Punzalan v.

Mendoza 140 SCRA 153

Facts:
• Cicero Punsalan and Estelito Mendooza were the vice governor and governor of Pampanga,
respectively. Both belong to the same party, the KBL (Kilusang Bagong Lipunan).
• Mendoza submitted his resignation as governor on May 17, 1984, but it was only effective at the
"President's pleasure"
• On June 30, 1984, the president appointed Mendoza as minister of justice.
• He was simultaneously appointed on July 14, 1984 as Batasan Pambansa member.
• His request to be considered as the governor-on-leave of Pampanga while the President was
considering his resignation was submitted to the Minister of Local Government (MLG) on July
16, 1984. The MLG subsequently gave its approval to the request.
• While his resignation was being considered, Mendoza advised Punsalan to temporarily assume
the governorship. Punsalan later took his oath of office, not as the acting governor but as the
governor, and he subsequently came into power.
• Mendoza resigned from his Batasan membership about 6 months later, and upon the outcome
of the KBL's caucus, he returned to Pampanga to assume his governorship. Punsalan condemned
Mendoza's return, claiming that he had already left office due to his resignation, which had
been impliedly approved by the President.
• Punsalan also stated that when Mendoza was a member of the Batasan, he was forbidden from
running for governor because there is a constitutional prohibition on Batasan members holding
two elective positions; this is an enforceable rule that cannot be waived. Furthermore, Punsalan
claimed that when Mendoza accepted his appointments as Minister of Justice and "appointive"
Batasan Member, he renounced his right and title to the office due to the "incompatibility" of
the positions with the Governor's office.
Issue:
WoN Mendoza can return to be a governor?
Ruling:
Section 10, Article 8 of the 1973 Constitution provides:
“A Member of the Batasang Pambansa shall not hold any other office or employment in the
Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned
or controlled corporations, during his tenure except that of Prime Minister, Member of the
Cabinet or Deputy Minister. Neither shall he, during the term for which he was elected, be
appointed to any civil office which may have been created or emoluments thereof increased while
he was a Member of the Batasang Pambansa.”

In this case, it is quite clear that the said prohibition may not be construed and applied broadly or
expansively. The Constitution itself divided the Batasan membership into three categories: The
elective provincial/city/district representatives; the sectoral representatives who are either
elected or selected as may be provided by law; and those chosen from Members of the Cabinet.
The prohibition in question does not extend to the third group of members, those chosen from
the Cabinet.

Mendoza was elected as the governor but was not elected as a member of the Batasan; he was
appointed. Punsalan’s contention that Mendoza’s resignation was impliedly approved by the
president is not tenable. There is no other constitutional provision which would operate to restrict
or limit the President's choice as to such Cabinet representatives to the Batasan. A local
government executive drafted into the Cabinet because of competence may be given such
assignment, if in the judgement of the President, he can effectively espouse and defend in the
Batasan the Cabinet's "program government." This is consonance with the rule that constitutional
provision should be coordinated, harmonized and construed in order to give effect to all of them,
after reconciling apparent conflict. The president in fact needed more time to consider the validity
of the resignation and upon the KBL’s recommendation, he instead chose to approve Mendoza’s
return to his governorship.