DIGEST BY MNCFP

G.R. No. L-33628 December 29, 1987

BIENVENIDO A. EBARLE, SANTIAGO EISMA, MIRUFO CELERIAN, JOSE

SAYSON, CESAR TABILIRAN, and MAXIMO ADLAWAN, petitioners,
vs.
HON. JUDGE MELQUIADES B. SUCALDITO, RUFINO LABANG, MENELEO
MESINA, ARTURO GUILLERMO, IN THEIR RESPECTIVE CAPACITIES AS
JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR, CITY
FISCAL OF PAGADIAN CITY AND STATE PROSECUTOR, and ANTI-GRAFT
LEAGUE OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., respondents.

SARMIENTO, J. (Ponente)

“One Title One Subject Rule”

Purpose of One Title One Subject Rule:

 To prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation;

 To prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature; and
 To fairly apprise the people, through such publications of legislative
proceedings as is usually made, of the subjects of legislation that are being
considered, in order that they may have opportunity of being heard thereon
by petition or otherwise, if they shall so desire.

FACTS:

 Petitioner Bienvenido Ebarle was then provincial Governor of Zamboanga and

a candidate for reelection in the 1971 local election, seeks injunctive relief in
two separate petitions to enjoin further proceedings of his criminal cases.
 Anti-Graft League of the Philippines filed different complaints with the City
Fiscal against the petitioner for violations of provisions of the Anti-Graft Law
(RA 3019) as well as Articles 171, 182, 183, 213 and 318 of the Revised
Penal Code.
 Petitioner filed for prohibition and certiorari in the Court of First Instance of
Zamboanga Del Sur with preliminary injunction.
 The respondent issued a restraining order and the Anti-Graft League moved
to have the same lifted and the case itself dismissed.
 In the petition filed before the SC, petitioner claims that the respondents City
Fiscal and the Anti-Graft League failed to comply with the provisions of EO
264 “Outlining the procedure by which complainants charging
government officials and employees with COMMISSION OF
IRREGULARITIES should be guided”.
  Petitioner assails the standing of respondent Anti-Graft League to commence
the series of prosecutions also he contends that the City Fiscal committed
grave abuse of discretion and claims that the prosecutions were political
motivated, initiated by his rivals.

ISSUE:

 Whether or not EO 264 is applicable in the case at bar.

RULING/HELD:

 NO. EO 264 has exclusive application to administrative not criminal

complaints. The title speaks of “Commission of Irregularities”. There is no
mention, not even by implication of criminal offenses, that is to say “Crimes”.
Even though crimes amount to irregularities, the aforesaid executive order
could have very well preferred to the more specific term, had intended to
make itself applicable thereto.
 It is plain from the wording of EO 264 that has exclusive application to
administrative, not criminal complaints.

DECISION:

 WHEREFORE, the petitions are DISMISSED. The temporary restraining orders

are LIFTED and SET ASIDE. Costs against the petitioners.