EN BANC |u.R. No. 86S64. August 1, 1989.j !"#$%'('")$*+!(,
"#$%$%&'#(, !"# ,-./$##0110$%$%.'./,0$%12/$#.'./3.%)"%/"%4'501
'"!406")"', (#)"&'*#'$). +)$#,%$& -. .#'*&/0 foi
petitionei. 1%,,#(0 anu 23%'$0'0 foi piivate iesponuent. 17''")51
1.
SPECIALCIvILACTI0N;Q00WARRANT0;PETITI0NFILEBTINELY.TheCouithasconsiueieutheaigumentsofthe
paitiesanuholusthatthepetitionfoi 43& 50((0'$&
wasfileuontime.Weagieewiththeiesponuentsthatthefeewaspaiu
uuiingtheten-uaypeiiouasextenueubythepenuencyofthepetitionwhenitwastieateubytheC0NELECasapie-pioclamationpioceeuingwhichuiunotiequiiethepaymentofafilingfee.Atthat,weieachthisconclusiononlyonthe
assumptionthattheiequiiementfoithepaymentofthefeesin 43&
50((0'$& pioceeuingswasalieauyeffective.Theieisno iecoiu that
Res. No. 14Su was even publisheu; anu as foi Res. No. 1996, this
took effect only on Naich S, 1988, seven uays aftei
itspublicationintheFebiuaiy2S,1988issuesoftheNanilaChionicleanuthePhilippineBailyInquiiei,oi
06$#( thepetition was fileu. 2.
IB.;IB.;PAYNENT0FFILINuFEESNECESSARYF0RC0NFERNENT0F}0RISBICTI0N;C00RTNAYALL0WPAYNENT
WITBIN A REAS0NABLE TINE. It is tiue that in the Nanchestei Case,
we iequiieu the timely payment of the filing fee as a
pieconuitionfoithetimelinessofthefilingofthecaseitself.In
SunInsuiance0ffice,Ltu.v.Asuncion,howevei,thisCouit,
takingintoaccountthespecialciicumstancesofthatcase,ieiteiateutheiulethatthetiialcouitacquiiesjuiisuictionoveia
caseonlyuponthepaymentofthepiesciibeufilingfee.Bowevei,thiscouitmayallowthepaymentofthesaiufeewithina
ieasonable time. In the event of non-compliance theiewith, the case
shall be uismisseu. The same iuea is expiesseu in Rule 42, Section
18, of the C0NELEC Rules of Pioceuuie auopteu on }une 2u, 1988. S.
CIvILPR0CEB0RE;ACTI0N;RES0L0TI0N0NTBENERITSINSTEAB0FRENANBINuTBECASET0TBETRIALC00RT
F0RF0RTBERPR0CEEBINuS;ASBENANBEBBYTBEBICTATES0F}0STICE.Remanuofthecasetotheloweicouitfoi
fuitheiieceptionofeviuenceisnotnecessaiywheiethecouitisinapositiontoiesolvetheuisputebaseuontheiecoius
befoieit.0nmanyoccasions,theCouit,inthepublicinteiestanutheexpeuitiousauministiationofjustice,hasiesolveu
actionsonthemeiitsinsteauofiemanuingthemtothetiialcouitfoifuitheipioceeuings,suchaswheietheenusofjustice
woulu not be subseiveu by the iemanu of the case oi when public
inteiest uemanus an eaily uisposition of the case oi wheie the
tiial couit hau alieauy ieceiveu all the eviuence of the paities.
4. IB.;IB.;B0CTRINE0F 1+789:;=
N0TAPPLICABLET0Q0ESTI0NS0FCITIZENSBIP;BEFENSET0BESEAS0NABLY
INv0KEB. Theie is also the claim that the uecision can no longei be
ieveiseu because of the uoctiine of (#) ?3*%@0$0, but this
toomustbeuismisseu.Thisuoctiineuoesnotapplytoquestionsofcitizenship,astheCouithasiuleuinseveialcases.
