Professional Documents
Culture Documents
⇒ Petition for prohibition and certiorari d. Sec. 13, RA 9369, contains two conflicting
provisions
⇒ December 22 , 1997: RA 8436 (An Act
Authorizing the Comelec to use an automated e. the provision considering them resigned
election system in the May 11, 1998 National upon filing of the COCs is discriminatory and
or Local Elections and in subsequent national violates the equal protection clause of the
and local electoral exercises) protection
Kai Sydiongco
vacate their positions on the same day that May be gleaned that assailed provision
they file their COcs because they are not yet traces its roots to the period of American
considered as candidates at that time occupation
Kai Sydiongco
For example, the Vice-President running
this time, let us say, for President, retains
his position during the entire election ⇒ Promulgated February 22, 2010
period and can still use the resources of
⇒ motion for reconsideration (Comelec) and
his office to support his campaign.
movants-intervenors’ motions for
Instead of the danger of neglect, reconsideration-in –intervention
inefficiency or partisanship in the
⇒ contentions of respondents:
discharge of the functions of the elective
office, the official who filed his COC might a. contrary to, and/or violative of, the
be driven by a greater impetus for constitutional proscription against the
excellent performance to show his fitness participation of public appointive officials and
for the position aspired for. members of the military in partisan political
activity
V.
b. do not violate the equal protection clause
⇒ The challenged provision suffers the infirmity
when they accord differential treatment to
of being overbroad.
elective and appointive officials because such
differential treatment rests on material and
⇒ 1) provision pertains to all civil servants
substantial distinctions and is germane to the
holding appointive posts without distinction as
purposes of the law
to whether they occupy high positions in
government or not (a utility worker in the govt c. do not suffer from the infirmity of
would be ipso facto resigned once he files his overbreadth
COC for the 2010 elections)
d. There is a compelling need to reverse the
⇒ 2) the provision is directed to the activity of assailed Decision, as public safety and
seeking any and all public offices, whether interest demand such reversal.
they be partisan or nonpartisan in character,
whether they be in the national, municipal or I.
barangay level
⇒ Procedural issues
Congress has not shown a compelling
a. MR filed on December 14/15, 2009
state interest to restrict the fundamental
right involved on such a sweeping scale b. Timeliness of Comelec’s filing of MR
⇒ the Americans, from whom we copied the Comelec had 15 days (till Dec 17) to file
provision in question, had already stricken an MR from receipt of decision of the
down a similar measure for being assailed decision which was received on
unconstitutional December 2, 2009
declared as UNCONSTITUTIONAL
c. Propriety of the Motions for reconsideration-
in- intervention
b. such right or interest cannot be a. the assailed decision struck down section
adequately pursued and protected in 4a of Res 8678, Sec 66 of OEC, second
another proceeding proviso in the third paragraph of Sec 13 RA
9369 because of the ff. reasons:
Section 2. Time to intervene – “The
motion for intervention may be filed at violate the equal protection clause
any time before rendition of judgment because of the differential treatment of
by the trial court. xxx” persons holding appointive offices and
those holding elective positions;
rule above is not inflexible:
interventions have been allowed overbroad insofar as they prohibit the
beyond the period prescribed when candidacy of all civil servants holding
demanded by the higher interest of appointive posts (a) without distinction as
justice to whether or not they occupy
high/influential positions in the
the allowance or disallowance of a government and (b) they limit the civil
motion for intervention rests in the servants’ activity regardless of whether
sound discretion of the court they be partisan or nonpartisan in
character or whether they be national,
⇒ movants-intervenors have each sufficiently municipal or barangay level
established a substantial right or interest in
the case Congress has not shown a compelling
state interest to restrict the fundamental
Senator Manuel A. Roxas: 1) as a voter, he right of these public appointive officials
has a right to intervene in a matter that
involves the electoral process; 2) as a b. Court grants MR and reverses December 1
public officer, he has a personal interest in decision.
maintaining the trust and confidence of
the public in its system of government III.
Former Senator Franklin Drilon & Tom ⇒ Section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution
Apacible: candidates in the May 2010 8678 Compliant with Law
elections running against appointive
officials who have not yet resigned from faithful reflection of the present state of
July 31, 2010
their posts and are not likely to resign law and jurisprudence
from their posts
implement Section 2(4), Article IX-B of the
IBP-Cebu City Chapter: failed to present a 1987 Constitution which prohibits civil
specific and substantial interest, its service officers and employees from
invoked interest is in character too engaging in any electioneering or partisan
indistinguishable to justify its intervention political campaign
("this case involves the constitutionality of
Kai Sydiongco
intention to impose a strict limitation on units and all other para-military units that now
the participation of civil service officers exist or which may hereafter be organized
and employees in partisans is who, directly or indirectly, intervenes in
unmistakable any election campaign or engages in any
partisan political activity, except to vote or
Section 46(b)(26), Chapter 7 and Section to preserve public order, if he is a peace
55, Chapter 8 – both of Subtitle A, Title I, officer.
