Scribd
Upload
179 views1 page

Lacson V Roque G.R. No. L-6225 January 10, 1953: Basta Dapat Provided by Law and Naay Due Process

1) The document discusses a case regarding the suspension of the Mayor of Manila, Arsenio Lacson, by the President. 2) It examines whether the President has the authority under the Constitution and city charter to suspend an elected mayor without explicit cause. 3) It determines that neither the charter nor constitution provide the President with sweeping authority to remove municipal officials without due process or legislative authorization. The phrase "unless sooner removed" alone does not give the President unlimited removal power.

Uploaded by

Lenneo Soriano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
179 views1 page

Lacson V Roque G.R. No. L-6225 January 10, 1953: Basta Dapat Provided by Law and Naay Due Process

1) The document discusses a case regarding the suspension of the Mayor of Manila, Arsenio Lacson, by the President. 2) It examines whether the President has the authority under the Constitution and city charter to suspend an elected mayor without explicit cause. 3) It determines that neither the charter nor constitution provide the President with sweeping authority to remove municipal officials without due process or legislative authorization. The phrase "unless sooner removed" alone does not give the President unlimited removal power.

Uploaded by

Lenneo Soriano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

LACSON v ROQUE much speculation and debate in the course of the oral

argument and in the briefs. This phrase is not


G.R. No. L-6225             January 10, 1953
uncommon in statutes relating to public offices, and has
Where harmonization is impossible (page 380) received construction from the courts. It has been
declared that "Power in the appointing authority to
The petitioner, Arsenio H. Lacson, Mayor of the City of
remove a public officer may be implied where to
Manila, has been suspended from the office by the
statutory specification of the term of office are added
President and has brought this original action for
the words 'unless sooner removed.'" 
prohibition contesting the legality of the suspension.
Mariano Roque, Acting Executive Secretary, and There is neither statutory nor constitutional provision
Dionisio Ojeda, Chief of Police of Manila, who are said granting the President sweeping authority to remove
to have threatened to carry out the President's order, municipal officials. By Article VII, Section 10, paragraph
and Bartolome Gatmaitan, the Vice-Mayor who is (1) of the Constitution the President "shall . . . exercise
performing the duties of mayor, are made defendants. general supervision over all local governments," but
supervision does not contemplate control. Far from
On October 20, 1952, following the acquittal of
implying control or power to remove, the President's
Celestino C. Juan, Deputy Chief of Police for
supervisory authority over municipal affairs
malversation of public property instituted at the
disqualified by the proviso " as may be provided by
instance of Mayor Lacson, the petitioner made a radio
law," a clear indication of constitutional intention that
broadcast in which he criticized the court's decision
the provision was not to be self-executing but requires
stating, it is alleged: "I have nothing but contempt for
legislative implementation. BASTA DAPAT PROVIDED
certain courts of justice. . . . I tell you one thing, if I have
BY LAW AND NAAY DUE PROCESS
the power to fire Judge Montesa I will fire him for being
incompetent, for being an arrogant . . . an ignoramus." It may be true, as suggested, that the public interest
and the proper administration of official functions
In the meanwhile, On October 23, Judge Montesa wrote
would be best served by an enlargement of the causes
the Secretary of Justice requesting that a special
for removal of the mayor, and vice versa. The answer to
prosecutor be designated to handle the case for
this observation is that the shortcoming is for the
criminal libel which he intended to file against the
legislative branch alone to correct by appropriate
mayor.
enactment. Yet, the abridgment of the power to remove
On October 31, the day following the filing of the above or suspend an elective mayor is not without it own
complaint, the President wrote the Mayor requiring the justification, and was, we think, deliberately intended
suspension. Vice-Mayor Bartolome Gatmaitan entered by the lawmakers. The evils resulting from a restricted
upon the duties of the office in place of the suspended authority to suspend or remove must have been
city executive. weighed against the injustices and harms to the
Republic interest which would be likely to emerge from
By section 9 of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila
an unrestrained discretionary power to suspend and
(Republic Act No. 409), "the Mayor shall hold office for
remove.
four years unless sooner removed." But the Chartter
does not contain any provision for this officer's removal In a limited sense the words "for cause" and
or suspension. This silence is in striking contrast to the "misconduct in office" are synonymous. "For cause," like
explicitness with which Republic Act No. 409 stipulates "misconduct in office." has been universally accepted to
for the removal and suspension of board members and mean for reasons which the law and sound public policy
other city officials. Section 14 specifies the causes for recognize as sufficient ground for removal, that is, legal
which members of the Municipal Board may be cuase, and not merely cause which the appointing
suspended and removed, to wit: the same causes for power in the exercise of discretion may deem sufficient.
removal of provincial elective officers, and section 22 It is implied that officers may not be removed at the
expressly authorizes the removal — for cause — of mere will of those vested with the power of removal, or
appointive city officials and employees by the President without any cause.
or the Mayor depending on who made the
The petition must be, and the same is granted, without
appointments. Such is the case here. If the Manila City
costs.
Charter itself is silent regarding the suspension or
removal of the mayor, section 64 (b) of the Revised
Administrative Code does confer upon the President
the power to remove any person from any position of
trust or authority under the Government of the
Philippines for disloyalty to the Republic of the
Philippines.

The intent of the phrase "unless sooner removed" in


section 9 of the Manila Charter has been a topic of

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy