EN BANC

[G.R. No. 90336. August 12, 1991.]

RUPERTO TAULE, petitioner, vs. SECRETARY LUIS T. SANTOS and

GOVERNOR LEANDRO VERCELES, respondents.

Balgos & Perez and Bugaring, Tugonon & Associates Law Offices for petitioner.

Juan G. Atencia for private respondent.

SYLLABUS

1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; ELECTION LAW; COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS;

JURISDICTION OVER ELECTIVE BARANGAY OFFICIALS LIMITED TO
APPELLATE JURISDICTION FROM DECISIONS OF THE TRIAL COURTS. — The
jurisdiction of the COMELEC over contests involving elective barangay
officials is limited to appellate jurisdiction from decisions of the trial courts.
Under the law, the sworn petition contesting the election of a barangay
officer shall be filed with the proper Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Court
by any candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been
voted for the same office within 10 days after the proclamation of the
results. A voter may also contest the election of any barangay officer on the
ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines by
filing a sworn petition for quo warranto with the Metropolitan or Municipal
Trial Court within 10 days after the proclamation of the results of the
elections. Only appeals from decisions of inferior courts on election
matters as aforestated may be decided by the COMELEC.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; JURISDICTION OVER POPULAR ELECTIONS, CONSTRUED. —

The jurisdiction of the COMELEC is over popular elections, the elected
officials of which are determined through the will of the electorate. An
election is the embodiment of the popular will, the expression of the
sovereign power of the people. It involves the choice or selection of
candidates to public office by popular vote. Specifically, the term "election,"
in the context of the Constitution, may refer to the conduct of the polls,
including the listing of voters, the holding of the electoral campaign, and
the casting and counting of the votes which do not characterize the election
of officers in the katipunan ng mga barangay. "Election contests" would refer
to adversary proceedings by which matters involving the title or claim of
title to an elective office, made before or after proclamation of the winner,
is settled whether or not the contestant is claiming the office in dispute and
in the case of elections of barangay officials, it is restricted to proceedings
after the proclamation of the winners as no pre-proclamation controversies
are allowed.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; JURISDICTION OF THE COMELEC DOES NOT COVER PROTESTS
OVER THE ORGANIZATIONAL SET-UP OF THE KATIPUNAN NG MGA
BARANGAY. — The jurisdiction of the COMELEC does not cover protests
over the organizational set-up of the katipunan ng mga barangay
composed of popularly elected punong barangays as prescribed by law
whose officers are voted upon by their respective members. The authority
of the COMELEC over the katipunan ng mga barangay is limited by law to
supervision of the election of the representative of
the katipunan concerned to the sanggunian in a particular level conducted
by their own respective organization.

4. ID.; ID.; SECRETARY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT; WITHOUT JURISDICTION

TO ENTERTAIN PROTESTS INVOLVING THE ELECTION OF OFFICERS OF THE
FABC. — The Secretary of Local Government is not vested with jurisdiction
to entertain any protest involving the election of officers of the FABC. There
is no question that he is vested with the power to promulgate rules and
regulations as set forth in Section 222 of the Local Government Code.
Likewise, under Book IV, Title XII, Chapter 1, Sec. 3(2) of the Administrative
Code of 1987, the respondent Secretary has the power to "establish and
prescribe rules, regulations and other issuances and implementing laws on
the general supervision of local government units and on the promotion of
local autonomy and monitor compliance thereof by said units." Also, the
respondent Secretary's rule making power is provided in Sec. 7, Chapter II,
Book IV of the Administrative Code. Thus, DLG Circular No. 89-09 was issued
by respondent Secretary in pursuance of his rule-making power conferred
by law and which now has the force and effect of law. It is a well-settled
principle of administrative law that unless expressly empowered,
administrative agencies are bereft of quasi-judicial powers. The jurisdiction
of administrative authorities is dependent entirely upon the provisions of
the statutes reposing power in them; they cannot confer it upon
themselves. Such jurisdiction is essential to give validity to their
determinations. There is neither a statutory nor constitutional provision
expressly or even by necessary implication conferring upon the Secretary
of Local Government the power to assume jurisdiction over an election
protest involving officers of the katipunan ng mga barangay.  cdasia

