8/13/2019 5 de Guzman vs Comelec

1/3

1

De Guzman vs Commissio n on Elect ions Case Digest

Facts:Comelec reassigned petitioners to other stations pursuant to

Section 44 of the Voters registration act. The act prohibits electionofficers from holding office in a particular city or municipality for morethan 4 years. Petitioners claim that the act violated the equal protectionclause because not all election officials were covered by theprohibition.

Petitioners contend that RA 8189 Section 44 isunconstitutional as it violates the equal protection clause enshrined inthe constitution; that it violates constitutional guarantee on security of

civil servants; that it undermines the constitutional independence ofcomelec and comelecs constitutional authority; that it contravenes thebasic constitutional precept; that it is void for its failure to be read on 3separate readings

Issue:Whether or Not section 44 of RA 8189 is unconstitutional

Ruling:No, RA 8189 Sec 44 is not unconstitutional. It has not violated theequal protection clause. It is intended to ensure the impartiality ofelection officials by preventing them from developing familiarity with thepeople of their place of assignment. Large-scale anomalies in theregistration of voters cannot be carried out without the complicity ofelection officers, who are the highest representatives of Comelec in acity or municipality.

2

G.R.No. 129118 (July 19, 2000)

FACTS: Section 44 of the Voters Registration Act provided thatno election officer shall hold office in a particular municipality or city formore than 4 years. In accordance with it, the Comelec reassignedpetitioners, who were election officers to other stations. Petitionersargued that the provision was not expressed in the title of the law,which is An Act Providing for a General Registration of Voters,

Adopting a System of Continuing Registration, Prescribing theProcedures Thereof and Authorizing the Appropriation of FundThereof.Petitioner argue that the law undermined the constitutionalauthority of the Comelec to appoint its own officials.

HELD: The contention is untenable. Section 44 is relevant to thesubject matter of registration as it seeks to ensure the integrity of the

registration process by providing a guideline for the Comelec to followin the reassignment of election officers.The law merely provides the basis for the transfer of an electionofficers and does not deprive the Comelec of its power to appoint itsofficials.

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 129118. July 19, 2000]

AGRIPINO A. DE GUZMAN, JR., NARCISO M. ARABE, LETICIA T. ENDOMA, ARISTIDES A.

RAMOS, PANCHO M. RIVERA, TERESITA A. DE CASTRO, CANDIDA C. HABANA, AZUCENA

C. FALCON, MARIA LUZ P. CAEDO, YOLANDA V. RIO, RUBEN S. ANIEVAS, LELISA L.

SANCHEZ, VILLARDO A. TRINIDAD, ENRIQUE CH. ZUNIGA, ROMEO A. GONZALES,

CASIANO G. ATUEL, JR., GEMMA L. BANARES, PERFECTO T. CAMPOS, ARNULFO A.AGUILAR, RUDOLPH R. MELON, MAGDALENA M. LAO, MARINA GERONA, FLORIANA O.

DE GUIA, EMETERIO B. BRUCAL, NILDA C. CONCHA, YOLANDA P. FERMA, TEOTISTA C.

ANGKIKO, FRANCISCO V. TRIAS, JENELYN E. ESTERNON, MILAGROS M. ABELLAR, ALICIA

T. MOJICA, ELVIRA E. BAYBAY, PRICILLA P. GOLFO, ELISEA M. HIERCO, TERESITA L.

DIMACUHA, MYRNA GUILLERMO, GRACIANO R. SAMELA, JR., NIMFA M. LAGASCA,

JOSEFINA P. JARENO, NORMA V. ORDENES, FRANCISCO T. SERVANDO, VIOLETA M.

ANONUEVO, ALFREDO O. BAYANI, MARIO J. RAMOS, EME FEROLINO, LEONIDES P.

COMIA, MILAGROS E. GENEBLAZO, LORNA L. MENORCA, REYNALDO DE LA CRUZ,

ROMULO A. FAZ, LIMUEL G. GADO, REY G. FABELLA, DOMINGUITO G. TACASA, IMELDA

R.B. ROTONI, TITA FOJA, NOEMI F. CASTRO, LILIA B. CAWALING, ROBERT A. REYES,

CONCEPCION H. PARRENO, SERAFIN L. OLMEDO, ADOLFO L. ALLAN, PROSPERO D.

