On April 27, 2007, Atty. Ramon Edison C. Batacan, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Governor for Eastern Mindanao Region, wrote the Supreme Court, claiming that the election of Atty. Rogelio Vinluan, IBP Governor for Southern Luzon, as Executive Vice-President for the term 2007 to 2009, was null and void on the ground that it violated the “rotation rule.” (IN RE: COMPLIANCE OF IBP CHAPTERS WITH ADM. ORDER NO. 16-2007, LETTER-COMPLIANCE OF ATTY. RAMON EDISON C. BATACAN, En Banc, A.M. No. 07-3-13-SC, February 27, 2008).
As EVP for 2007-2009, Atty. Vinluan would be the next IBP national president for the current term 2009-2011, under the “automatic succession rule” of the IBP By-Laws.
Atty. Batacan asserted that under the “rotation rule,” embodied in Section 47, Article VII of the IBP By-Laws, all IBP regions must take turns in having a representative as EVP, who shall automatically succeed to the IBP Presidency. He posited that since Atty. Pura Angelica Y. Santiago of IBP Southern Luzon was validly elected as EVP on June 13, 2005, said region was disqualified from fielding another candidate for EVP until all the regions have taken turns in holding the position. Considering that Atty. Vinluan comes from IBP Southern Luzon and the other regions had not yet taken their turn in fielding an EVP, Atty. Vinluan's election as EVP on April 25, 2007 was null and void as it contravened the rotation rule, Atty. Batacan added.
Atty. Batacan further argued since he, as Governor of the Eastern Mindanao Region, was the remaining candidate who was qualified and was voted upon to the position, he was rightfully entitled to assume the EVP position. He stated that the said region was denied meaningful participation in the rotation rule when Atty. Leonard De Vera of Eastern Mindanao was removed by the Supreme Court as EVP in 2005.
In its Comment, the IBP National Office through its Deputy General Counsel Atty. Rodolfo G. Urbiztondo, stated that the election of Atty. Vinluan representing Southern Luzon was a violation of the rotation rule since the election of Atty. Santiago of Southern Luzon began a new cycle of rotation and it was only after the rotation was completed that a Governor from the Southern Luzon Region could be elected again.
In his Comment, Atty. Vinluan averred that his election as EVP on April 25, 2007 was valid for the following reasons: Atty. Santiago never took her oath of office; she never assumed the position of EVP; she did not function as EVP at any time; neither did she have the chance to serve out her term as evidenced by the fact that 12 days after her election, Atty. Jose Vicente B. Salazar of the IBP Bicol Region was elected EVP and eventually assumed the IBP Presidency beginning 2005.
Atty. Vinluan further maintains that the election of Atty. Santiago did not trigger the beginning of a new rotation cycle and that it was only with the term of Atty. Salazar of IBP Bicol Region, who was elected after Atty. Santiago, and who eventually served out his term for 2005 to 2007, as EVP that the new cycle began. Atty. Vinluan argued that Atty. Batacan's invocation of the Court's statement in Velez “that the rotation rule had been completed despite the non-assumption by Atty. De Vera to the IBP Presidency” was misplaced since Atty. De Vera had in fact served as EVP for the term 2003 to 2005, while the same cannot be said in the case of Atty. Santiago. IBP Southern Luzon has not been represented yet in the new rotation cycle for EVPs, he added
It will be noted that Section 47, Article VII of the By-Laws of the IBP, as amended, provides:
Sec. 47. National Officers. - The Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall have a President and Executive Vice President to be chosen by the Board of Governors from among nine (9) regional governors, as much as practicable, on a rotation basis. The governors shall be ex officio Vice President for their respective regions. There shall also be a Secretary and Treasurer of the Board of Governors to be appointed by the President with the consent of the Board. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter 491).
The Executive Vice President shall automatically become President for the next succeeding term. The Presidency shall rotate among the nine Regions. [Emphasis and underscoring supplied]
(See Bar Matter No. 491 dated October 6, 1989, In the Matter of the Inquiry into the 1989 Elections of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines).
Bar Matter No. 491 restored the former system of having the IBP President and Executive Vice-President elected by the Board of Governors from among themselves as well as the right of automatic succession by the Executive Vice-President to the presidency upon the expiration of their two-year term.
The Court introduced the rotation rule in order to give all the regions and chapters their respective turns, each for a term of two years, in having a representative in the top positions, with the aim of restoring the non-political character of the IBP and reducing the temptation of electioneering for the said posts.
The principal question was whether the election on June 13, 2005 of Atty. Santiago of IBP Southern Luzon for the term 2005 to 2007 as EVP constituted one turn under the rotation rule; corollarily, whether Atty. Vinluan who comes from the same IBP region was barred from being elected as EVP for the term 2007 to 2009.
The Court’s answer was in the negative.
On June 13, 2005, Atty. Santiago of Southern Luzon was elected as EVP. On June 20, 2005, seven days after her election, she tendered her resignation, which resignation was approved by the IBP in a Resolution dated June 25, 2005. On the same day, Atty. Salazar of the IBP Bicol Region was elected as EVP, replacing Atty. Santiago.
Based on these circumstances, one can readily see that the election of Atty. Santiago as EVP did not result in any meaningful representation of the Southern Luzon Region which would satisfy the spirit of the rotation rule. The proximity of the dates, from the time that she was elected to the time she tendered her resignation (seven days) and the time the same was accepted by the IBP (five days) shows that there was no sufficient opportunity for her to discharge the duties of an EVP. Atty. Santiago did not take her oath of office.
According to the Court there was no merit to Atty. Batacan’s claim that in view of the removal of Atty. Leonardo de Vera, IBP Eastern Mindanao Region was denied meaningful participation.
In Velez, the Court held that “the rotation rule had been completed despite the non-assumption by Atty. De Vera to the IBP Presidency.” Atty. De Vera's removal from the position of EVP took place on the twenty-third month of his term for 2003 to 2005. Only a month short of completing his term, it is clear that he had effectively exercised the functions of an EVP as representative of the IBP Eastern Mindanao Region.
Moreover, the Court held in Velez that Section 47 of the IBP Rules used the phrase “as much as practicable” to clearly indicate that the rotation rule was not a rigid and inflexible rule as to bar exceptions in compelling and exceptional circumstances.
There being no grave abuse of discretion or gross error in the conduct of said election, the Court upheld the election of Atty. Vinluan as EVP for the term 2007 to 2009.