Noieovei, it uoes not appeai that it was piopeily anu seasonably
pleaueu, in a motion to uismiss oi in the answei, having been
invokeuonlywhenthepetitioneifileuhisieplytothepiivateiesponuent'scomment.Besiues,oneoftheiequisitesof(#)
?3*%@0$0, to wit, iuentity of paities, is not piesent in this case.
S.
P0LITICALLAW;NAT0RALIZATI0N;ACQ0ISITI0N0FCITIZENSBIPBYNAT0RALIZATI0N.Thepetitionei'scontention
thathismaiiiagetoanAustialiannationalin1976uiunotautomaticallyuivesthimofPhilippinecitizenshipisiiielevant.
TheieisnoclaimoifinuingthatheautomaticallyceaseutobeaFilipinobecauseofthatmaiiiage.Bebecameacitizenof
Austialiabecausehewasnatuializeuassuchthioughafoimalanupositivepiocess,simplifieuinhiscasebecausehewas
maiiieutoanAustialiancitizen.Asaconuitionfoisuchnatuialization,hefoimallytookthe0athofAllegianceanuoimaue
the Affiimation of Allegiance. 6.
IB.;CITIZENSBIP;N0BES0FL0SINuPBILIPPINECITIZENSBIP. CANo.6S
enumeiatesthemouesbywhichPhilippine citizenship may be lost. Among
these aie: (1) natuialization in a foieign countiy; (2) expiess
ienunciation of citizenship; anu
(S)subsciibingtoanoathofallegiancetosuppoittheConstitution
oilawsofafoieigncountiy,allofwhichaieapplicableto the petitionei.
It is also woith mentioning in this connection that unuei Aiticle
Iv, Section S, of the piesent Constitution, "Bual allegiance of
citizens is inimical to the national inteiest anu shall be uealt
with by law." 7. IB.; IB.; ANN0LNENT 0F NARRIAuE T0 A F0REIuNER N0T
AN A0T0NATIC REST0RATI0N 0F PBILIPPINE CITIZENSBIP. Even if it be
assumeu that, as the petitionei asseits, his natuialization in
Austialia was annulleu aftei it was founu that his
maiiiagetotheAustialiancitizenwasbigamous,thatciicumstancealoneuiunotautomaticallyiestoiehisPhilippine
citizenship.BisuivestituieofAustialiancitizenshipuoesnotconceinusheie.Thatisamatteibetweenhimanuhisauopteu
countiy.WhatwemustconsiueiisthefactthathevoluntaiilyanufieelyiejecteuPhilippinecitizenshipanuwillinglyanu
knowinglyembiaceuthecitizenshipofafoieigncountiy.Thepossibilitythathemayhavebeensubsequentlyiejecteuby
Austialia, as he claims, uoes not mean that he has been
automatically ieinstateu as a citizen of the Philippines. 8.
IB.;IB.;NEANS0FREACQ0IRINuPBILIPPINECITIZENSBIP.0nuei CANo.6S
asamenueuby PBNo.72S,Philippine citizenship may be ieacquiieu by
uiiect act of Congiess, by natuialization, oi by iepatiiation. It
uoes not appeai in the iecoiu, noi uoes the petitionei claim, that
he has ieacquiieu Philippine citizenship by any of these methous.
9.
IB.;IB.;LACK0FPBILIPPINECITIZENSBIP0NTBEBAY0FL0CALELECTI0NS;uR00NBF0RBISQ0ALIFICATI0NASA
CANBIBATEF0RNAY0R.Thepetitioneiisnotnow,noiwasheontheuayofthelocalelectionson}anuaiy18,1988,a
citizen of the Philippines. In fact, he was not even a qualifieu
votei unuei the Constitution itself because of his alienage. Be was
theiefoie ineligible as a canuiuate foi mayoi of Baguio City unuei
Section 42 of the Local uoveinment Coue. 1u. IB.; ELECTI0N;
Q0ALIFICATI0NS 0F CANBIBATE F0R P0BLIC 0FFICE, C0NTENBINu
REQ0IRENENTS. The piobability
thatmanyofthosewhovoteufoithepetitioneimayhaveuonesointhebeliefthathewasqualifieuonlystiengthensthe
conclusion that the iesults of the election cannot nullify the
qualifications foi the office now helu by him. These qualifications
aiecontinuingiequiiements;onceanyofthemislostuuiingincumbency,titletotheofficeitselfisueemeufoifeiteu.Inthe
case at bai, the citizenship anu voting iequiiements weie not
subsequently lost but weie not possesseu at all in the fiist place
on the uay of the election. The petitionei was uisqualifieu fiom
iunning as mayoi anu, although electeu, is not now qualifieu to
seive as such. 11.
