Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Commission on Elections
G.R. no. 189698 (Resolution)
Main Topic Equal Protection of the Law
Other Related Topic Statutory Construction; Omnibus Election Code
Date: February 22, 2010
DOCTRINES
3. Remedial Law; Certiorari; Certiorari under Rule 65 in relation to Rule 64, cannot be
availed because it is a remedy to question decisions, resolution and issuances made in the
exercise of a judicial or quasi-judicial function.
4. Actions; Parties; Locus Standi; Court finds that while petitioner are not yet candidates,
they have the standing to raise the constitutional challenge simply because they are
qualified voters; Both candidates and voters may challenge on grounds of equal
protection, the assailed measure because of its impact on voting rights.
5. Judicial Review; Exercise by the Court of judicial power is limited to the determination
and resolution of the actual cases and controversies stressed in prior decisions.
FACTS:
Sections 4 and 5 of Resolution No. 8678 provide: SEC. 4. Effects of Filing Certificates of
Candidacy. – (a) Any person holding a public appointive office or position including active
members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and other officers and employees in
government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his
office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.
(b) Any person holding an elective office or position shall not be considered resigned upon the
filing of his certificate of candidacy for the same or any other elective office or position.
Petitioners also contend that Section 13 of R.A. No. 9369, the basis of the assailed COMELEC
resolution, contains two conflicting provisions. These must be harmonized or reconciled to give
effect to both and to arrive at a declaration that they are not ipso facto resigned from their
positions upon the filing of their CoCs.
Senators Manual A. Roxas, Franklin M. Drilon, and Tom V. Apacible are ruled as movant-
intervenors.
ISSUE:
Whether the second proviso in the third paragraph of Section 13 of R.A. No. 9369 and Section
4(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678 are violative of the equal protection clause.
HELD:
No. The Supreme Court held that Section 4 (a) of Resolution 8678 and Section 13 of RA 9369,
which merely reiterate Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, are NOT unconstitutionally
overboard. And it does not violate the equal protection clause.
I vote to maintain this Court's December 1, 2009 Decision. The automatic resignation rule on
appointive government officials and employees running for elective posts is, to my mind,
unconstitutional. I therefore respectfully register my dissent to the resolution of the majority
granting the motion for reconsideration.
I earnestly believe that by this resolution, the majority refused to rectify an unjust rule, leaving in
favor of a discriminatory state regulation and disregarding the primacy of the people's
fundamental rights to the equal protection of the laws. EHDCAI
Let it be recalled that, on December 1, 2009, the Court rendered its Decision granting the petition
and declaring as unconstitutional the second proviso in the third paragraph of Section 13 of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9369, Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) and Section 4
(a) of Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Resolution No. 8678.