PARILLA, MAY ANN C.

LLB 2-1

ELECTION LAW
MONDAYS/CW8

G.R. No. 189698

December 1, 2009
QUINTO VS. COMELEC
Facts:
On December 22, 1997, Congress enacted Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8436, an act
authorizing the COMELEC to use an automated election system in the May 1998 national
or local elections. Almost a decade thereafter, Congress amended the law on January 23,
2007 by enacting R.A. No. 9369. Section 13 of the amendatory law modified Section 11
of R.A. No. 8436 Pursuant to its constitutional mandate to enforce and administer
election laws, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8678, the Guidelines on the Filing of
Certificates of Candidacy (CoC) and Nomination of Official Candidates of Registered
Political Parties in Connection with the May 10, 2010 National and Local Elections.
Sections 4 and 5 of Resolution No. 8678 provide for the ipso facto resignation of any
public official who filed for any Certificate of Candidacy (CoC).Alarmed that they will be
deemed ipso facto resigned from their offices the moment they file their CoCs,
petitioners Eleazar P. Quinto and Gerino A. Tolentino, Jr., who hold appointive positions in
the government and who intend to run in the coming elections, filed the instant petition
for prohibition and certiorari, seeking the declaration of the afore-quoted Section 4(a) of
Resolution No. 8678 as null and void.
Issue:
Whether or not COMELECs resolution and the RA 8678 are valid.
Held:
Here, petitioners interest in running for public office, an interest protected by Sections 4
and 8 of Article III of the Constitution, is breached by the proviso in Section 13 of R.A. No.
9369. It is now the opportune time for the Court to strike down the said proviso for being
violate of the equal protection clause and for being overbroad. In considering persons
holding appointive positions as ipso facto resigned from their posts upon the filing of
their CoCs, but not considering as resigned all other civil servants, specifically the
elective ones, the law unduly discriminates against the first class. The fact alone that
there is substantial distinction between those who hold appointive positions and those
occupying elective posts, does not justify such differential treatment. There is thus no
valid justification to treat appointive officials differently from the elective ones. The
classification simply fails to meet the test that it should be germane to the purposes of
the law. The measure encapsulated in the second proviso of the third paragraph of
Section 13 of R.A. No. 9369 and in Section 66 of the OEC violates the equal protection
clause. Hence, the petition is granted.