5. ID.; GENERAL SUPERVISION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE; CONCEPT. —

Presidential power over local governments is limited by the Constitution to
the exercise of general supervision "to ensure that local affairs are
administered according to law." The general supervision is exercised by the
President through the Secretary of Local Government. In administrative
law, supervision means overseeing or the power or authority of an officer
to see that the subordinate officers perform their duties. If the latter fails or
neglects to fulfill them the former may take such action or step as
prescribed by law to make them perform their duties. Control, on the other
hand, means the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set
aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties
and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter. The
fundamental law permits the Chief Executive to wield no more authority
than that of checking whether said local government or the officers thereof
perform their duties as provided by statutory enactments. Hence, the
President cannot interfere with local governments so long as the same or
its officers act within the scope of their authority. Supervisory power, when
contrasted with control, is the power of mere oversight over an inferior
body; it does not include any restraining authority over such body.

6. ID.; ID.; CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION DEPRIVES SECRETARY OF LOCAL

GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY TO PASS UPON VALIDITY OR REGULARITY OF
THE ELECTION OF THE OFFICERS OF THE KATIPUNAN. — Construing the
constitutional limitation on the power of general supervision of the
President over local governments, We hold that respondent Secretary has
no authority to pass upon the validity or regularity of the election of the
officers of the katipunan. To allow respondent Secretary to do so will give
him more power than the law or the Constitution grants. It will in effect give
him control over local government officials for it will permit him to interfere
in a purely democratic and non-partisan activity aimed at strengthening the
barangay as the basic component of local governments so that the ultimate
goal of fullest autonomy may be achieved. In fact, his order that the new
elections to be conducted be presided by the Regional Director is a clear
and direct interference by the Department with the political affairs of the
barangays which is not permitted by the limitation of presidential power to
general supervision over local governments.

7. ID.; AUTONOMY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS; STATE POLICY REFLECTED

IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. — It is the policy of the state to ensure the
autonomy of local governments. This state policy is echoed in the Local
Government Code wherein it is declared that "the State shall guarantee and
promote the autonomy of local government units to ensure their fullest
development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective
partners in the pursuit of national development and social progress." To
deny the Secretary of Local Government the power to review the regularity
of the elections of officers of the katipunan would be to enhance the
avowed state policy of promoting the autonomy of local governments.

8. ID.; ID.; DOUBT AS TO THE POWER OF SECRETARY OF LOCAL

GOVERNMENT TO INTERFERE WITH LOCAL AFFAIRS, RESOLVED IN FAVOR
OF GREATER AUTONOMY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT. — Although the
Department is given the power to prescribe rules, regulations and other
issuances, the Administrative Code limits its authority to merely "monitoring
compliance" by local government units of such issuances. To monitor
means to "watch, observe or check." Even the Local Government Code which
grants the Secretary power to issue implementing circulars, rules and
regulations is silent as to how these issuances should be enforced. Since
the respondent Secretary exercises only supervision and not control over
local governments, it is truly doubtful if he could enforce compliance with
the DLG Circular. Any doubt therefore as to the power of the Secretary to
interfere with local affairs should be resolved in favor of the greater
autonomy of the local government.

9. ID.; ELECTION PROTEST IN THE ELECTION OF THE OFFICERS OF THE

FABC; REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS ACCORDED EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION. — The respondent Secretary not having the jurisdiction to
hear an election protest involving officers of the FABC, the recourse of the
parties is to the ordinary courts. The Regional Trial Courts have the
exclusive original jurisdiction to hear the protest.

10. ID.; LOCAL GOVERNMENT; CIRCULARS AND REGULATIONS ISSUED BY

THE SECRETARY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT; CANNOT BE APPLIED
RETROACTIVELY. — The provision in DLG Circular No. 89-15 amending DLG
Circular No. 89-09 which states that "whenever the guidelines are not
substantially complied with, the election shall be declared null and void by
the Department of Local Government and an election shall conduct anew,"
being invoked by the Solicitor General cannot be applied. DLG Circular No.
89-15 was issued on July 3, 1989 after the June 18, 1989 elections of the
FABC officers and it is the rule in statutory construction that laws, including
circulars and regulations, cannot be applied retrospectively. Moreover,
such provision is null and void for having been issued in excess of the
respondent Secretary's jurisdiction, inasmuch as an administrative
authority cannot confer jurisdiction upon itself.