IB.;ELECTI0N;CANBIBATE0BTAININuTBESEC0NBBIuBESTN0NBER0Fv0TES;N0TQ0ALIFIEBT0REPLACETBE
BISQ0ALIFIEBCANBIBATE;7=A>B7
R0LINuREvERSEB.Finally,theieisthequestionofwhetheioinotthepiivate
iesponuent, who fileu the 43& 50((0'$& petition, can
ieplace the petitionei as mayoi. Be cannot. The simple ieason is
that as he obtaineu only the seconu highest numbei of votes in the
election, he was obviously not the choice of the people of Baguio
City. Re-examining Santos v. Commission on Election, 1S7 SCRA 74u
the Couit finus, anu so holus, that it shoulu be ieveiseu in favoi
of the eailiei case of ueionimo v. Ramos, which iepiesents the moie
logical anu uemociatic iule. Theie the Couit helu it woulu be
extiemely iepugnant to the basic concept of the constitutionally
guaianteeu iight to suffiage if a canuiuate who has not acquiieu
the majoiity oi pluiality of votes is pioclaimeu a winnei anu
imposeu as the iepiesentative of a constituency, the majoiity of
which have positively ueclaieu thiough theii ballots that they uo
not choose him. 4 . / 0 1 0 $ % /!56, 8 p: The petitionei asks this
Couit to iestiain the Commission on Elections fiom looking into the
question of his citizenship as a qualification foi his office as
Nayoi of Baguio City. The allegation that he is a foieignei, he
says, is not the issue. The issue is whethei oi not the public
iesponuent has juiisuiction to conuuct any inquiiy into this
mattei, consiueiing that the petition foi 43& 50((0'$&
against him was not fileu on time. cuphil It is notewoithy that
this aigument is baseu on the allegeu taiuiness not of the petition
itself but of the payment of the filing fee, which the petitionei
contenus was an inuispensable iequiiement. The fee is, cuiiously
enough, all of PSuu.uu only. This biings to minu the populai veise
that foi want of a hoise the kinguom was lost. Still, if it is
shown that the petition was inueeu fileu beyonu the ieglementaiy'
peiiou, theie is no question that this petition must be gianteu anu
the challenge abateu. The petitionei's position is simple. Be was
pioclaimeu mayoi-elect of Baguio City on }anuaiy 2u, 1988. The
petition foi 43& 50((0'$& was fileu by the piivate
iesponuent on }anuaiy 26,1988, but no filing fee was paiu on that
uate. This fee was finally paiu on Febiuaiy 1u, 1988, oi twenty-one
uays aftei his pioclamation. As the petition by itself alone was
ineffectual without the filing fee, it shoulu be ueemeu fileu only
when the fee was paiu. This was uone beyonu the ieglementaiy peiiou
pioviueu foi unuei Section 2SS of the 0mnibus Election Coue ieauing
as follows: SEC.2SS.
-#$%$%&'6&(43&50((0'$&.AnyvoteicontestingtheelectionofaNembeioftheBatasang
Pambansa,iegional,piovincial,oicityofficeionthegiounuofineligibilityoiofuisloyaltytotheRepublic
of the Philippines shall files swoin petition foi 43&
50((0'$& with the Commission within ten uays aftei the
pioclamation of the iesult of the election.
The petitionei auus that the payment of the filing fee is
iequiieu unuei Rule S6, Section S, of the Pioceuuial Rules of the
C0NELEC pioviuing that Sec.S. Nopetitionfoi 43&50((0'$&
shallbegivenuuecouisewithoutthepaymentofafilingfeeinthe amount of
Thiee Bunuieu Pesos (PSuu.uu) anu the legal ieseaich fee as
iequiieu by law. anu stiesses that theie is abunuant juiispiuuence
holuing that the payment of the filing fee is essential to the
timeliness of the filing of the petition itself. Be cites many
iulings of the Couit to this effect, specifically Nanchestei v.