CASTRO, ROSELLER C. GAPULAO, GLICERIO B. LAURENTE, BERNICE E. BERNABE, ADINA L.

FERNANDEZ, ANITA M. PAALAN, ROSA P. PINOON, INOCENCIA P. DANGUE, JULITA E.

MENDOZA, ELENA O. RAMOS, GENE BE BARTE, FLORENCIA Z. MAGANITO, PABLO A.

ARGA, PEDRO S. LUNA, CARMELITA P. LAUREL, VICTORINO I. MARASIGAN, ROMEO M.

MENDOZA, JUAN C. MALABANAN, MANUEL B. ABRELI, JOSEPH T. MACAHIYA, LEONOR P.

ARADA, JULIA G. PEREZ, MODESTO M. VILLADELREY, ARNULFO Y. FAJILAN, MARLON P.

HERRERA, JAIME A. BISCOCHO, MICHAEL D. CASTILLO, MILAGROS H. BAYLOSIS, ARSENIO

T. GUSTE, ALFREDO V. ORAYANI, DANTE A. PENAMANTE, ROMEO A. DE CHAVEZ,

MANUEL M. ILAGAN, ALFREDO O. MANZA, JR., DOMINGO B. GUNIO, FIDEL V.

PALERACIO, VICENTE V. DEL MORO, JUSTINO R. DEQUILLA, ERNESTO A. RUZOL, ROMEO

D. DELGADO, ERLINDA P. MAGSINO, VERONICA R. CAMBRONERO, NORMA A. DEQUINA,

WELLIE R. RAVINA, CORAZON T. LOPEZ, REMEDIOS R. QUIZON, LORETA E. VERGARA,

MELECIA M. ASTRERA, VICENTA R. SAMANTE, HELEN M. CUENTO-BUENDICHO, ANICIA

V. MORALES, RISALINA C. GONZALES, ROSARIO CHARITO R. PABELLON, LOLITA L.

MALADAGA, MAXIMO A. GLINDO, WILFREDO A. RODELAS, CELSO O. ROGO, RAMON C.

VALENCIA, FELIPE R. FRANDO, ADEN B. DUNGO, OFELIA N. QUIBEN, LIGAYA S.

VALENZUELA, EUNICE S. FAMILARIN, MARCELA DE LEON, ADELA M. JAMILLA, RENY

ABLES, ADELA E. FABERES, ALICIA P. BALDOMAR, EDNA C. GARCIA, ANGELINA V.

GARRIDO, ELOISA P. TORRENO, CHARITO M. LACAMENTO, CLARENCIA M. AQUINO,

HILDA DIMALANTA, ELSIE SIBAL, PURIFICACION TANGONAN, AMELITA FERNANDEZ,

TEDDY C. MARIANO, LORETO SANGGALANG, GERARDO GONZALES, FEDERICO ONATE,

JR., ARTURO BALIGNASAY, FELIX M. CABARIOS, JR., NORBERTO PUNZALAN, JAIME G.

ALCANTARA, ERNESTO VILLANUEVA, ESTANISLAO SANCHEZ, ADORACION L. PINEDA,

LUCILA S. DUNGCA, ADELAIDA B. LAOIJINDANUM, ROLANDO A. BALUYUT, FRANCISCOM. DAVID, LEONELLE S. MENDOZA, MA. LUZ A. BASILIO, NESTOR J. TIMBANG, HILDA P.

DIZON, EMMANUEL E. IGNACIO, RAMON S. ABELLA, JOSELITO MATIAS, HEZEQUIAS B.

GALANG, ERLINDA C. ZAPATA, IMELDA R. MANALASTAS, PEDRO L. PALO, AURECIO C.