11. ID.; ID.; GOVERNOR, PROPER PARTY TO FILE ELECTION PROTEST OVER

ELECTION OF OFFICERS OF FABC. — Under Section 205 of the Local
Government Code, the membership of the sangguniang panlalawigan consists
of the governor, the vice-governor, elective members of the
said sanggunian, and the presidents of the katipunang panlalawigan and
the kabataang barangay provincial federation. The governor acts as the
presiding officer of the sangguniang panlalawigan. As presiding officer of
the sangguniang panlalawigan,  the respondent governor has an interest in
the election of the officers of the FABC since its elected president becomes
a member of the assembly. If the president of the FABC assumes his
presidency under questionable circumstances and is allowed to sit in
the sangguniang panlalawigan, the official actions of the sanggunian may be
vulnerable to attacks as to their validity or legality. Hence, respondent
governor is a proper party to question the regularity of the elections of the
officers of the FABC.

12. ID.; ID.; ELECTIONS OF THE OFFICERS OF THE FABC; NULLIFICATION FOR

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DLG CIRCULAR NO. 89-09. — Section 2.4 of DLG
Circular No. 89-09 provides that "the incumbent FABC President or the Vice-
President shall preside over the reorganizational meeting, there being a
quorum." The rule specifically provides that it is the incumbent FABC
President or Vice-President who shall preside over the meeting. The word
"shall" should be taken in its ordinary signification, i.e., it must be
imperative or mandatory and not merely permissive, as the rule is explicit
and requires no other interpretation. If it had been intended that any other
official should preside, the rules would have provided so, as it did in the
elections at the town and city levels as well as the regional level. It is
admitted that neither the incumbent FABC President nor the Vice-President
presided over the meeting and elections but Alberto P. Molina, Jr., the
Chairman of the Board of Election Supervisors/Consultants. Thus, there
was a clear violation of the aforesaid mandatory provision. On this ground,
the election should be nullified.

13. ID.; ID.; APPOINTEES TO THE SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD;

QUALIFICATIONS SET BY LAW; SHOULD BE MET. — In Ignacio vs. Banate, J.
the Court, interpreting similarly worded provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg.
337 and Batas Pambansa Blg. 51 on the composition of the sangguniang
panlungsod, declared as null and void the appointment of private
respondent Leoncio Banate, Jr. as member of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of the City of Roxas representing the katipunang panlungsod ng
mga barangay for he lacked the eligibility and qualification required by law,
not being a barangay captain and for not having been elected president of
the association of barangay councils. The Court held that an unqualified
person cannot be appointed a member of the sanggunian, even in an
acting capacity. In Reyes vs. Ferrer, the appointment of Nemesio L. Rasgo, Jr.
as representative of the youth sector to the sangguniang panlungsod of
Davao City was declared invalid since he was never the president of the
kabataang barangay city federation as required by Sec. 173, Batas Pambansa
Blg. 337. 
cda

14. ID.; ID.; APPOINTEES TO THE SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN;

QUALIFICATIONS SET BY LAW SHOULD ALSO BE MET. — Involving
the sangguniang panlalawigan, the law is likewise explicit. To be appointed
by the President of the Philippines to sit in the sangguniang panlalawigan is
the president of the katipunang panlalawigan. The appointee must meet the
qualifications set by law. The appointing power is bound by law to comply
with the requirements as to the basic qualifications of the appointee to
the sangguniang panlalawigan. The President of the Philippines or his alter
ego, the Secretary of Local Government, has no authority to appoint
anyone who does not meet the minimum qualification to be the president
 of the federation of barangay councils. Augusto Antonio is not the
president of the federation. He is a member of the federation but he was
not even present during the elections despite notice. The argument that
Antonio was appointed as a remedial measure in the exigency of the
service cannot be sustained. Since Antonio does not meet the basic
qualification of being president of the federation, his appointment to
the sangguniang panlalawigan is not qualified notwithstanding that such
appointment is merely in a temporary capacity. If the intention of the
respondent Secretary was to protect the interests of the federation in
the sanggunian, he should have appointed the incumbent FABC President in
a hold-over capacity. The appointment of Antonio, allegedly the protege of
respondent Governor, gives credence to petitioner's charge of political
interference by respondent Governor in the organization. This should not
be allowed. The barangays should be insulated from any partisan activity or
political intervention if only to give true meaning to local autonomy.

