Quinto V.

COMELEC 2010


COMELEC issued a resolution declaring appointive officials who filed their
certificate of candidacy as ipso facto resigned from their positions.

FACTS:

Petitioners Eleazar P. Quinto and Gerino A. Tolentino, Jr. filed a petition for
certiorari and prohibition against the COMELEC for issuing a resolution
declaring appointive officials who filed their certificate of candidacy as ipso
facto resigned from their positions. In this defense, the COMELEC avers that it
only copied the provision from Sec. 13 of R.A. 9369.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the said COMELEC resolution was valid.

HELD:

In a 10-5 vote, the Supreme Court reversed its Decision rendered in the case
of Quinto vs. Comelec last December 2009 and declared that appointed
officials, including members of the judiciary and the Comelec itself, who have
filed their certificate of candidacy for the May 10 elections are already
deemed resigned. In the Resolution dated 22 February 2010, the Court said
that its December 2009 Decision failed to consider the threat to government
posed by the partisan potential of a large and growing bureaucracy: the
danger of systematic abuse perpetuated by a powerful political machine that
has amassed the scattered powers of government workers so as to give itself
and its incumbent workers an unbreakable grasp on the reins of power. The
Court added that in the case at bar, the probable harm to society in
permitting incumbent appointive officials to remain in office, even as they
actively pursue elective posts, far outweighs the less likely evil of having
arguably protected candidacies blocked by the possible inhibitory effect of a
potentially overly broad



Here, it strongly upholds the constitutionality of the resolution saying that it
does not violate the equal protection clause. It is settled that the equal
protection clause does not demand absolute equality; it merely requires that
all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions
both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced. The test used is
reasonableness which requires that:
1. The classification rests on substantial distinctions;
2. It is germane to the purposes of the law;
3. It is not limited to existing conditions only; and
4. It applies equally to all members of the same class.

In the case under consideration, there is a substantial distinction between
public and elective officials which has been rendered moot and academic by
the ruling made in the case of Farinas, etl. al. vs. Executive Secretary, et. al.
Section 4 (a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678 is constitutional.