TRASPE, JOSEPHINE GALANG, FLORINDA R. MADULID, MAGDALENA W. SADI, NYDIA V.A

BOLISAY, PRESENTACION A. PALOM, ANTONIO B. ANCHETA, MACARIO L. SADI, PACIFICO

E. GISAPON, FELICIANO C. CRUZ, IMELDA A. QUIMEL, LINDA D. SANDOVAL, MARILOU R.

ORTIZ, NORMA F. SANTOS, MAGPAYO V. ABESAMIS, BONIFACIO B. VILLAFLOR, DANIEL

O. TABIOS, CONSTANTE T. CATRIZ, JESUS E. ALICANTE, FEDERICO SACLAYAN, JR., NOLY

G. UMINGA, FE FRAELI L. DE GUZMAN, RODRIGO S. WYCOCO, JOVEN HERMOGENES,

RODOLFO D. BANAWA, ABELARDO O. CAPANZANA, ERNESTO Q. TIONGSON, ROSANNA

CRUZ, OSCAR C. ONGOCO, CONSUELO A. KABIGTING, JULITA V. PASTELERO, ARSENIA V.

BONDOC, ISIDRO A. TOMAS, ANGELINA V. GARRIDO, CONSOLACION N. LABOG, ELENITA

A. RIVERA, SOCORRO NOCES, RODOLFO GALLARDO, CARMENCITA M. ONGEO, CAMILO

L. SEDURIFA, ARLEEN VIC B. OCHANDRA, EDGARDO E. APOSTOL, CLOTILDE C. CANETE,

ALEJANDRO B. DEL AGUA, PILAR R. BUENO, TEODOICO C. MAGALLANES, PETRONIO N.

PIANGCO, JR., JOSE M. FLORENDO, BIBIANO A. CAGNAN, ALICIA A. TUBI, RODOLFO C.

NATAN, JAIME B. MENDONEZ, EDILBERTO EDANG, ROSENDA T. JENOVEVA, VEDASTO B.

ELIZAN, JR., MILAGROS P. DE LUNA, ATILANO L. ISAAC, CORAZON L. J. PEPITO, LUCILA S.

PINEDA, ROCHE B. CERRO, JOCELYN KL. LIBUT, REMBERTO L. GUTIERREZ, NAZARIO A.

TRASMONTE, REYNALDO O. MACARAT, FLORENCIA M. MALIBAGO, IMELDA G. TUYAY,

JUAN A. GIBA, JR., JOSE M. CAPACITE, ARCITA M. GARCIA, ANGEL G. DACUNO, RITA M.BEDIANG, RENATO L. CANDIDO, NESTORIO B. BOCO, JONATHAN C. AMBIDA, MONICA

MACABARE, BENITO A. MONTALLANA, CLOTILDE C. APURA-VALDEMORO, CIRIACO J.

ARCENO, PABLO L. FORMARAN, JR., PROSPERO S. OLMEDO, IGNACIO V. CASCANO,

SERAFIN L. CLUTARIO, ARTURO L. DIN, JUCHITA C. SY, RODOLFO L. ASUERO, PIO T.

PORTES, MARILOU F. TAMAYO, MILAGROS P. LAMBINO, ESTANISLAO A. ESPINA,

RENERIO D. ENGO, FERNANDO A. MOSCARE, CONCHITA A. PICARDAL, ELIAS T. TURLA,

BONIFACIO T. LIM, JOSEFINA A. AGUILAR, ANTONIO O. TEPACE, GAVINO S. ASOTES,

RENE P. MAGBUTAY, NICOLAS C. UY, JR., JESUS B. LAVA, SENORA C. CALAGOS, RAFAEL A

PAYOD, MACARIO L. CIEGO, SALVADOR T. CRUZ, VIRGINIA V. BESAS, RAUL S. FIGUERDA,

EDGAR R. DELOS REYES, TERESO R. ROSEL, JOSE J. MABANGUE, PRIMO D. PALOMO,

JOHN C. YANGZON, ROMULO D. JABON, FIDENCIO Z. LA TORRE, JR., L ETICIA R.