DECISION

GANCAYCO, J  :p

The extent of authority of the Secretary of Local Government over

the katipunan ng mga barangay or the barangay councils is brought to the fore
in this case.

On June 18, 1989, the Federation of Associations of Barangay Councils (FABC)

of Catanduanes, composed of eleven (11) members, in their capacities as
Presidents of the Association of Barangay Councils in their respective
municipalities, convened in Virac, Catanduanes with six members in
attendance for the purpose of holding the election of its officers.

Present were petitioner Ruperto Taule of San Miguel, Allan Aquino of Viga,
Vicente Avila of Virac, Fidel Jacob of Panganiban, Leo Sales of Caramoran and
Manuel Torres of Baras. The Board of Election Supervisors/Consultants was
composed of Provincial Government Operation Officer (PGOO) Alberto P.
Molina, Jr. as Chairman with Provincial Treasurer Luis A. Manlapaz, Jr. and
Provincial Election Supervisor Arnold Soquerata as members.  LLpr
When the group decided to hold the election despite the absence of five (5) of
its members, the Provincial Treasurer and the Provincial Election Supervisor
walked out.

The election nevertheless proceeded with PGOO Alberto P. Molina, Jr. as

presiding officer. Chosen as members of the Board of Directors were Taule,
Aquino, Avila, Jacob and Sales.

Thereafter, the following were elected officers of the FABC:

President - Ruperto Taule
Vice-President  - Allan Aquino
Secretary - Vicente Avila
Treasurer - Fidel Jacob
Auditor - Leo Sales 1 
 

On June 19, 1989, respondent Leandro I. Verceles, Governor of Catanduanes,

sent a letter to respondent Luis T. Santos, the Secretary of Local
Government, *protesting the election of the officers of the FABC and seeking its
nullification in view of several flagrant irregularities in the manner it was
conducted. 2

In compliance with the order of respondent Secretary, petitioner Ruperto Taule

as President of the ABC, filed his comment on the letter-protest of respondent
Governor denying the alleged irregularities and denouncing said respondent
Governor for meddling or intervening in the election of FABC officers which is a
purely non-partisan affair and at the same time requesting for his appointment
as a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the province being the duly
elected President of the FABC in Catanduanes. 3

On August 4, 1989, respondent Secretary issued a resolution nullifying the

election of the officers of the FABC in Catanduanes held on June 18, 1989 and
ordering a new one to be conducted as early as possible to be presided by the
Regional Director of Region V of the Department of Local Government. 4

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution of August 4, 1989

but it was denied by respondent Secretary in his resolution of September 5,
1989. 5
In the petition for certiorari before Us, petitioner seeks the reversal of the
resolutions of respondent Secretary dated August 4, 1989 and September 5,
1989 for being null and void.

Petitioner raises the following issues:

1) Whether or not the respondent Secretary has jurisdiction to

entertain an election protest involving the election of the officers of
the Federation of Association of Barangay Councils;

2) Whether or not the respondent Governor has the legal personality

to file an election protest;

3) Assuming that the respondent Secretary has jurisdiction over the

election protest, whether or not he committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in nullifying the election;

The Katipunan ng mga Barangay is the organization of all sangguniang

barangays in the following levels: in municipalities to be known as katipunang
bayan; in cities, katipunang panlungsod; in provinces, katipunang panlalawigan;
in regions, katipunang pampook; and on the national level, katipunan ng mga
barangay. 6

The Local Government Code provides for the manner in which the katipunan ng

mga barangay at all levels shall be organized:

"SECTION 110. Organization. — (1) The katipunan at all levels shall be

organized in the following manner:

(a) The katipunan in each level shall elect a board of directors and a

set of officers. The president of each level shall represent the
katipunan concerned in the next higher level of organization.

(b) The katipunan ng mga barangay shall be composed of the

katipunang pampook, which shall in turn be composed of the
presidents of the katipunang panlalawigan and the katipunang
panlungsod. The presidents of the katipunang bayan in each
province shall constitute the katipunang panlalawigan. The
katipunang panlungsod and the katipunang bayan shall be
composed of the punong barangays of cities and municipalities,
respectively.

xxx xxx xxx."

