G.R. No. L-23226 – 47 Phil. 543 – Political Law – Law on Public Officers – No Vested Right In A Public Office
Civil Law – General Principles – Prospective Application of Laws – Retroactivity must be provided for
In 1907, Vicente Segovia was appointed as judge in Dumanjug, Cebu. In 1923, Act 3107 was enacted. Said law made it mandatory for judges to retire upon reaching the age of 65. In 1924, Judge Segovia reached the age of 65. The Secretary of Justice then ordered Segovia to retire from his post and since then, Judge Pedro Noel acted as the judge in Dumanjug. Thereafter, Segovia filed a petition for quo warranto where he assailed the constitutionality of Act 3107 as it “impairs the contractual right” of Segovia to his office; that no age limit has been prescribed when he was appointed as judge hence Act 3107 should not be applied retroactively.
ISSUE: Whether or not Segovia should be reinstated to his office.
HELD: Yes. But only because the law should not be applied retroactively; Act 3107 is therefore constitutional.
Though Segovia abandoned his theory on the unconstitutionality of Act 3107, the Supreme Court emphasized that public office cannot be regarded as the property of whoever is incumbent. A public office is not a contract contrary to how Segovia viewed it in his abandoned theory.
But though there is no vested right in an office, which may not be disturbed by legislation, yet the incumbent has, in a sense, a right to his office. If that right is to be taken away by statute, the terms should be clear in which the purpose is stated. In the case at bar, Act 3107 did not provide for retroactive application. Hence, it can only be applied prospectively. As such, the old law is still applicable in the case of Segovia hence, pursuant to the old law, he can remain in his post as a judge so long as he maintains good behavior.