MACARIOLA, CARLOS P. VARELA, JR., ANTONIO L. PEDRAZA, SALVACION A. LAMBAN,

LINO L. JAPSON, EUNIA H. VACAL, ANTONIO F. VALDEZ, NATIVIDAD E. PRADO, LORENZO

C. MERKA, GAUDIOSO A. RUEGO, ETERIO Z. ABOCEJO, DEMETRIA O. COROLLO, MARIA S

OBEN, ARTHUR V. LEYSON, PEDRO L. AVILA, DOMINADOR S. RODILLA, MARCIAL

MAGPATOC, FEDERICO D. BARCELON, EVANGELINE DELA ROSA, ELENO GIL, ARSENIA

GARCIA, HUMILDA ALICUM, DIOSDADO CAS, ABRAHAM MASAOY, SAMUEL ORALLO,

AMELIA OLORES, CANDIDO URBANO, LOURDES FRIAS, ROEL SORIANO, EMELDA

AGUSTIN, PAQUITO SORIANO, GERMAN BALOLONG, BENJAMIN C. ROSARIO, EFREN

BUYA, LEONIDA LEGASPI, TOMAS ABELLA, JR., JOVENCIA CANTO, JUAN DACONO,

MIGUEL BAUTISTA, LORNA PASCUAL, FERDINAND BRAGANZA, PRISCILLA PEREZ, ALMALUZ SORIANO, JUAN VALENCIA, JR., JULIAN APOSTOL, ROSARIO GUICO, BONITA VIDAL,

GUIA GARCIA, LEOCADIO GINEZ, CATALINA BANEZ, V ERONICA TABILIN, ELVIRA

CALSADO, ALIPIO LOPEZ, JOSEPHINE MALANA, PIO ANONUEVO, ELMA DEL ROSARIO,

RUFINO FLORES, ANTONIO ORDONEZ, CARMEN CLAVERIA, ESTRELLA RAMOS,

petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,respondent.

D E C I S I O N

PURISIMA, J.:

At bar is a petition for certiorariand prohibition with urgentprayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction andtemporary restraining order, assailing the validity of Section44 of Republic Act No. 8189 (RA 8189) otherwise known as"The Voters Registration Act of 1996".

RA 8189 was enacted on June 10, 1996 and approved byPresident Fidel V. Ramos on June 11, 1996. Section 44thereof provides:

"SEC. 44. Reassignment of Election Officers. - NoElection Officer shall hold office in a particular cityor municipality for more than four (4) years. Anyelection officer who, either at the time of theapproval of this Act or subsequent thereto, hasserved for at least four (4) years in a particular cityor municipality shall automatically be reassignedby the Commission to a new station outside theoriginal congressional district."

8/13/2019 5 de Guzman vs Comelec

2/3

By virtue of the aforequoted provision of law, theCommission on Elections (COMELEC) promulgatedResolution Nos. 97-0002

1and 97-0610

2for the

implementation thereof. Thereafter, the COMELEC issuedseveral directives

3reassigning the petitioners, who are either

City or Municipal Election Officers, to different stations.

Aggrieved by the issuance of the aforesaid directives andresolutions, petitioners found their way to this Court via thepresent petition assailing the validity of Section 44 of RA8189, contending that:

I

SECTION 44 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8189 VIOLATESTHE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE ENSHRINED IN THECONSTITUTION;

II

SECTION 44 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8189 VIOLATESTHE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE ON SECURITY OFTENURE OF CIVIL SERVANTS;

III

SECTION 44 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8189 CONSTITUTESA DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUEPROCESS OF LAW;

IV

SECTION 44 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8189 UNDERMINESTHE CONSTITUTIONAL INDEPENDENCE OF COMELEC

AND COMELECS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TONAME, DESIGNATE AND APPOINT AND THENREASSIGN AND TRANSFER ITS VERY OWN OFFICIALS

AND EMPLOYEES;

V

SECTION 44 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8189CONTRAVENES THE BASIC CONSTITUTIONALPRECEPT [Article VI, SECTION 26(1), Phil. Constitution]THAT EVERY BILL PASSED BY CONGRESS SHALLEMBRACE ONLY ONE SUBJECT WHICH MUST BEEXPRESSED IN THE TITLE THEREOF; and

VI

SECTION 44 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8189 IS VOID FORFAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONSTITUTIONALREQUIREMENT [ARTICLE VI, SECTION 26 (2)] OF THREEREADINGS ON SEPARATE DAYS AND DISTRIBUTIONOF PRINTED COPIES IN ITS FINAL FORM THREE DAYS

BEFORE ITS PASSAGE.

