"JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT OF LAOAG, ILOCOS NORTE
"P. I.
"April 28, 1923
"The Hon. LUIS TORRES
"Undersecretary of Justice of
the Philippine Islands
"SIR: The undersigned, Julio Agcaoili, justice of the peace of Laoag, capital of the Province of Ilocos Norte, has the honor to state that on April 26, 1923, he received, through the clerk of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, your communication of April 9, 1923, informing the undersigned that, having attained the age of 65 years, he ceased to be justice of the peace of Laoag under the provision of section 1 of Act No. 3107, amending section 203 of the Administrative Code, which is Act No. 2711 enacted in the year 1919, and which section 1 of said Act No. 3107 provides in part that the justices of the peace and auxiliary justices of the peace shall be appointed to serve until they attain the age of 65 years.
"With all due respect, the undersigned has the honor to state that he believes that the aforecited part of the provision of section 1 of Act No. 3107 does not include those justices of the peace who had already been appointed justices of the peace, like the undersigned, before the passage and enactment of said Act No. 3107 and the amended Administrative Code, nor can this be the intention of the legislator, for if it were so, it should have so stated in order that the justices of the peace already appointed, who were discharging the functions of the office and who had attained the age of 65 years when said Act was passed and enacted, should cease from their office.
"The undersigned was appointed justice of the peace of Laoag on March 25, 1916, and therefore under Act No. 2041, enacted February 3, 1911. Section 1 of this Act, which amended section 67 of Act No. 136, was not amended by any subsequent Act and provides: ’All justices of the peace and auxiliary justices shall hold office during good behavior and those now in office who have not the qualifications required by this Act shall continue in office until their successors are appointed.’
"Has section 203 of the Administrative Code amended or repealed section 1 of Act No. 2041? The undersigned believes that it has not, judging from the context of both laws, nor was it repealed because if this were the case the Governor-General would have renewed the appointments of all the justices of the peace and auxiliary justices of the peace under said section 203 of the Administrative Code.
"The undersigned was appointed justice of the peace of Laoag on March 25, 1916, under the said Act No. 2041 and continues in the discharge of the duties of the office up to the present time, without the Governor-General having renewed his appointment under said section 203 of the Administrative Code.
"Then Act No. 3107 came, section 1 of which amends section 203 of the Administrative Code.
"Has this amendment retroactive effect 7 In the first place the legislature could not give or have given this Act such a character, and if it had intended to do so, it would have so stated; and in the second place, because not only is such express declaration lacking in the law but Act No. 3107 very clearly provides that the justices of the peace and auxiliary justices of the peace to be appointed shall hold office until they attain the age of 65 years.
"Very respectfully,
(Sgd.) ’’JULIO AGCAOILI
"Justice of the Peace of Laoag, Ilocos Norte"
A further protest against the said order of the Secretary of Justice was made by Julio Agcaoili on the 7th day of July, 1923, and is couched in the following language:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"I, Julio Agcaoili, Justice of the Peace of the Municipality of Laoag, Ilocos Norte, do hereby state that on this day, July 7, 1923, Mr. Buenaventura Ocampo, Provincial Fiscal of Ilocos Norte, appeared at my office and thereupon showed me the telegram of Undersecretary of Justice Torres, addressed to said provincial fiscal. After reading said telegram I asked the provincial fiscal to furnish me a copy thereof and he furnished me a copy of the telegram.
"Said telegram of the Undersecretary of Justice in substance orders the provincial fiscal to cause me to deliver the office and all the documents and records thereof to the auxiliary justice of the peace, because according, to said Undersecretary of Justice I must cease from the office under Act No. 3107, and that I be prosecuted for violation of article 370 of the Penal Code should I fail to comply with the telegram sent to me on the 2d instant by the same Undersecretary of Justice.