Book V of the Administrative Code of
1987: ⇒ Section 2(4), Article IX-B of the 1987
Constitution and the implementing statutes
Section 44. Discipline: General Provisions apply only to civil servants holding apolitical
offices
(b) The following shall be grounds for
disciplinary action: ⇒ the constitutional ban does not cover elected
officials, notwithstanding the fact that "the
(26) Engaging directly or indirectly in
civil service embraces all branches,
partisan political activities by one
subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies
holding a non-political office
of the Government, including government-
Section 55. Political Activity. — No officer owned or controlled corporations with original
or employee in the Civil Service including charters."
members of the Armed Forces, shall
engage directly or indirectly in any ⇒ Reasons for such:
partisan political activity or take part
a. elected public officials, by the very nature
in any election except to vote nor shall
of their office, engage in partisan political
he use his official authority or influence to
activities almost all year round, even outside
coerce the political activity of any other
the campaign period (dissenting opinion of
person or body. Nothing herein provided
Justice Antonio Carpio)
shall be understood to prevent any officer
or employee from expressing his views on b. Political partisanship is the inevitable
current political problems or issues, or essence of a political office, elective positions
from mentioning the names of his included (dissenting opinion, Justice Conchita
candidates for public office whom he Carpio-Morales)
supports: Provided, That public officers
and employees holding political offices ⇒ Civil service officers and employees are still
may take part in political and electoral allowed to 1) vote and 2) express their views
activities but it shall be unlawful for them on political issues or 3) mention the names of
to solicit contributions from their certain candidates for public office whom they
subordinates or subject them to any of the support
acts involving subordinates prohibited in
the Election Code. ⇒ Clearly intended in the Constitutional
Commission deliberations: (“...The last phrase
Section 261(i) of OEC: or clause might have given the impression
that a government employee or worker has no
SECTION 261. Prohibited Acts. — The
right whatsoever in an election campaign
July 31, 2010
Kai Sydiongco
⇒ Section 4(a) of Resolution 8678, Section As held in Villanueva vs. CA:
13 of RA 9369, and Section 66 of the
Omnibus Election Code Do Not Violate “… A decision which the case could have
the Equal Protection Clause turned on is not regarded as obiter dictum
merely because, owing to the disposal of the
⇒ i. Fariñas, et al. v. Executive Secretary, contention, it was necessary to consider
et al. is Controlling another question, nor can an additional
reason in a decision, brought forward after
In the said case, the constitutionality of the case has been disposed of on one ground,
Section 14 of the Fair Election Act, in relation be regarded as dicta. So, also, where a case
to Sections 66 and 67 of the Omnibus Election presents two (2) or more points, any one of
Code, was assailed on the ground, among which is sufficient to determine the ultimate
others, that it unduly discriminates against issue, but the court actually decides all such
appointive officials. points, the case as an authoritative precedent
as to every point decided, and none of such
As Section 14 repealed Section 67 (i.e., the points can be regarded as having the status
deemed-resigned provision in respect of of a dictum, and one point should not be
elected officials) of the OEC, elected officials denied authority merely because another
are no longer considered ipso facto resigned point was more dwelt on and more fully
from their respective offices upon their filing argued and considered, nor does a decision
of certificates of candidacy. on one proposition make statements of the
court regarding other propositions dicta.”
Since Section 66 was not repealed, the
limitation on appointive officials continues to ⇒ ii. Classification is germane to the
be operative – they are deemed resigned purpose of the law
when they file their certificates of candidacy.
⇒ To start with, the equal protection clause does
petitioners in Fariñas brought an equal not require the universal application of the
protection challenge against Section 14, with laws to all persons or things without
the end in view of having the deemed- distinction. What it simply requires is equality
resigned provisions "apply equally" to both among equals as determined according to a
elected and appointive officials valid classification (note the 4 requisites).
the legal dichotomy created by the ⇒ assailed decision says: the differential
Legislature is a reasonable classification as treatment of appointive officials vis-à-vis
there are material and significant distinctions elected officials is not germane to the purpose
between the two classes of officials of the law, because "whether one holds an
appointive office or an elective one, the evils
ruling: constitutional as there are substantial sought to be prevented by the measure
distinctions between elective and appointive remain"
officials
⇒ the fact that a legislative classification, by
Court should be guided by the doctrine of itself, is underinclusive will not render it
stare decisis (adherence to precedents) to unconstitutionally arbitrary or invidious. There
secure certainty and stability of judicial is no constitutional requirement that
July 31, 2010
Kai Sydiongco
law creates a classification that is "palpably
arbitrary or capricious
Kai Sydiongco