RODOLFO FARIAS, et al.

(Members of House of Representatives)

vs.
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, et al.
G.R. No. 147387. December 10, 2003

FACTS: Republic Act No. 9006 is a consolidation of HB No. 9000 and Senate Bill No. 1742 entitled An Act
to Enhance the Holding of Free, Orderly, Honest, Peaceful and Credible Elections through Fair Election Practices.
The petitioners contend that Section 14 of this Act is discriminative, insofar as it repeals Section 67 of the
Omnibus Election Code thus states an ELECTIVE official who runs for office other than the one which he is
holding is no longer considered ipso facto resigned therefrom upon filing his certificate of candidacy. On the
other hand, Section 66 has been retained; thus the limitation on appointive official remains that they are still
considered ipso facto resigned from their offices upon filing of COC. The petitioners assert that Section 14 of this
Act violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution because it repeals only Section 67 (elective officials),
leaving intact Section 66 thereof which imposes similar limitation to appointive officials. The petitioners also
maintain that Section 67 is a good law; hence, should not have been repealed. Because it had already been
signed and promulgated as a law, a petition for certiorari and prohibition by the petitioners is hence brought
before the court.

ISSUE: Whether or not Section 14 of RA No. 9006 violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

HELD: NO, it does not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
The petitioners contention that the repeal of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code pertaining
to elective officials gives undue benefit to such officials as against appointive ones and violates the equal
protection clause is TENUOUS. The equal protection of the law clause is not absolute, but is subject to reasonable
classification. If the groupings are characterized by substantial distinctions that make real differences, one class
may be treated and regulated differently from the other.
Substantial distinctions clearly exist between elective officials and appointive officials. The former
occupy their office by virtue of the mandate of the electorate. They are elected to an office for a definite term
and may be removed therefrom only upon stringent conditions. On the other hand, appointive officials hold their
office by virtue of their designation thereto by an appointing authority. Some appointive officials hold their office
in permanent capacity and are entitled to security of tenure while others serve at the pleasure of the appointing
authority.
By repealing Section 67 (elective officials) but retaining Section 66 (appointive officials), the
legislators deemed it proper to treat these two classes of officials differently with respect to the effect on their
TENURE IN THE OFFICE of the filing of the certificates of candidacy for any position other than those occupied by
them. It is not within the power of the Court to pass upon or look into the wisdom of this classification.
Since the classification justifying Section 14 of RA No. 9006 is anchored upon material and
significant distinctions and all the persons belonging under the same classification are similarly treated, the
equal protection clause of the Constitution is, thus, NOT infringed. The Court dismissed the petition.