"I do also state that I have never had any malicious intention to disobey the orders of the Undersecretary of Justice, Hon. Torres, one given by telegram and the other by letter. I only desired to study the spirit of the law and this is the reason why I did not leave the office until the present time, because I was and am of the opinion that I must not cease from the office of the justice of the peace under the provision of Act No. 2041 under which I was appointed justice of the peace of the capital, and which Act was not repealed by any subsequent one, nor by Act No. 3107, which Act No. 2041 provides that the justices of the peace to be appointed under it, should hold office during good behavior. This Act does not say anything as to limitation of age, and therefore I believe myself entitled to continue in, and retain the office.
"I do also state that lest the Undersecretary of Justice should think that I do not duly respect the constituted authorities, I now deliver under protest the office of the justice of the peace of Laoag and all its documents and records, as well as the furniture therein contained, to Mr. Alberto Suguitan, auxiliary justice of the peace, in the presence of the provincial fiscal, in compliance with the telegram of the Undersecretary of Justice, Hon. Torres, received by me through the provincial fiscal of Ilocos Norte. I make under protest the delivery of the office and its documents and records because I think, as I have stated, that I must not cease from the office of justice of the peace, and in order that my right may be defined, I shall institute an action in the proper court of justice to decide the case.
(Sgd.) "JULIO AGCAOILI
"I received the things of the office.
(Sgd.) "ALBERTO SUGUITAN
"In the presence of:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(Sgd.) "BUENAV. OCAMPO
"Provincial Fiscal"
Julio Agcaoili patiently waited in vain for a resolution by the Secretary of Justice of the protest which he presented on the 28th day of April and on the 7th day of July, 1923; and not having received any reply to his protest, filed a petition for a writ of quo warranto in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Ilocos Norte on the 23d day of April, 1925, which petition was amended by the filing of another petition in the same court on the 8th day of September, 1925.
A careful reading of the two protests (April 28, 1923, and July 7, 1923) shows that they contain arguments in support thereof which, in all equity and justice, demanded a reply, but no reply was forthcoming. The arguments in support of his protests find a counterpart and are fully supported in the decision of this court in the case of Segovia v. Noel, of March 4, 1925 (47 Phil., 543), wherein the Supreme Court held that Act No. 3107 could not be applied to and enforced against justices of the peace who had been appointed prior to the 17th day of March, 1923. Had the Secretary of Justice answered said protest, the great injustice which has been done to Julio Agcaoili perhaps might have been avoided.
(e) That Julio Agcaoili being threatened with a criminal prosecution unless he turned his office over to the auxiliary justice of the peace, and to avoid scandal, disgrace and humiliation which might come to him by virtue of said prosecution, on the 7th day of July, 1923, still protesting, delivered the possession of his office, as justice of the peace, to the auxiliary justice of the peace of the municipality of Laoag. It is a matter of common knowledge that Julio Agcaoili had been entrusted with the highest office in his province which the people could confer upon him.
The petitions presented by Julio Agcaoili in the Court of First Instance, the first on the 23d day of July, 1925, and the second on the 8th day of September, 1925. contain, in resume, the foregoing facts. To the petition the respondent Alberto Suguitan answered and set up the defense of prescription. Upon the issue thus presented, the Honorable Fermin Mariano, judge, sustained the defense of prescription and denied the petition for the extraordinary legal remedy of quo warranto. From that judgment Julio Agcaoili appealed, and now contends in a vigorous and logical argument that his remedy has not prescribed.
Considering the first question suggested above, attention is again called to one of the provisions of section 3 of the Jones Law (Act of Congress, August 29, 1916, vol. 12, Public Laws of the Philippine Islands). The "Jones Law" is the constitution of the Philippine Islands providing a government therefor. Subparagraph 16 of section 3 of the Jones Law provides "That no bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject, and that subject shall be expressed in the title of the bill." Under said provision, may the legislature adopt a law which contains important provisions to which no reference is made in the title of the Act? The effect of violating said provision of the Jones Law has been brought before the courts many times. The effect of violating said provision has already been passed upon by this court. (Central Capiz v. Ramirez, 40 Phil., 883, 889.)