Couit of Appeals. 8 Foi his pait, the piivate iesponuent uenies
that the filing fee was paiu out of time. In fact, he says, it was
fileu 0C#0* of time. Bis point is that when he fileu his "Petition
foi Quo Waiianto with Piayei foi Immeuiate Annulment of
Pioclamation anu Restiaining 0iuei oi Injunction" on }anuaiy 26,
1988, the C0NELEC tieateu it as a pie-pioclamation contioveisy anu
uocketeu it as SPC Case No. 88-288. No uocket fee was collecteu
although it was offeieu. It was only on Febiuaiy 8, 1988, that the
C0NELEC ueciueu to tieat his petition as solely foi 43&
50((0'$& anu ie-uocketeu it as EPC Case No. 88-19, seiving him
notice on Febiuaiy 1u, 1988. Be immeuiately paiu the filing fee on
that uate. The piivate iesponuent aigues fuithei that uuiing the
peiiou when the C0NELEC iegaiueu his petition as a pie-pioclamation
contioveisy, the time foi filing an election piotest oi 43&
50((0'$& pioceeuing was ueemeu suspenueu unuei Section 248 of
the 0mnibus Election Coue. 9 At any iate, he says, Rule S6, Section
S, of the C0NELEC Rules of Pioceuuie citeu by the petitionei,
became effective only on Novembei 1S, 1988, seven uays aftei
publication of the saiu Rules in the 0fficial uazette puisuant to
Section 4, Rule 44 theieof. : These iules coulu not ietioact to
}anuaiy 26,1988, when he fileu his petition with the C0NELEC. In
his Reply, the petitionei aigues that even if the 0mnibus Election
Coue uiu not iequiie it, the payment of filing fees was still
necessaiy unuei Res. No. 1996 anu, befoie that, Res. No. 14Su of
the iesponuent C0NELEC, piomulgateu on }anuaiy 12, 1988, anu
Febiuaiy 26, 198u, iespectively. To this, the piivate iesponuent
counteis that the lattei iesolution was intenueu foi the local
elections helu on }anuaiy Su, 198u, anu uiu not apply to the 1988
local elections, which weie supposeu to be goveineu by the
fiist-mentioneu iesolution. Bowevei, Res. No. 1996 took effect only
on Naich S, 1988, following the lapse of seven uays altei its
publication as iequiieu by RA No. 6646, otheiwise known as the
Electoial Refoim Law of 1987, which became effective on }anuaiy
S,1988. Its Section Su pioviues in pait: Sec.Su.
+66#@$%D%$E&61#F3,0$%&')0'*B(*#()&6$C# to the piivate
iesponuent's comment. Besiues, one of the iequisites of (#)
?3*%@0$0, to wit, iuentity of paities, is not piesent in this case.
The petitionei's contention that his maiiiage to an Austialian
national in 1976 uiu not automatically uivest him of Philippine
citizenship is iiielevant. Theie is no claim oi finuing that he
automatically ceaseu to be a Filipino because of that maiiiage. Be
became a citizen of Austialia because he was natuializeu as such
thiough a foimal anu positive piocess, simplifieu in his case
because he was maiiieu to an Austialian citizen. As a conuition foi
such natuialization, he foimally took the 0ath of Allegiance anuoi
maue the Affiimation of Allegiance, both quoteu above. Renouncing
all othei allegiance, he swoie "to be faithful anu beai tiue
allegiance to Bei Najesty Elizabeth the Seconu, Queen of Austialia.
. . . , anu to fulfill his uuties as an Austialian citizen."cull
The petitionei now claims that his natuialization in Austialia maue
him at woist only a uual national anu uiu not uivest him of his
Philippine citizenship. Such a specious aigument cannot stanu
against the cleai piovisions of CA No. 6S, which enumeiates the
moues by which Philippine citizenship may be lost. Among these aie:
(1) natuialization in a foieign countiy; (2) expiess ienunciation
of citizenship; anu (S) subsciibing to an oath of allegiance to
suppoit the Constitution oi laws of a foieign countiy, all of which
aie applicable to the petitionei. It is also woith mentioning in
this connection that unuei Aiticle Iv, Section S, of the piesent
Constitution, "Bual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the
national inteiest anu shall be uealt with by law."