The respondent Secretary, acting in accordance with the provision of the Local
Government Code empowering him to "promulgate in detail the implementing
circulars and the rules and regulations to carry out the various administrative
actions required for the initial implementation of this Code in such a manner
as will ensure the least disruption of on-going programs and project," 7 issued
Department of Local Government Circular No. 89-09 on April 7, 1989, 8 to
provide the guidelines for the conduct of the elections of officers of
the Katipunan ng mga Barangay at the municipal, city, provincial, regional and
national levels.

It is now the contention of petitioner that neither the constitution nor the law

grants jurisdiction upon the respondent Secretary over election contests
involving the election of officers of the FABC, the katipunan ng mga barangay at
the provincial level. It is petitioner's theory that under Article IX, C, Section 2 of
the 1987 Constitution, it is the Commission on Elections which has jurisdiction
over all contests involving elective barangay officials.

On the other hand, it is the opinion of the respondent Secretary that any
violation of the guidelines as set forth in said circular would be a ground for
filing a protest and would vest upon the Department jurisdiction to resolve any
protest that may be filed in relation thereto.

Under Article IX, C, Section 2(2) of the 1987 Constitution, the Commission on

Elections shall exercise "exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating
to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial,
and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective
municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving
elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction."
The 1987 Constitution expanded the jurisdiction of the COMELEC by granting it
appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials
decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction or elective barangay officials
decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction. 9

The jurisdiction of the COMELEC over contests involving elective barangay

officials is limited to appellate jurisdiction from decisions of the trial courts.
Under the law, 10 the sworn petition contesting the election of a barangay
officer shall be filed with the proper Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Court by
any candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted
for the same office within 10 days after the proclamation of the results. A voter
may also contest the election of any barangay officer on the ground of
ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines by filing a sworn
petition for quo warranto with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Court within
10 days after the proclamation of the results of the election. 11 Only appeals
from decisions of inferior courts on election matters as aforestated may be
decided by the COMELEC.

The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that the jurisdiction of the
COMELEC is over popular elections, the elected officials of which are
determined through the will of the electorate. An election is the embodiment
of the popular will, the expression of the sovereign power of the people. 12 It
involves the choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular
vote. 13 Specifically, the term "election," in the context of the Constitution, may
refer to the conduct of the polls, including the listing of voters, the holding of
the electoral campaign, and the casting and counting of the votes 14 which do
not characterize the election of officers in the Katipunan ng mga barangay.
"Election contests" would refer to adversary proceedings by which matters
involving the title or claim of title to an elective office, made before or after
proclamation of the winner, is settled whether or not the contestant is claiming
the office in dispute 15 and in the case of elections of barangay officials, it is
restricted to proceedings after the proclamation of the winners as no pre-
proclamation controversies are allowed. 16

The jurisdiction of the COMELEC does not cover protests over the
organizational set-up of the katipunan ng mga barangay composed of
popularly elected punong barangays as prescribed by law whose officers are
voted upon by their respective members. The COMELEC exercises only
appellate jurisdiction over election contests involving elective barangay officials
decided by the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts which likewise have
limited jurisdiction. The authority of the COMELEC over the katipunan ng mga
barangay is limited by law to supervision of the election of the representative of
the katipunan concerned to the sanggunian in a particular level conducted by
their own respective organization. 17

However, the Secretary of Local Government is not vested with jurisdiction to

entertain any protest involving the election of officers of the FABC.

There is no question that he is vested with the power to promulgate rules and
regulations as set forth in Section 222 of the Local Government Code.
Likewise, under Book IV, Title XII, Chapter 1, Sec. 3(2) of the Administrative Code
of 1987, ** the respondent Secretary has the power to "establish and prescribe
rules, regulations and other issuances and implementing laws on the general
supervision of local government units and on the promotion of local autonomy
and monitor compliance thereof by said units."

Also, the respondent Secretary's rule making power is provided in Sec. 7,

Chapter II, Book IV of the Administrative Code, to wit:

"(3) Promulgate rules and regulations necessary to carry out

department objectives, policies, functions, plans, programs and
projects;"

Thus, DLG Circular No. 89-09 was issued by respondent Secretary in pursuance
of his rule-making power conferred by law and which now has the force and
effect of law. 18

Now the question that arises is whether or not a violation of said circular vests
jurisdiction upon the respondent Secretary, as claimed by him, to hear a
protest filed in relation thereto and consequently declare an election null and
void.

