crime charged as committed by the defendant.
3. Defendant filed not guilty and moved to dismiss the information on the ground that as justice of peace, the defendant is not one of the officers enumerated in section 54 of the Revised Election Code.
4. The lower court denied the motion to dismiss holding that a justice of the peace is within the purview Section 54.
5. A second motion was filed by defense counsel who cited in support thereof the decision of the Court of Appeals in People vs. Macaraeg, (CA-G.R. No. 15613-R, 54 Off. Gaz., pp. 1873-76) where it was held that a justice of the peace is excluded from the prohibition of Section 54 of the Revised Election Code by applying the rule of "expressio unius, est exclusion alterius" (rule of exclusion).
6. Acting on this second motion to dismiss, the lower court dismissed the information against the accused upon authority of the ruling in the case cited by the defense.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Justice of Peace is included in the prohibition of Section 54 of the Revised Election Code.
HELD:
Yes. Justice of Peace is included.
Defendant-appellee argues that section 54 of the Revised Election Code omitted the words "justice of the peace,". The omission revealed the intention of the legislature to exclude justices of the peace from its operation. The aforecited section was taken from Section 449 of the Revised Administrative Code:
SEC. 449. Persons prohibited from influencing elections. — 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.
Supreme Court: a judge is a more generic term which includes justice of peace.
Under Section 449 of the Revised Administrative Code, the word "judge" was modified or qualified by the phrase "of First instance", while under Section 54 of the Revised Election Code, no such modification exists.
In other words, justices of the peace were expressly included in Section 449 of the Revised Administrative Code because the kinds of judges therein were specified, i.e., judge of the First Instance and justice of the peace. 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.
From the history of Section 54 of REC, the first omission of the word "justice of the peace" was effected in Section 48 of Commonwealth Act No. 357 and not in the present code as averred by defendant-appellee. Whenever the word "judge" was qualified by the phrase "of the First Instance', the words "justice of the peace" were omitted. It follows that when the legislature omitted the words "justice of the peace" in RA 180, it did not intend to exempt the said officer from its operation. Rather, it had considered the said officer as already comprehended in the broader term "judge".
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.
The maxim "casus omisus" can operate and apply only if and when the omission has been clearly established. In the case, the legislature did not exclude or omit justices of the peace from the enumeration of officers precluded from engaging in partisan political activities. Rather, they were merely called by another term. In Section 54 of the Revised Election Code, justices of the peace were just called "judges."
Defendant-appellee also cited House Bill No. 2676, which was filed on January 25, 1955. In that proposed legislation, under Section 56, justices of the peace are already expressly included among the officers enjoined from active political participation.
The argument is unacceptable. To begin with, House Bill No. 2676 was a proposed amendment to Rep. Act No. 180 as a whole and not merely to section 54 of said Rep. Act No. 180. In other words, House Bill No. 2676 was a proposed re-codification of the existing election laws at the time that it was filed. Besides, the proposed amendment, until it has become a law, cannot be considered to contain or manifest any legislative intent. What weight can we give to a mere draft of a bill?
The Court of Appeals and the trial court erred in applying the rule of "expressio unius, est exclusion alterius" (rule of exclusion) in arriving at the conclusion that justices of the peace are not covered by Section 54.
Citing:
Where a statute appears on its face to limit the operation of its provisions to particular persons or things by enumerating them, but no reason exists why other persons or things not so enumerated should not have been included, and manifest injustice will follow by not so including them, the maxim expressio unius est exclusion alterius, should not be invoked.
SC Decision: order of dismissal entered by the trial court should be set aside and this case is remanded for trial on the merits.
Comments
Post a Comment