Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cailles v. Bonifacio
Cailles v. Bonifacio
ARSENIO BONIFACIO
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 45937. February 25, 1938.]
JUAN CAILLES, petitioner, vs. ARSENIO BONIFACIO, respondent.
Emiliano Tria Tirona, Jose V. Rosales and Galo Acua for petitioner.
Pedro Magsalin, Ruperto Kapunan, Felipe Buencamino, jr., Francisco
Alfonso, Jose Guevara, Guillermo B. Guevara and Barrera & Reyes for respondent.
The Solicitor-General as amicus curi.
SYLLABUS
1.
ELECTIONS; QUALIFICATIONS FOR VOTING; MEMBERS OF THE
ACTIVE SERVICE AND OF THE RESERVE FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINE ARMY. As
section 431 of the Election Law, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 233,
disqualies from voting only members in the active service of the Philippine
Army and no claim is made that this discrimination is violative of the
Constitution, it follows that the respondent, being in the reserve force, is not
disqualied from voting. The respondent being a qualied elector and the
possession by him of the other qualications prescribed for an elective provincial
oce not being challenged, he is not ineligible to the oce of provincial governor
to which he has been elected.
2.
ID.; ID.; ID. In including members of the armed forces in the
prohibition only those in the active service were contemplated. A contrary
interpretation would lead to the disqualication of all able-bodied male citizens
between the ages of 20 and 50 years - not specically exempted by the National
Defense Act from holding elective public oces or otherwise taking part in any
election except to vote and this result, for obvious reasons, should be avoided.
DECISION
LAUREL, J :
p
Avancea, C. J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz and Concepcion, JJ.,
concur.