In the case of Central Capiz v. Ramirez, supra, it was decided that said provision of the Jones Law was mandatory and not directory and its violation was fatal to any provision of the law to which no reference was made in the title. In the decision of this court in the case of Central Capiz v. Ramirez, the decisions of the courts of many of the states of the Union were followed. Many of the constitutions of the states of the Union contain similar provision to that quoted above from the Jones Law. Among such states may be mentioned Alabama, California, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
Mr. Justice Sutherland, now an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, in his valuable work on "Statutory Construction," vol. 1, 2nd ed.) at section 111, states the reason and the purpose of such a constitutional provision. He says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"In the construction and application of this constitutional restriction the courts have kept steadily in view the correction of the mischief against which it was aimed. The object is to prevent the practice, which was common in all legislative bodies where no such restriction existed, of embracing in the same bill incongruous matters having no relation to each other, or to the subject specified in the title, by which measures were often adopted without attracting attention. Such distinct subjects represented diverse interests, and were combined in order to unite the members of the legislature who favor either in support of all. These combinations were corruptive of the legislature and dangerous to the state. Such omnibus bills sometimes included more than a hundred sections on as many different subjects, with a title appropriate to the first section, ’and for other purposes.’
"The failure to indicate in the title of the bill the object intended to be accomplished by the legislation often resulted in members voting ignorantly for measures which they would not knowingly have approved. And not only were legislators thus misled, but the public also; so that legislative provisions were stealthily pushed through in the closing hours of a session, which, having no merit to commend them, would have been made odious by popular discussion and remonstrance if their pendency had been seasonably announced. The constitutional clause under discussion is intended to correct these evils; to prevent such corrupting aggregations of incongruous measures, by confining each act to one subject or object; to prevent surprise and inadvertence by requiring that subject or object to be expressed in the title."cralaw virtua1aw library
The Supreme Court of the State of Alabama, in discussing the effect of the violation of a similar provision of the constitution of that state in the cases of Walker v. State (49 Ala., 329) and Lindsay v. United States Savings & Loan Association (120 Ala., 156), had the following to say, quoting with approval, what Mr. Justice Cooley in his Constitutional Limitations, at page 143, had said upon that question:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The object sought to be accomplished, and the mischief proposed to be remedied by this provision, are well known. . . . Legislative assemblies for the dispatch of business often pass bills by their titles only, without requiring them to be read. A specious title sometimes covered a legislation which, if its real character had been disclosed, would not have commanded assent. To prevent surprise and fraud on the legislature is one of the purposes this provision was intended to accomplish. Before the adoption of this provision, the title of a statute was often no indication of its subject or contents. . . .
"An evil this constitutional requirement was intended to correct was the blending in one and the same statute of such things as were diverse in their nature, and were connected only to combine in favor of all the advocates of each, thus often securing the passage of several measures, no one of which could have succeeded on its own merits. Mr. Cooley thus sums up his review of the authorities, defining the objects of this provision: ’It may, therefore, be assumed as settled, that the purpose of these provisions was: First, to prevent hodge-podge, or log-rolling legislation; second, to prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature, by means of provisions in bills of which the titles gave no information, and which might therefore be overlooked and carelessly and unintentionally adopted; and, third, to fairly apprise the people, through such publication 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.’" (49 Ala., 330, 331.)
"The purposes of the constitutional requirement must be borne steadily in mind, when it becomes necessary to determine whether there has been legislative observance of it. The exposition of these purposes by Judge Cooley is accepted, we believe, in all the states in which a like limitation prevails. . . ." (120 Ala., 172.)