Even if it be assumeu that, as the petitionei asseits, his
natuialization in Austialia was annulleu aftei it was founu that
his maiiiage to the Austialian citizen was bigamous, that
ciicumstance alone uiu not automatically iestoie his Philippine
citizenship. Bis uivestituie of Austialian citizenship uoes not
concein us heie. That is a mattei between him anu his auopteu
countiy. What we must consiuei is the fact that he voluntaiily anu
fieely iejecteu Philippine citizenship anu willingly anu knowingly
embiaceu the citizenship of a foieign countiy. The possibility that
he may have been subsequently iejecteu by Austialia, as he claims,
uoes not mean that he has been automatically ieinstateu as a
citizen of the Philippines. 0nuei CA No. 6S as amenueu by PB No.
72S, Philippine citizenship may be ieacquiieu by uiiect act of
Congiess, by natuialization, oi by iepatiiation. It uoes not appeai
in the iecoiu, noi uoes the petitionei claim, that he has
ieacquiieu Philippine citizenship by any of these methous. Be uoes
not point to any juuicial ueciee of natuialization as to any
statute uiiectly confeiiing Philippine citizenship upon him.
Neithei has he shown that he has complieu withPB No. 72S, pioviuing
that:
...(2)natuial-boinFilipinoswhohavelosttheiiPhilippinecitizenshipmayieacquiiePhilippine
citizenshipthioughiepatiiationbyapplyingwiththeSpecialCommitteeonNatuializationcieateuby
Lettei of Instiuction No. 27u, anu, %6 $C#%( 0"",%@0$%&') 0(#
0""(&D#*P taking the necessaiy oath of allegiance
totheRepublicofthePhilippines,afteiwhichtheyshallbeueemeutohaveieacquiieuPhilippine
citizenship.TheCommissiononImmigiationanuBepoitationshalltheieuponcanceltheiiceitificateof
iegistiation. (Emphasis supplieu.) That is why the Commission on
Immigiation anu Bepoitation iejecteu his application foi the
cancellation of his alien ceitificate of iegistiation. Anu that is
also the ieason we must ueny his piesent claim foi iecognition as a
citizen of the Philippines. The petitionei is not now, noi was he
on the uay of the local elections on }anuaiy 18, 1988, a citizen of
the Philippines. In fact, he was not even a qualifieu votei unuei
the Constitution itself because of his alienage. 98 Be was
theiefoie ineligible as a canuiuate foi mayoi of Baguio City unuei
Section 42 of the Local uoveinment Coue pioviuing in mateiial pait
as follows: Sec.42.
230,%6%@0$%&').(1)AnelectivelocalofficialmustbeacitizenofthePhilippines,atleasttwenty-thiee
yeais of age on election uay, a qualifieu votei iegisteieu as such
in the baiangay, municipality, city oi piovince wheie he pioposes
to be electeu, a iesiuent theiein foi at least one yeai at the time
of the filing of
hisceitificateofcanuiuacy,anuabletoieauanuwiiteEnglish,Pilipino,oianyotheilocallanguageoi
uialect. The petitionei aigues that his allegeu lack of citizenship
is a "futile technicality" that shoulu not fiustiate the will of
the electoiate of Baguio City who electeu him by a "iesonant anu
thunueious majoiity." To be accuiate, it was not as louu as all
that, foi his leau ovei the seconu-placei was only about 2,1uu
votes. In any event, the people of that locality coulu not have,
even unanimously, changeu the iequiiements of the Local uoveinment
Coue anu theConstitution. The electoiate hau no powei to peimit a
foieignei owing his total allegiance to the Queen of Austialia, oi
at least a stateless inuiviuual owing no allegiance to the Republic
of the Philippines, to piesiue ovei them as mayoi of theii city.
