You are on page 1of 4

The rule in elections, as people know it, is that an appointed official is deemed automatically resigned from their positions

once he/she files the Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for any elective position. This rule on automatic resignation does not apply to elected officials. There is now a new rule. Appointed officials are N longer deemed resigned upon the filing of the CoC. This is the ruling of the !upreme Court in "lea#ar $uinto vs. C %"&"C, '.(. No. )*+,+*, ) -ecem.er /00+. Background of the Case 1n preparation for the /0)0 elections, the Commission on "lections (C %"&"C) issued (esolution No. *,2* 3 the Guidelines on the Filing of Certificates of Candidacy (CoC) and Nomination of Official Candidates of Registered Political Parties in Connection with the May 10 !010 National and "ocal #lections. !ection 4 of(esolution No. *,2* provide5 SEC. 4. #ffects of Filing Certificates of Candidacy .6a) Any person holding a pu.lic appointive office or position including active mem.ers of the Armed 7orces of the 8hilippines, and other officers and employees in government9owned or controlled corporations, shall .e considered i$so facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy. .) Any person holding an elective office or position shall not .e considered resigned upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy for the same or any other elective office or position. Two appointive officers of the government who were planning to run in the /0)0 elections sought the nullification of !ection 4(a) on the ground, among others, that it is discriminatory and violates the e:ual protection clause of the Constitution. Applicable Laws !ection 4(a) of (esolution No. *,2* is a reproduction of the second proviso in the third paragraph of !ection ); of (epu.lic Act (<(.A.=) No. +;,+, which reads5 7or this purpose, the Commission shall set the deadline for the filing of certificate of candidacy/petition for registration/manifestation to participate in the election. Any person who files his certificate of candidacy within this period shall only .e considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy5 8rovided, That, unlawful acts or omissions applica.le to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the aforesaid campaign period5 8rovided, finally, That any person holding a pu.lic appointive office or position, including active mem.ers of the armed forces, and officers and employees in government9owned or 9controlled corporations, shall .e considered ipso facto resigned from his/her office and must vacate the same at the start of the day of the filing of his/her certificate of candidacy. The proviso, on the other hand, was lifted from !ection ,, of >atas 8am.ansa >lg. **), or the Omni%us #lection Code, which reads5 Sec. 66. Candidates holding a$$ointi&e office or $osition .6Any person holding a pu.lic appointive office or position, including active mem.ers of the Armed 7orces of the 8hilippines, and officers and

employees in government9owned or controlled corporations, shall .e considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy. Ruling of the Supreme Court According to the ma?ority, with @ustice Nachura as the $onencia, !ection 4 (a) of the (esolution is null and void for .eing violative of the e:ual protection clause and for .eing over.road. The second proviso in the third paragraph of !ection ); of (.A. +;,+, and !ection ,, of the also declared as ANC N!T1TAT1 NA&. Challenged pro ision discriminator! There used to .e a similar provision in the "lection Code and (.A. *4;, relating to the automatic resignation of elective officials upon the filing of their CoCs, .ut this was repealed .y (.A. +00,, also known as the Fair #lection 'ct. <There was, thus, created a situation of o.vious discrimination against appointive officials who were deemed i$so facto resigned from their offices upon the filing of their CoCs, while elective officials were not.= 7our (4) re:uisites of valid classification must .e complied with in order that a discriminatory governmental act may pass the constitutional norm of e:ual protection5 ()) (/) (;) 1t 1t 1t must must must .e not .e germane .e limited .ased to to upon the eCisting su.stantial purposes of conditions distinctionsB the onlyB lawB and mni.us "lection Code were