In the case of People v. Parks (58 Cal., 624) the Supreme Court of the State of California had occasion to discuss the question now before us and said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"At the least, then, two heterogeneous subjects are embraced in the act, one of which is not expressed in the title, and they cannot be segregated. The title does not express the objects of legislation embodied in the provisions of the act. It is, therefore, narrower than the body of the act, and fails to impart that notice of the measures enacted, which the Constitution requires. To prohibit such legislation was the sole end and aim of the constitutional requirement.’The practice,’ says the Supreme Court of Missouri, ’of comprising in one bill subjects of a diverse and antagonistic nature, in order to combine in its support members who were in favor of particular measures, but neither of which could command the requisite majority on its own merits, was found to be not a corruptive influence in the Legislature itself, but destructive of the best interests of the State. But this was not more detrimental than that other pernicious practice, by which, through dexterous and unscrupulous management, designing men inserted clauses in the bodies of bills, of the true meaning of which the titles gave no indication, and by skillful maneuvering urged them on to their passage. These things led to fraud and injury, and it was found necessary to apply a corrective in the shape of a constitutional provision.’ (City of St. Louis v. Tiefel, 42 Mo., 590.) This provision has been framed in the constitutions of many of the States of the Union; and courts, whenever it has come before them, have liberally construed it as the will of the people in the interests of honest legislation."cralaw virtua1aw library
Decisions to the same effect are found in the following cases: City of St. Louis v. Tiefel (42 Mo., 578); Cannon v. Mathes (8 Heisk. [Tenn. ] , 504); Ryerson v. Utley (16 Mich., 269); Board of Public Education for the City of Americus Its. Barlow (49 Ga., 232); Spier v. Baker (120 Cal., 370).
Mr. Justice Sutherland, in a further discussion of the question, at section 112 of his work on Statutory Construction, said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The efficiency of this constitutional remedy to cure the evil and mischief which has been pointed out depends on judicial enforcement; on this constitutional injunction being regarded as mandatory, and compliance with it essential to the validity of legislation. The mischief existed notwithstanding the sworn official obligation of legislators; it might be expected to continue notwithstanding that the obligation is formulated and emphasized in this constitutional injunction, if it be construed as addressed exclusively to them, and only directory. It would, in a general sense, be a dangerous doctrine to announce that any of the provisions of the constitution may be obeyed or disregarded at the mere will or pleasure of the legislature, unless it is clear beyond all question that such was the intention of the framers of that instrument. It would seem to be a lowering of the proper dignity of the fundamental law to say that it descends to prescribing rules of order in unessential matters which may be followed or disregarded at pleasure. The fact is this: That whatever constitutional provision can be looked upon as directory merely is very likely to be treated by the legislature as if it was devoid of moral obligation, and to be therefore habitually disregarded."cralaw virtua1aw library
In the case of Cannon v. Mathes, supra, Mr. Chief Justice Nicholson, in discussing the effect of the violation of a constitutional provision like the one before us, said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
". . . This is a direct, positive, and imperative limitation upon the power of the Legislature. It matters not that a bill has passed through three readings in each house, on three different days, and has received the approval of the Governor; still it is not a law of the State if it embraces more than one subject. . ."cralaw virtua1aw library
The Supreme Court of Alabama, in the case of Walker v. State, supra, said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"It is the settled law of this court, founded on reasoning which seems to us unanswerable, that this provision of the Constitution is not a mere rule of legislative procedure, directory to the general assembly, but that it is mandatory, and it is the duty of courts to declare void any statute not conforming to it. . ."cralaw virtua1aw library
Mr. Justice Cooley in his valuable work on Constitutional Limitations (pp. 179, 180) states that our courts have held, without exception, that such constitutional provision is mandatory.
Considering that the great weight of authority is to the effect that the provision like the one above quoted from the Jones Law is mandatory; and considering that there is nothing in the title of Act No. 3107 which indicates in the slightest degree that said Act contains a provision "that justices and auxiliary justices of the peace shall be appointed to serve until they have reached the age of sixty-five years," we are forced to the conclusion that, that provision is illegal, void and contrary to the mandatory provision of the Jones Law, and that said law (3107) cannot be applied to justices and auxiliary justices of the peace who were appointed prior to the 17th day of March, 1923; and that when Julio Agcaoili was forcibly, by means of threats and intimidation, ordered to leave his office as justice of the peace, he was forced to do so illegally, without just cause, and should therefore be restored to his position as justice of the peace of the municipality of Laoag, without delay.