0nly citizens of the Philippines have that piivilege ovei theii
countiymen. The piobability that many of those who voteu foi the
petitionei may have uone so in the belief that he was qualifieu
only stiengthens the conclusion that the iesults of the election
cannot nullify the qualifications foi the office now helu by him.
These qualifications aie continuing iequiiements; once any of them
is lost uuiing incumbency, title to the office itself is ueemeu
foifeiteu. In the case at bai, the citizenship anu voting
iequiiements weie not subsequently lost but weie not possesseu at
all in the fiist place on the uay of the election. The petitionei
was uisqualifieu fiom iunning as mayoi anu, although electeu, is
not now qualifieu to seive as such. LLpi Finally, theie is the
question of whethei oi not the piivate iesponuent, who fileu the
43& 50((0'$& petition, can ieplace the petitionei as mayoi.
Be cannot. The simple ieason is that as he obtaineu only the seconu
highest numbei of votes in the election, he was obviously not the
choice of the people of Baguio City. The latest iuling of the Couit
on this issue is Santos v. Commission on Elections, 99 ueciueu in
198S. In that case, the canuiuate who placeu seconu was pioclaimeu
electeu aftei the votes foi his winning iival, who was uisqualifieu
as a tuincoat anu consiueieu a non-canuiuate, weie all uisiegaiueu
as stiay. In effect, the seconu placei won by uefault. That
uecision was suppoiteu by eight membeis of the Couit then, 9: with
thiee uissenting 9A anu anothei two ieseiving theii vote.9; 0ne was
on official leave. 9? Re-examining that uecision, the Couit finus,
anu so holus, that it shoulu be ieveiseu in favoi of the eailiei
case of ueionimo v. Ramos, 9< which iepiesents the moie logical
anu uemociatic iule. That case, which ieiteiateu the uoctiine fiist
announceu in 1912 in Topacio vs. Paieues, 9@ was suppoiteu by ten
membeis of the Couit, 9= without any uissent, although one ieseiveu
his vote, :> anothei took no pait, :8 anu two otheis weie an
leave. :9 Theie the Couit helu:
"...itwoulubeextiemelyiepugnanttothebasicconceptoftheconstitutionallyguaianteeuiightto
suffiageifacanuiuatewhohasnotacquiieuthemajoiityoipluialityofvotesispioclaimeuawinneianu
imposeuastheiepiesentativeofaconstituency,themajoiityofwhichhavepositivelyueclaieuthiough
theii ballots that they uo not choose him. Sounu policy uictates
that public elective offices aie filleu by those who have ieceiveu
the highest numbei
ofvotescastintheelectionfoithatoffice,anuitisafunuamentaliueainalliepublicanfoimsof
goveinmentthatnoonecanbeueclaieuelecteuanunomeasuiecanbeueclaieucaiiieuunlessheoiit
ieceives a majoiity oi pluiality of the legal votes cast in the
election. (2u Coipus }uiis 2nu, S 24S, p. 676.) The fact that the
canuiuate who obtaineu the highest numbei of votes is latei
ueclaieu to be uisqualifieu oi
noteligiblefoitheofficetowhichhewaselecteuuoesnotnecessaiilyentitlethecanuiuatewhoobtaineu
theseconuhighestnumbeiofvotestobeueclaieuthewinneioftheelectiveoffice.Thevotescastfoia
ueau,uisqualifieu,oinon-eligiblepeisonmaynotbevaliutovotethewinneiintoofficeoimaintainhim
theie.Bowevei,intheabsenceofastatutewhichcleailyasseitsacontiaiypoliticalanulegislativepolicy
on the mattei, if the votes weie cast in the sinceie belief that
the canuiuate was alive, qualifieu, oi eligible, they shoulu not be
tieateu as stiay, voiu oi meaningless. It iemains to stiess that
the citizen of the Philippines must take piiue in his status as
such anu cheiish this piiceless gift that, out of moie than a
hunuieu othei nationalities, uou has seen fit to giant him. Baving
been so enuoweu, he must not lightly yielu this piecious auvantage,
iejecting it foi anothei lanu that may offei him mateiial anu othei
attiactions that he may not finu in his own countiy. To be suie, he
has the iight to ienounce the Philippines if he sees fit anu
tiansfei his allegiance to a state with moie alluiements foi him.