It is a well-settled principle of administrative law that unless expressly

empowered, administrative agencies are bereft of quasi-judicial powers. 19 The
jurisdiction of administrative authorities is dependent entirely upon the
provisions of the statutes reposing power in them; they cannot confer it upon
themselves. 20 Such jurisdiction is essential to give validity to their
determinations. 21

There is neither a statutory nor constitutional provision expressly or even by

necessary implication conferring upon the Secretary of Local Government the
power to assume jurisdiction over an election protest involving officers of
the katipunan ng mga barangay. An understanding of the extent of authority of
the Secretary over local governments is therefore necessary if We are to
resolve the issue at hand.

Presidential power over local governments is limited by the Constitution to the

exercise of general supervision 22 "to ensure that local affairs are administered
according to law." 23 The general supervision is exercised by the President
through the Secretary of Local Government. 24
In administrative law, supervision means overseeing or the power or authority
of an officer to see that the subordinate officers perform their duties. If the
latter fails or neglects to fulfill them the former may take such action or step as
prescribed by law to make them perform their duties. Control, on the other
hand, means the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside
what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to
substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter. The fundamental
law permits the Chief Executive to wield no more authority than that of
checking whether said local government or the officers thereof perform their
duties as provided by statutory enactments. Hence, the President cannot
interfere with local governments so long as the same or its officers act within
the scope of their authority. 25 Supervisory power, when contrasted with
control, is the power of mere oversight over an inferior body; it does not
include any restraining authority over such body. 26

Construing the constitutional limitation on the power of general supervision of

the President over local governments, We hold that respondent Secretary has
no authority to pass upon the validity or regularity of the election of the
officers of the katipunan. To allow respondent Secretary to do so will give him
more power than the law or the Constitution grants. It will in effect give him
control over local government officials for it will permit him to interfere in a
purely democratic and non-partisan activity aimed at strengthening the
barangay as the basic component of local governments so that the ultimate
goal of fullest autonomy may be achieved. In fact, his order that the new
elections to be conducted be presided by the Regional Director is a clear and
direct interference by the Department with the political affairs of the barangays
which is not permitted by the limitation of presidential power to general
supervision over local governments. 27

Indeed, it is the policy of the state to ensure the autonomy of local

governments. 28 This state policy is echoed in the Local Government Code wherein
it is declared that "the State shall guarantee and promote the autonomy of
local government units to ensure their fullest development as self-reliant
communities and make them more effective partners in the pursuit of national
development and social progress." 29 To deny the Secretary of Local
Government the power to review the regularity of the elections of officers of
the katipunan would be to enhance the avowed state policy of promoting the
autonomy of local governments.
Moreover, although the Department is given the power to prescribe rules,
regulations and other issuances, the Administrative Code limits its authority to
merely "monitoring compliance" by local government units of such issuances.
30 To monitor means "to watch, observe or check." 31 This is compatible with
the power of supervision of the Secretary over local governments which as
earlier discussed is limited to checking whether the local government unit
concerned or the officers thereof perform their duties as provided by statutory
enactments. Even the Local Government Code which grants the Secretary power
to issue implementing circulars, rules and regulations is silent as to how these
issuances should be enforced. Since the respondent Secretary exercises only
supervision and not control over local governments, it is truly doubtful if he
could enforce compliance with the DLG Circular. 32 Any doubt therefore as to
the power of the Secretary to interfere with local affairs should be resolved in
favor of the greater autonomy of the local government.

Thus, the Court holds that in assuming jurisdiction over the election protest
filed by respondent Governor and declaring the election of the officers of the
FABC on June 18, 1989 as null and void, the respondent Secretary acted in
excess of his jurisdiction. The respondent Secretary not having the jurisdiction
to hear an election protest involving officers of the FABC, the recourse of the
parties is to the ordinary courts. The Regional Trial Courts have the exclusive
original jurisdiction to hear the protest. 33

The provision in DLG Circular No. 89-15 amending DLG Circular No. 89-09
which states that "whenever the guidelines are not substantially complied with,
the election shall be declared null and void by the Department of Local
Government and an election shall conduct anew," being invoked by the
Solicitor General cannot be applied. DLG Circular No. 89-15 was issued on July
3, 1989 after the June 18, 1989 elections of the FABC officers and it is the rule in
statutory construction that laws, including circulars and regulations, 34 cannot
be applied retrospectively. 35 Moreover, such provision is null and void for
having been issued in excess of the respondent Secretary's jurisdiction,
inasmuch as an administrative authority cannot confer jurisdiction upon itself.