(4) 1t must apply e:ually to all mem.ers of the class. The first re:uirement means that there must .e real and su.stantial differences .etween the classes treated differently. Nevertheless, the classification would still .e invalid if it does not comply with the second re:uirement6if it is not germane to the purpose of the law. The third re:uirement means that the classification must .e enforced not only for the present .ut as long as the pro.lem sought to .e corrected continues to eCist. And, under the last re:uirement, the classification would .e regarded as invalid if all the mem.ers of the class are not treated similarly, .oth as to rights conferred and o.ligations imposed. According to the !upreme Court, the differential treatment of persons holding appointive offices as opposed to those holding elective ones is not germane to the purposes of the law. The o.vious reason for the challenged provision is to prevent the use of a governmental position to promote oneDs candidacy, or even to wield a dangerous or coercive influence on the electorate. The measure is further aimed at promoting the efficiency, integrity, and discipline of the pu.lic service .y eliminating the danger that the discharge of official duty would .e motivated .y political considerations rather than the welfare of the pu.lic. The restriction is also ?ustified .y the proposition that the entry of civil servants to the electoral arena, while still in office, could result in neglect or inefficiency in the performance of duty .ecause they would .e attending to their campaign rather than to their office work.

1f we accept these as the underlying o.?ectives of the law, then the assailed provision cannot .e constitutionally rescued on the ground of valid classification. 'laringly a.sent is the re:uisite that the classification must .e germane to the purposes of the law. 1ndeed, whether one holds an appointive office or an elective one, the evils sought to .e prevented .y the measure remain. 7or eCample, the "Cecutive !ecretary, or any %em.er of the Ca.inet for that matter, could wield the same influence as the Eice98resident who at the same time is appointed to a Ca.inet post (in the recent past, elected Eice98residents were appointed to take charge of national housing, social welfare development, interior and local government, and foreign affairs). Fith the fact that they .oth head eCecutive offices, there is no valid ?ustification to treat them differently when .oth file their CoCs for the elections. Ander the present state of our law, the Eice98resident, in the eCample, running this time, let us say, for 8resident, retains his position during the entire election period and can still use the resources of his office to support his campaign. As to the danger of neglect, inefficiency or partisanship in the discharge of the functions of his appointive office, the inverse could .e ?ust as true and compelling. The pu.lic officer who files his certificate of candidacy would .e driven .y a greater impetus for eCcellent performance to show his fitness for the position aspired for. 1n considering persons holding appointive positions as i$so facto resigned from their posts upon the filing of their CoCs, .ut not considering as resigned all other civil servants, specifically the elective ones, the law unduly discriminates against the first class. The fact alone that there is su.stantial distinction .etween those who hold appointive positions and those occupying elective posts, does not ?ustify such differential treatment. The classification simply fails to meet the test that it should .e germane to the purposes of the law. Challenged pro ision o erbroad 7irst, the provision pertains to all civil servants holding appointive posts without distinction as to whether they occupy high positions in government or not. Certainly, a utility worker in the government will also .e considered asi$so facto resigned once he files his CoC for the /0)0 elections. This scenario is a.surd for, indeed, it is unimagina.le how he can use his position in the government to wield influence in the political world. Fhile it may .e admitted that most appointive officials who seek pu.lic elective office are those who occupy relatively high positions in government, laws cannot .e legislated for them alone, or with them alone in mind. 7or the right to seek pu.lic elective office is universal, open and unrestrained, su.?ect only to the :ualification standards prescri.ed in the Constitution and in the laws. These :ualifications are, as we all know, general and .asic so as to allow the widest participation of the citi#enry and to give free rein for the pursuit of oneDs highest aspirations to pu.lic office. !uch is the essence of democracy. !econd, the provision is directed to the activity of seeking any and all pu.lic offices, whether they .e partisan or nonpartisan in character, whether they .e in the national, municipal or %arangay level.

Congress has not shown a compelling state interest to restrict the fundamental right involved on such a sweeping scale. !pecific evils re:uire specific treatments, not through overly .road measures that unduly restrict guaranteed freedoms of the citi#enry. After all, sovereignty resides in the people, and all governmental power emanates from them.

You might also like