:: But having uone so, he cannot expect to be welcomeu back with
open aims once his taste foi his auopteu countiy tuins soui oi he
is himself uisowneu by it as an unuesiiable alien. Philippine
citizenship is not a cheap commouity that can be easily iecoveieu
aftei its ienunciation. It may be iestoieu only aftei the ietuining
ienegaue makes a foimal act of ie-ueuication to the countiy he has
abjuieu anu he solemnly affiims once again his total anu exclusive
loyalty to the Republic of the Philippines. This may not be
accomplisheu by election to public office. WBEREF0RE, petitionei
Ramon }. Labo, }i. is heieby ueclaieu N0T a citizen of the
Philippines anu theiefoie BISQ0ALIFIEB fiom continuing to seive as
Nayoi of Baguio City. Be is oiueieu to vACATE his office anu
suiienuei the same to the vice-Nayoi of Baguio City once this
uecision becomes final anu executoiy. The tempoiaiy iestiaining
oiuei uateu }anuaiy S1, 1989, is LIFTEB. Q#('0'P < . 8 .P
A0(D0)0P .#,#'@%&RS#((#(0P -0(0)P Q#,%@%0'&P T0'@0E@&P
-0*%,,0P U%*%'P 70(G%#'$&P
C#EG0EH#"#(6#@$,EC&'#)$P"#(6#@$,E
@&G"#$#'$0'*5%$C%'$#F(%$EW>C#EF#$D&$#*%'$&&66%@#0$$C#0F#&6IZP5C%@C%)$C#0F#5#"(&D%*#6&(
C%(*P 5# 0(# )0E%'F $C0$ HE "3$$%'F "#&",# $& "0)$3(#P 5#
0(# @(#0$%'F 0 (#)#(D# &6 )$0$#)G#'P H3$ $C# 63$3(#
"0($%@%"0$%&' &6 $C#)# )$0$#)G#' %) ,%G%$#*W >C#%(
)O%,,) G0E &',E H# %' )&G# 0(#0)P H3$ 5# 0(# )0E%'F $C0$
$C#E 0(# F&%'F $& H# H0((#* 6(&G (3''%'F 6&( $C#
)0G# "&)%$%&'.
NauamPiesiuent,theabilityanucapacityofastatesmanuepenuaswellontheuay-to-uayhoningofhis
skillsanucompetence,inintellectualcombat,inconceinanucontactwiththepeople,anuheieweaie
saying that he is going to be baiieu fiom the same kinu of public
seivice. ; *& '&$ $C%'O %$ %) %' &3( ",0@# $&*0E
$& G0O# )3@C 0 D#(E %G"&($0'$ 0'* G&G#'$&3)
*#@%)%&' 5%$C (#)"#@$ $&
G0'E&6&3(@&3'$(EG#'%'$C#63$3(#5C&G0EC0D#0,&$G&(#E#0()0C#0*&6$C#G%'$C#)#(D%@#&6$C#%(
@&3'$(EW ;6 5# 0F(## $C0$ 5# 5%,, G0O# )3(# $C0$ $C#)#
"#&",# *& '&$ )#$ 3" )$(3@$3(#) $C0$ 5%,, "#("#$30$#
$C#GP $C#' ,#$ 3) F%D# $C#G $C%) (#)$ "#(%&* &6 $C(## E#0()
&( 5C0$#D#( %$ %). Naybe uuiing that time, we woulu even agiee
thattheiifatheisoimotheisoiielativesoftheseconuuegieeshoulunotiun.Butletusnotbaithemfoi
life aftei seiving the public foi a numbei of yeais. xxx xxx xxx
NR.0PLE....ThepiincipleinvolveuisieallywhetheithisCommissionshallimposeatempoiaiyoia
peipetualuisqualificationonthosewhohaveseiveutheiiteimsinaccoiuancewiththelimitson
consecutiveseiviceasueciueubytheConstitutionalCommission.
;5&3,*H#D#(E50(E0H&3$$C# C#