As regards the second issue raised by petitioner, the Court finds that
respondent Governor has the personality to file the protest. Under Section 205
of the Local Government Code, the membership of the sangguniang
panlalawigan consists of the governor, the vice-governor, elective members of
the said sanggunian, and the presidents of the katipunang panlalawigan and
the kabataang barangay provincial federation. The governor acts as the
presiding officer of the sangguniang panlalawigan. 36

As presiding officer of the sangguniang panlalawigan, the respondent governor

has an interest in the election of the officers of the FABC since its elected
president becomes a member of the assembly. If the president of the FABC
assumes his presidency under questionable circumstances and is allowed to sit
in the sangguniang panlalawigan, the official actions of the sanggunian may be
vulnerable to attacks as to their validity or legality. Hence, respondent governor
is a proper party to question the regularity of the elections of the officers of the
FABC.

As to the third issue raised by petitioner, the Court has already ruled that the
respondent Secretary has no jurisdiction to hear the protest and nullify the
elections.

Nevertheless, the Court holds that the issue of the validity of the elections
should now be resolved in order to prevent any unnecessary delay that may
result from the commencement of an appropriate action by the parties.

The elections were declared null and void primarily for failure to comply with
Section 2.4 of DLG Circular No. 89-09 which provides that "the incumbent FABC
President or the Vice-President shall preside over the reorganizational meeting,
there being a quorum." The rule specifically provides that it is the incumbent
FABC President or Vice-President who shall preside over the meeting. The word
"shall" should be taken in its ordinary signification, i.e., it must be imperative or
mandatory and not merely permissive, 37 as the rule is explicit and requires no
other interpretation. If it had been intended that any other official should
preside, the rules would have provided so, as it did in the elections at the town
and city levels 38 as well as the regional level. 39

It is admitted that neither the incumbent FABC President nor the Vice-President
presided over the meeting and elections but Alberto P. Molina, Jr., the
Chairman of the Board of Election Supervisors/Consultants. Thus, there was a
clear violation of the aforesaid mandatory provision. On this ground, the
elections should be nullified.

Under Sec. 2.3.2.7 of the same circular it is provided that a Board of Election
Supervisors/Consultants shall be constituted to oversee and or witness the
canvassing of votes and proclamation of winners. The rules confine the role of
the Board of Election Supervisors/Consultants to merely overseeing and
witnessing the conduct of elections. This is consistent with the provision in
the Local Government Code limiting the authority of the COMELEC to the
supervision of the election. 40

In case at bar, PGOO Molina, the Chairman of the Board, presided over the
elections. There was direct participation by the Chairman of the Board in the
elections contrary to what is dictated by the rules. Worse, there was no Board
of Election Supervisors to oversee the elections in view of the walk out staged
by its two other members, the Provincial COMELEC Supervisor and the
Provincial Treasurer. The objective of keeping the election free and honest was
therefore compromised.

The Court therefore finds that the election of officers of the FABC held on June
18, 1989 is null and void for failure to comply with the provisions of DLG
Circular No. 89-09.

Meanwhile, pending resolution of this petition, petitioner filed a supplemental

petition alleging that public respondent Local Government Secretary, in his
memorandum dated June 7, 1990, designated Augusto Antonio as temporary
representative of the Federation to the sangguniang panlalawigan of
Catanduanes. 41 By virtue of this memorandum, respondent governor swore
into said office Augusto Antonio on June 14, 1990. 42

The Solicitor General filed his comment on the supplemental petition 43 as

required by the resolution of the Court dated September 13, 1990.

In his comment, the Solicitor General dismissed the supervening event alleged
by petitioner as something immaterial to the petition. He argues that Antonio's
appointment was merely temporary "until such time that the provincial FABC
president in that province has been elected, appointed and qualified." 44 He
stresses that Antonio's appointment was only a remedial measure designed to
cope with the problems brought about by the absence of a representative of
the FABC to the "sangguniang panlalawigan."

