Now were through with equal protection clause.

In the constitution there are two

provision respecting political equality Section 10 of article 19 with respect to the
provision on elections candidates sunning for public office shall be free from any form of
embarrassment and discrimination and under article 1 the same provisions respecting to
social !ustice and economic equality the".. that protect the enhancement of the right to al
the people with dignity in social# economic and political ". $nd remove ". %y diffusing
wealth and political power. &hese are the provisions in the constitution which somehow
decreases political". &his case of dumlao vs '()*+*'# spea,s of disqualitfication of
one of the candidates for puclic office for those persons who are charged with certain
offenses. &hey are offenses relating to the national secutriy or crimes against the state.
&he provision of law in question hass been valid for equal protection considering that the
persons charged are these of the same category as those persons already convicted. &hey
argue that when a person is charged the person is supposed to be considered as at least
presumed innocent. &he S' in this case of dumlao stated that the case will be invalid as
qualification to put those who are namely charged with the same class or category as
those who are convicted. &he S' however emphasi-ed that the filing of a qualification is
based on the dangerous tendency so to spea, that people woud be disqualified simply
because they are charged even if the charges would be false and malicious. Now if you
compare this with the case of trillanes vs .imentel". /nagarecit si 0uhiel1
*lective offices have fi2ed terms and therefore they have to finish the term unli,e in
appointed offices# normally they dont have fi2ed terms. *ven the S' they do not have
fi2ed terms. (ther electoral commissioners have fi2ed terms but they are the e2ception.
3oes the public officer should not be made to abuse his office to see, for an elective
position4 5or elective offices# thats the nature of their office they are there to see,".
&hats why they are supposed to be classified differently. In fact# there is an old case
before. In the case of iwamoto vs. " based on the section 66 and 67 of the omnibus
election code. Section 66 and 67 provides that if you are an elective official and you file a
'(' for office other than your incumbent position or the vice presidency or presidency
of the .hilippines then you are considered to be resigned. Now iwamoto was a member of
a lower house when he runs as spea,er when congress was in recess iwamoto filed his
'(' for poisiotn of $0)) gov. when congress resumes session# his name was not
called in the roll of attendance when the lower house resumes session. &he spea,er says
that under the law# you are deemed resign even if you are in an elective position again
elective officers before are covered with the " facto if you are running or filed a '('
not with your incumbent position unless it is for president or vice president. 3uring the
presidency of ramos from 1998 9 199: there was a new wave energy crisis# during the
time of ramos# the ta2 has gone ". ;e tried to address that of electricity or power crisis.
3uring his time there was this independent power producers. <here our electric poer
distribution were so called privati-ed before you must have heard of transcom.
N$.('(0 generates power then sends it to distributors 9 the local power distributors.
3avao light# 3$S=0*'( and etc. there were no different players before the
transmissions are from the government. &he government regulated the power given to the
distributors. <hen the electric power sector was liberali-ed then there it started "
distribution now# before it was supposed to be N$.('(0. Now we have the li,es of
aboiti- power. <hen ramos was president# the fort bonifacio was a military camp have
been sold and what is part of the ... par,. <hen that was the situation before the offices
when the elective officers when they are not able to attend the meeting in congress to
pass all these important measure# there was a horse trading that they do not want ipso
facto for elective official. So when the fair elections act of 8001 came about# the fair
elections act liberali-ed the so called '()*+*'" before. %efore# when you run for
public office there will be equal access of ".. the comelec spaces. >ou can only
advertise your candidacy within this '()*+*' spaces for what has been designated as
'()*+*' time. So there is 1 hour# all of you will get several seconds. .oliticians would
love that also. So the fair elections act of 8001 came about this was to liberali-e what was
limited substantially by '()*+*' space before. So from the title fair elections act.
&here is a reasonable e2pectation that it has been provided there is# o,ay you can have
this much wider time# your space so that was supposed to be the content of the fair
elections act. <hat happens is in the repealing clause# congress included repealing the
ipso facto designed for elective officials so since then under the elections act any elective
official can file a '(' for any office. If he runs# he lost# he still remains that was the
effect of the fair elections act. &hat hass been tested by the S'# the S' said that it was a
valid. &his was brought about by how come elective officials not deemed resigned for
any reason. &hey run for any position they are still considered incumbent. <hen you
serve as an appointive official you do not serve based on the mandate of the electorates
you serve based on the mandate of the appointee. >ou are supposed to have a security of
tenure. =nli,e for elective official who serves for fi2ed terms and may be removed by
simply not be elected again. So there is supposed to be substantial"