With reference to the second question above suggested, in re prescription or limitation of the action, it may be said that originally there was no limitation or prescription of action in an action for quo warranto, neither could there be, for the reason that it was an action by the Government and prescription could not be plead as a defense to an action by the Government. The ancient writ of quo warranto was a high prerogative writ in the nature of a writ of right by the King against any one who usurped or claimed any office, franchise or liberty of the crown, to inquire by what authority the usurper supported his claim, in order to determine the right. Even at the present time in many of the civilized countries of the world the action is still regarded as a prerogative writ and no limitation or prescription is permitted to bar the action. As a general principle it may be stated that ordinary statutes of limitation, civil or penal, have no application to quo warranto proceeding brought to enforce a public right. (McPhail v. People ex rel. Lambert, 160 Ill., 77; 52 Am. St. Rep., 306; People ex rel. Moloney v. Pullman’s Palace Car Co., 175 Ill., 125; 64 L. R. A., 366.)
In all public matters a writ of quo warranto is a writ of right at the suit of the state, and issues as a matter of course upon demand of the proper officer (State ex rel . Washington County v. Stone, 25 Mo., 555; Commonwealth v. Allen, 128 Mass., 308), and the court has no authority to withhold leave to file a petition therefor.
If the statutes of limitation or prescription cannot run against the state, it is difficult to understand how in the same action they may be used as a defense against a public officer who has been forcibly, with threats and intimidation, ousted from a public office by the Government itself as was done in the present case. The principle that acts of limitation do not bind the King (the State) or the people, applies to proceeding by quo warranto, the rule being that the representative of the state may file an information on behalf of the people at any time; and the lapse of time constitutes no bar to the proceeding, in conformity with the maxim Nullum tempus occurrit regi. (Catlett v. People ex rel. State’s Attorney, 151 Ill., 16.) For the state to claim that the statutes of limitation do not apply to it and yet insist that it may plead such statutes to bar the action of quo warranto brought by one of its public officials whom it itself has ousted from office, appears to us to be unjust, unfair, unreasonable, and not within the contemplation of sound jurisprudence.
So much for the general rule concerning limitation of action in quo warranto proceedings. Is there a statute in the Philippine Islands of limitation, limiting the action of a public official of the Government who has been duly appointed and qualified, and who has, by force and intimidation, been ousted from such office, to defeat his action of quo warranto?
On the 7th day of August, 1901, the United States Philippine Commission adopted Act No. 190 which had been considered privately and publicly for several months theretofore. Its provisions were published throughout the Philippine Islands long prior to its adoption. While said Act was adopted on the 7th day of August, 1901, it did not take effect, even though it had been published, until the 1st day of October, 1901. (Act No. 212.) An examination of said Act (190) shows that it provides remedies for the usurpation of office or franchise, etc. (secs. 197-216). Said Act No. 190 was published in both English and Spanish Section 216, in English, provided that "Nothing herein contained shall authorize an action against a corporation for forfeiture of charter, unless the same be commenced within five years after the act complained of was done or committed; nor shall an action be brought against an officer to be ousted from his office unless within one year after the cause of such ouster, or the right to hold the office, arose." The same section (216), as published in Spanish, reads as follows: "Ninguna de estas disposiciones facultara la iniciacion de un juicio contra una corporacion por la perdida de sus derechos d.e concesion, a menos que el juicio se lleve a efecto dentro de los cinco años siguientes a la comision u omision del hecho objeto de la accion. Tampoco se podra iniciar un juicio contra la persona que ejerza un cargo en una corporacion para desposeerla, a menos que se lleve a efecto dentro del año seguiente a la fecha de la comision del hecho que dio motivo a su privacion, o que se puso en duda su derecho para ocupar el cargo."cralaw virtua1aw library
Said section (216), as published in Spanish and translated into English, reads as follows: "Nothing herein contained shall authorize an action against a corporation for forfeiture of its corporate rights, unless the same be commenced within five years after the commission or omission complained of took place. Neither may an action be brought against an officer to oust him from office, unless the same is commenced within one year after the commission of the act which caused the deprivation thereof, or after the right to hold the office arose."cralaw virtua1aw library
Said section 216, as above quoted in Spanish, was published in vol. 1 of the Public Laws of the Philippine Islands and distributed to the public officers throughout the Philippine Islands. It is a fact of general information that even now, in 1926, the Spanish copy of the Public Laws are consulted by the people in remote parts of the Philippine Islands for the purpose of knowing what the law is. It is not strange, therefore, that the appellant did not believe that said section 216 applied to public officers; that it only applied to officers of corporations as it appeared in the Spanish translation. Is it just and fair and reasonable for the Government of the Philippine Islands to oust one of its officers from an office to which he had been legally appointed, by force and intimidation and without just cause, and then to defeat his action in quo warranto by invoking the provisions of a public statute, different from the one which the Government itself had furnished its public officers? The appellant is familiar with the Spanish but not with the English language. He naturally relied upon the Spanish version of the law for his information as to what the law really was. Not only had the appellant the right to rely upon the provisions of section 216 as they appeared in Spanish in the Public Laws of the Philippine Islands, but the reading of the three or four sections immediately preceding section 216 will show that they refer specifically to corporations only. The appellant, therefore, was justified in believing that said section 216 as it appeared in Spanish was correct. At least the Government should give him credit with having acted in good faith.