Sec. 205 (2) of the Local Government Code (B.P. Blg. 337) provides —

"(2) The sangguniang panlalawigan shall be composed of the

governor, the vice-governor, elective members of the said
sanggunian, and the presidents of the katipunang panlalawigan and
 the kabataang barangay provincial federation who shall be
appointed by the President of the Philippines." (Emphasis supplied.)

Batas Pambansa Blg. 51, under Sec. 2 likewise states:

"xxx xxx xxx

The sangguniang panlalawigan of each province shall be composed of

the governor as chairman and presiding officer, the vice-governor as
presiding officer pro tempore, the elective sangguniang panlalawigan
members, and the appointive members consisting of the president of the
provincial association of barangay councils, and the president of the
provincial federation of the kabataang barangay." (Emphasis supplied.)

In Ignacio vs. Banate, Jr. 45 the Court, interpreting similarly worded provisions

of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 and Batas Pambansa Blg. 51 on the composition of
the sangguniang panlungsod, 46 declared as null and void the appointment of
private respondent Leoncio Banate, Jr. as member of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of the City of Roxas representing the katipunang panlungsod ng mga
barangay for he lacked the eligibility and qualification required by law, not
being a barangay captain and for not having been elected president of the
association of barangay councils. The Court held that an unqualified person
cannot be appointed a member of the sanggunian, even in an acting capacity.
In Reyes vs. Ferrer, 47 the appointment of Nemesio L. Rasgo, Jr. as representative
of the youth sector to the sangguniang panlungsod of Davao City was declared
invalid since he was never the president of the kabataang barangay city
federation as required by Sec. 173, Batas Pambansa Blg 337.

In the present controversy involving the sangguniang panlalawigan, the law is

likewise explicit. To be appointed by the President of the Philippines to sit in
the sangguniang panlalawigan is the president of the katipunang
panlalawigan. The appointee must meet the qualifications set by law. 48 The
appointing power is bound by law to comply with the requirements as to the
basic qualifications of the appointee to the sangguniang panlalawigan. The
President of the Philippines or his alter ego, the Secretary of Local Government,
has no authority to appoint anyone who does not meet the minimum
qualification to be the president of the federation of barangay councils.

Augusto Antonio is not the president of the federation. He is a member of the

federation but he was not even present during the elections despite notice. The
argument that Antonio was appointed as a remedial measure in the exigency
of the service cannot be sustained. Since Antonio does not meet the basic
qualification of being president of the federation, his appointment to
the sangguniang panlalawigan is not justified notwithstanding that such
appointment is merely in a temporary capacity. If the intention of the
respondent Secretary was to protect the interest of the federation in
the sanggunian, he should have appointed the incumbent FABC President in a
hold-over capacity. For even under the guidelines, the term of office of officers
of the katipunan at all levels shall be from the date of their election until their
successors shall have been duly elected and qualified, without prejudice to the
terms of their appointments as members of the sanggunian to which they may
be correspondingly appointed. 49 Since the election is still under protest such
that no successor of the incumbent has as yet qualified, the respondent
Secretary has no choice but to have the incumbent FABC President sit as
member of the sanggunian. He could even have appointed petitioner since he
was elected the president of the federation but not Antonio. The appointment
of Antonio, allegedly the protege of respondent Governor, gives credence to
petitioner's charge of political interference by respondent Governor in the
organization. This should not be allowed. The barangays should be insulated
from any partisan activity or political intervention if only to give true meaning
to local autonomy.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED in that the resolution of respondent

Secretary dated August 4, 1989 is hereby SET ASIDE for having been issued in
excess of jurisdiction.

The election of the officials of the ABC Federation held on June 18, 1989 is
hereby annulled. A new election of officers of the federation is hereby ordered
to be conducted immediately in accordance with the governing rules and
regulations.

The Supplemental petition is hereby GRANTED. The appointment of Augusto

Antonio as representative to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in a temporary
capacity is declared null and void.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.
 Fernan, C  .J  ., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano,
Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado  and Davide, Jr., JJ  .,
concur.
 (Taule v. Santos, G.R. No. 90336, [August 12, 1991], 277 PHIL 584-606)
|||