Petitioners contentions revolve on the pivotal issue, whetherSection 44 of RA 8189 is valid and constitutional.

The petition is barren of merit. Section 44 of RA 8189 enjoysthe presumption of validity, and the Court discerns noground to invalidate it.

1Annex "A" of Petition; Rollo, pp. 49-50.

2Annex "B" of Petition; Rollo, pp. 52-53.

3Annexes "C", "D" and "E" of Petition, pp. 58-101.

Petitioners theorize that Section 44 of RA 8189 is violative ofthe "equal protection clause" of the 1987 Constitutionbecause it singles out the City and Municipal ElectionOfficers of the COMELEC as prohibited from holding office inthe same city or municipality for more than four (4) years.They maintain that there is no substantial distinctionbetween them and other COMELEC officials, and therefore,there is no valid classification to justify the objective of theprovision of law under attack.

The Court is not persuaded by petitioners arguments. The"equal protection clause" of the 1987 Constitution permits avalid classification under the following conditions:

1. The classification must rest on substantialdistinctions;

2. The classification must be germane to thepurpose of the law;

3. The classification must not be limited to existingconditions only; and

4. The classification must apply equally to allmembers of the same class.

4

After a careful study, the ineluctable conclusion is that theclassification under Section 44 of RA 8189 satisfies theaforestated requirements.

The singling out of election officers in order to "ensure theimpartiality of election officials by preventing them fromdeveloping familiarity with the people of their place ofassignment" does not violate the equal protection clause ofthe Constitution.

InLutz vs. Araneta,5it was held that "the legislature is not

required by the Constitution to adhere to a policy of all ornone". This is so for underinclusiveness is not an argumentagainst a valid classification. It may be true that all the otherofficers of COMELEC referred to by petitioners are exposed

to the same evils sought to be addressed by the statute.However, in this case, it can be discerned that the legislaturethought the noble purpose of the law would be sufficientlyserved by breaking an important link in the chain ofcorruption than by breaking up each and every link thereof.Verily, under Section 3(n) of RA 8189, election officers arethe highest officials or authorized representatives of theCOMELEC in a city or municipality. It is safe to say thatwithout the complicity of such officials, large scale anomaliesin the registration of voters can hardly be carried out.

Moreover, to require the COMELEC to reassign allemployees (connected with the registration of voters) whohave served at least four years in a given city or municipalitywould entail a lot of administrative burden on the part of theCOMELEC.

Neither does Section 44 of RA 8189 infringe the security oftenure of petitioners nor unduly deprive them of due processof law. As held in Sta. Maria vs. Lopez.

6

"xxx the rule that outlaws unconsented transfersas anathema to security of tenure applies only toan officer who is appointed - not merely assigned -

4The Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies, Inc. vs.Philippine Overseas

Employment Administration, 243 SCRA 666, 677 citing: People vs.Cayat, 68 Phil. 12, 18

[1939].598 Phil. 148, 153 (1955).

631 SCRA 637, 653 citing: Ibaez vs.Commission on Elections, L-26558, April 27, 1967,

19 SCRA 1002, 1012 and Section 12 of the Tax Code.

8/13/2019 5 de Guzman vs Comelec

3/3

to a particular station. Such a rule does notpr[o]scribe a transfer carried out under a specificstatute that empowers the head of an agency toperiodically reassign the employees and officers inorder to improve the service of the agency. xxx"(italics supplied)

The guarantee of security of tenure under the Constitution isnot a guarantee of perpetual employment. It only means thatan employee cannot be dismissed (or transferred) from theservice for causes other than those provided by law andafter due process is accorded the employee. What it seeksto prevent is capricious exercise of the power to dismiss.But, where it is the law-making authority itself whichfurnishes the ground for the transfer of a class of employees,no such capriciousness can be raised for so long as theremedy proposed to cure a perceived evil is germane to thepurposes of the law.