But, even granting that the appellant is bound by the provisions of section 216 as it appears in English, is the same applicable to the appellant? By reference to said section above quoted in English, it will be seen that after the word "committed" there is a semicolon. Does that which follows the semicolon have reference to the same subject matter which precedes it? A semicolon is a mark of grammatical punctuation, in the English language, to indicate a separation in the relation of the thought, a degree greater than that expressed by a comma, and what follows the semicolon must have relation to the same matter which precedes it. What follows a semicolon always has relation to the same subject matter of that which precedes it. A semicolon is not used for the purpose of introducing a new idea. A semicolon is used for the purpose of continuing the expression of a thought, a degree greater than that expressed by a mere comma. It is never used for the purpose of introducing a new idea. The comma and semicolon are both used for the same purpose, namely, to divide sentences and parts of sentences, the only difference being that the semicolon makes the division a little more pronounced than the comma. The punctuation used in a law may always be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining the true meaning of a doubtful statute. It follows therefore that, inasmuch as all of the provisions of said section 216 which precede the semicolon refer to corporations only, that which follows the semicolon has reference to the same subject matter, or to officers of a corporation.
But even granting, for the sake of the argument, that the word "officer" as used in the latter part of said section applies to public officers who have been ousted from their position, and not only to officers of corporations, then we have the question presented: Had the one year mentioned in said section expired on the 23d day of April, 1925, when the first complaint was filed in the present action? When did the year begin to run if said section is applicable to the appellant?
It will be remembered that on the 7th day of July, 1923, the appellant was ousted from his office as justice of the peace of the municipality of Laoag. Not only did he surrender his office on that date under protest, but also on the 28th day of April, 1923, when he was notified by the Secretary of Justice that he cease to be a justice of the peace of his municipality, he then protested and gave a long and lucid argument in support of his protest. In all justice to him, did he not have a right, without any legal action to protect his right, to await the solution of his protest of the 28th day of April, 1923? He had a right to believe that the grounds upon which his protest was based would be convincing to the Secretary of Justice and that he would not be removed. Until this very hour the record contains no reply from the Secretary of Justice and no answer whatever to the legal grounds presented by the appellant upon his right to continue as justice of the peace and not to be ousted.
In our opinion, even granting that section 216 is applicable to the appellant, the period of prescription had not begun to run at the time of the commencement of the present action. He was justified in delaying the commencement of his action until an answer to his protest had been made. He had a right to await the answer to his protest, in the confident belief that it would be resolved in his favor and that action would be unnecessary.
It is contended, however, that the question before us was answered and resolved against the contention of the appellant in the case of Bautista v. Fajardo (38 Phil., 624). In that case no question was raised nor was it even suggested that said section 216 did not apply to a public officer. That question was not discussed nor referred to by any of the parties interested in that case. It has been frequently decided that the fact that a statute has been accepted as valid, and invoked and applied for many years in cases where its validity was not raised or passed on, does not prevent a court from later passing on its validity, where that question is squarely and properly raised and presented. Where a question passes the court sub silentio, the case in which the question was so passed is not binding on the Court (McGirr v. Hamilton and Abreu, 30 Phil., 563), nor should it be considered as a precedent. (U. S. v. Noriega and Tobias, 31 Phil., 310; Chicote v. Acasio, 31 Phil., 401; U. S. v. More, 3 Cranch [U. S. ], 159, 172; U. S. v. Sanges, 144 U. S., 310, 319; Cross v. Burke, 146 U. S., 82.) For the reasons given in the case of McGirr v. Hamilton and Abreu, supra, the decision in the case of Bautista v. Fajardo, supra, can have no binding force in the interpretation of the question presented here.
The present case is anomalous under American sovereignty. An officer was appointed in accordance with the law to the judiciary to serve "during good behavior." After he had faithfully and honestly served the Government for a number of years the legislature adopted a new law which arbitrarily, without giving any reason therefor, provided that said officer cease to be such when he should reach the age of 65 years. Said law contained no express provision or method for its enforcement. The Executive Department, through its Undersecretary of Justice, without any authority given in said law, notified the said officer that he was no longer an officer in the judicial department of the Government and must vacate his office and turn the same over to another, who was designated by said Undersecretary. When the officer protested against such arbitrary action, giving reasons therefor, and without answering said protest, he was threatened with a criminal prosecution if he did not immediately vacate his office. The history of this case reads more like a story of the Arabian Nights than like a procedure under a well-organized Government. It seems impossible to believe, and we could not believe it, were the facts not actually supported by the record.
Why the undersecretary of Justice did not follow the orderly procedure marked out by Act No. 190 is not explained. The appellant was given no hearing. Even his protest, couched in most humble and respectful language, fell upon deaf ears. Absolute indifference was shown to the respectful protest and the able argument given in support thereof. The only answer to his protest was a threat of a criminal prosecution if he did not vacate his office. His humility was met with austereness. His humble petition was met with a threat. His patient waiting for a reply to his protest was ended by a demand that he be prosecuted for refusing to comply with an order by one who was not willing to follow the well-defined and well-beaten road of "due process of law" by preferring charges and giving the appellant an opportunity to be heard and to defend his right. Nothing of that character took place. The whole procedure, from beginning to end, in ousting the appellant from an office to which he had been legally appointed and against whom no complaint has been made, is anomalous in the jurisprudence under the American flag.
Believing as I do, that the success of free institutions depends upon a rigid adherence to the fundamentals of the law, I have never yielded, and I hope that I may never yield, to considerations of expediency in expounding it. There is also some plausible reason for the latitudinarian constructions which are resorted to for the purpose of acquiring power — some evil to be avoided, or some good to be attained by pushing the powers of the Government beyond their legitimate boundary. It is by yielding to such influences that the courts and legislatures are gradually undermining and finally overthrowing constitutions. It is by yielding to such influences that constitutions are gradually undermined and finally overthrown. It has been, and is my purpose, so far as it is possible for me, to follow the fundamental law of the land regardless of consequences. If a particular law does not work well the people or the legislature may amend it. If, however, the legislature or the courts undertake to cure defects in the law by forced and unnatural constructions, they inflict a wound upon the constitution of the state which nothing can cure. One step taken by the legislature or the judiciary in enlarging the powers of the Government, opens the door for another which will be sure to follow; and so the process goes on until all respect for the fundamental law is lost and the powers of the Government are just what those in authority are pleased to call them. (Oakley v. Aspinwall, 3 Comstock [N. Y. ], 547, 568.) I cannot give my consent to a rule or doctrine which will permit a Government to throw an honest and efficient official out of office without reason and without authority of law, refuse to consider a protest, and then permit the application of a law to prevent a recovery of that which he has lost illegally and without reason.
The judgment appealed from should be revoked, and a judgment should be entered ordering the restoration of the appellant to the office from which he was illegally ejected. We should follow the effect of the doctrine announced solemnly by this court in the case of Segovia v. Noel (47 Phil., 543). So ordered.
Villamor, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.
Johns, J., concurs in the result.