Untenable is petitioners contention that Section 44 of RA8189 undermines the authority of COMELEC to appoint itsown officials and employees. As stressed upon by theSolicitor General, Section 44 establishes a guideline for theCOMELEC to follow. Said section provides the criterion orbasis for the reassignment or transfer of an election officerand does not deprive the COMELEC of its power to appoint,and maintain its authority over its officials and employees.

As a matter of fact, the questioned COMELEC resolutions

and directives illustrate that it is still the COMELEC whichhas the power to reassign and transfer its officials andemployees. But as a government agency tasked with theimplementation and enforcement of election laws, theCOMELEC is duty bound to comply with the laws passed byCongress.

The independence of the COMELEC is not at issue here.There is no impairment or emasculation of its power toappoint its own officials and employees. In fact, Section 44even strengthens the COMELECs power of appointment, asthe power to reassign or transfer is within its exclusive

jurisdiction and domain.

Petitioners contention that Section 44 has an isolated and

different subject from that of RA 8189 and that the same isnot expressed in the title of the law, is equally untenable.

The objectives of Section 26(1), Article VI of the 1987Constitution, that "[e]very bill passed by the Congress shallembrace only one subject which shall be expressed in thetitle thereof", are:

1. To prevent hodge-podge or log-rollinglegislation;

2. To prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislatureby means of provisions in bills of which the titlesgave no information, and which might therefore beoverlooked and carelessly and unintentionally

adopted; and

3. To fairly apprise the people, through suchpublication of legislative proceedings as is usuallymade, of the subjects of legislation that are beingconsidered, in order that they may haveopportunity of being heard thereon by petition orotherwise if they shall so desire.

7

Section 26(1) of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution issufficiently complied with where, as in this case, the title iscomprehensive enough to embrace the general objective it

7Central Capiz vs.Ramirez, 40 Phil. 883, 891 citing: Cooleys Constitutional Limitations,

p. 143.

seeks to achieve, and if all the parts of the statute arerelated and germane to the subject matter embodied in thetitle or so long as the same are not inconsistent with orforeign to the general subject and title.

8Section 44 of RA

8189 is not isolated considering that it is related andgermane to the subject matter stated in the title of the law.The title of RA 8189 is "The Voters Registration Act of 1996"with a subject matter enunciated in the explanatory note as"AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A GENERAL REGISTRATIONOF VOTERS, ADOPTING A SYSTEM OF CONTINUINGREGISTRATION, PRESCRIBING THE PROCEDURESTHEREOF AND AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF

FUNDS THEREFOR." Section 44, which provides for thereassignment of election officers, is relevant to the subjectmatter of registration as it seeks to ensure the integrity of theregistration process by providing a guideline for theCOMELEC to follow in the reassignment of election officers.It is not an alien provision but one which is related to theconduct and procedure of continuing registration of voters. Inthis regard, it bears stressing that the Constitution does notrequire Congress to employ in the title of an enactment,language of such precision as to mirror, fully index orcatalogue, all the contents and the minute details therein.

9

In determining the constitutionality of a statute dubbed asdefectively titled, the presumption is in favor of its validity.

10

As regards the issue raised by petitioners - whether Section

44 of RA 8189 was enacted in accordance with Section 26(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, petitioners have notconvincingly shown grave abuse of discretion on the part ofCongress. Respect due to co-equal departments of thegovernment in matters entrusted to them by the Constitutionand the absence of a clear showing of grave abuse ofdiscretion suffice to stay the judicial hand.

11

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED; and theconstitutionality and validity of Section 44 of RA 8189UPHELD. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug,

Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Buena,Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ.,concur.

Pardo, J., no part.

8Tio vs.Videogram Regulatory Board, 151 SCRA 208, 213 citing: Sumulong vs.COMELEC

No. 48609, October 10, 1941, 73 Phil. 288 and Cordero vs.Hon. Cabatuando, et al., L-

14542, October 31, 1962, 6 SCRA 418.9Lidasan vs.Commission on Elections, 21 SCRA 496, 501.

10Insular Lumber Co. vs.Court of Tax Appeals, 104 SCRA 710, 717.

11Tolentino vs.Secretary of Finance, 249 SCRA 628, 646.