14 Dumlao vs. Comelec

1/8/2016
G.R.No.L52245
TodayisFriday,January08,2016
RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L52245January22,1980
PATRICIODUMLAO,ROMEOB.IGOT,andALFREDOSALAPANTAN,JR.,petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSIONONELECTIONS,respondent.
RaulM.Gonzalesforpetitioners
OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralforrespondent.
MELENCIOHERRERA,J:
ThisisaPetitionforProhibitionwithPreliminaryInjunctionand/orRestrainingOrderfiledbypetitioners,intheirown
behalfandallothersallegedlysimilarlysituated,seekingtoenjoinrespondentCommissiononElections
(COMELEC)fromimplementingcertainprovisionsofBatasPambansaBig.51,52,and53forbeing
unconstitutional.
ThePetitionallegesthatpetitioner,PatricioDumlao,isaformerGovernorofNuevaVizcaya,whohasfiledhis
certificateofcandidacyforsaidpositionofGovernorintheforthcomingelectionsofJanuary30,1980.Petitioner,
RomeoB.Igot,isataxpayer,aqualifiedvoterandamemberoftheBarwho,assuch,hastakenhisoathtosupport
theConstitutionandobeythelawsoftheland.Petitioner,AlfredoSalapantan,Jr.,isalsoataxpayer,aqualified
voter,andaresidentofSanMiguel,Iloilo.
PetitionerDumlaospecificallyquestionstheconstitutionalityofsection4ofBatasPambansaBlg.52as
discriminatoryandcontrarytotheequalprotectionanddueprocessguaranteesoftheConstitution.SaidSection4
provides:
Sec.4.SpecialDisqualificationinadditiontoviolationofsection10ofArt.XIICoftheConstitutionand
disqualificationmentionedinexistinglaws,whichareherebydeclaredasdisqualificationforanyofthe
electiveofficialsenumeratedinsection1hereof.
Anyretiredelectiveprovincialcityormunicipalofficialwhohasreceivedpaymentoftheretirement
benefitstowhichheisentitledunderthelaw,andwhoshallhavebeen6,5yearsofageatthe
commencementofthetermofofficetowhichheseekstobeelectedshallnotbequalifiedtorunforthe
sameelectivelocalofficefromwhichhehasretired(Emphasissupplied)
PetitionerDumlaoallegesthattheaforecitedprovisionisdirectedinsidiouslyagainsthim,andthattheclassification
providedthereinisbasedon"purelyarbitrarygroundsand,therefore,classlegislation."
Fortheirpart,petitionersigotandSalapantan,Jr.assailthevalidityofthefollowingstatutoryprovisions:
Sec7.TermsofOfficeUnlesssoonerremovedforcause,alllocalelectiveofficialshereinabove
mentionedshallholdofficeforatermofsix(6)years,whichshallcommenceonthefirstMondayof
March1980.
....(BatasPambansaBlg.51)Sec.4.
Sec.4....
AnypersonwhohascommittedanyactofdisloyaltytotheState,includingactsamountingto
subversion,insurrection,rebellionorothersimilarcrimes,shallnotbequalifiedtobeacandidatefor
anyoftheofficescoveredbythisAct,ortoparticipateinanypartisanpoliticalactivitytherein:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1980/jan1980/gr_52245_1980.html
1/16
1/8/2016
G.R.No.L52245
providedthatajudgmentofconvictionforanyoftheaforementionedcrimesshallbeconclusive
evidenceofsuchfactand
thefilingofchargesforthecommissionofsuchcrimesbeforeacivilcourtormilitarytribunalafter
preliminaryinvestigationshallbeprimafascieevidenceofsuchfact.
...(BatasPambansaBig.52)(ParagraphingandEmphasissupplied).
Section1.ElectionofcertainLocalOfficials...TheelectionshallbeheldonJanuary30,1980.
(BatasPambansa,Blg.52)
Section6.ElectionandCampaignPeriodTheelectionperiodshallbefixedbytheCommissionon
ElectionsinaccordancewithSection6,Art.XIICoftheConstitution.Theperiodofcampaignshall
commenceonDecember29,1979andterminateonJanuary28,1980.(ibid.)
Inadditiontotheabovecitedprovisions,petitionersIgotandSalapantan,Jr.alsoquestiontheaccreditationofsome
politicalpartiesbyrespondentCOMELEC,asauthorizedbyBatasPambansaBlg.53,onthegroundthatitis
contrarytosection9(1)Art.XIICoftheConstitution,whichprovidesthata"bonafidecandidateforanypublicoffice
shallbeit.fromanyformofharassmentanddiscrimination."Thequestionofaccreditationwillnotbetakenupinthis
casebutinthatofBacalso,etals.vs.COMELECetals.No.L52232)wheretheissuehasbeensquarelyraised,
Petitionersthenpraythatthestatutoryprovisionstheyhavechallengedbedeclarednullandvoidforbeingviolative
oftheConstitution.
I.TheproceduralAspect
Attheoutset,itshouldbestatedthatthisPetitionsuffersfrombasicproceduralinfirmities,hence,traditionally
unacceptableforjudicialresolution.Forone,thereisamisjoinderofpartiesandactions.PetitionerDumlao'sinterest
isalientothatofpetitionersIgotandSalapantanPetitionerDumlaodoesnotjoinpetitionersIgotandSalapantanin
theburdenoftheircomplaint,nordothelatterjoinDumlaoinhis.Therespectivelycontestcompletelydifferent
statutoryprovisions.PetitionerDumlaohasjoinedthissuitinhisindividualcapacityasacandidate.Theactionof
petitionersIgotandSalapantanismoreinthenatureofataxpayer'ssuit.Althoughpetitionerspleadnineconstraints
asthereasonoftheirjointPetition,itwouldhaverequiredonlyamodicummoreofefforttorpetitionerDumlao,on
onehandsaidpetitionerslgotandSalapantan,ontheother,tohavefiledseparatesuits,intheinterestoforderly
procedure.
Foranother,therearestandardsthathavetobefollowedintheexerciseofthefunctionofjudicialreview,namely(1)
theexistenceofanappropriatecase:,(2)aninterestpersonalandsubstantialbythepartyraisingtheconstitutional
question:(3)thepleathatthefunctionbeexercisedattheearliestopportunityand(4)thenecessitythatthe
constiutionalquestionbepasseduponinordertodecidethecase(Peoplevs.Vera65Phil.56[1937]).
Itmaybeconcededthatthethirdrequisitehasbeencompliedwith,whichis,thatthepartieshaveraisedtheissue
ofconstitutionalityearlyenoughintheirpleadings.
ThisPetition,however,hasfallenfarshortoftheotherthreecriteria.
A.Actualcaseandcontroversy.
Itisbasicthatthepowerofjudicialreviewislimitedtothedeterminationofactualcasesandcontroversies.
PetitionerDumlaoassailstheconstitutionalityofthefirstparagraphofsection4ofBatasPambansaBlg.52,quoted
earlier,asbeingcontrarytotheequalprotectionclauseguaranteedbytheConstitution,andseekstoprohibit
respondentCOMELECfromimplementingsaidprovision.Yet,Dumlaohasnotbeenadverselyaffectedbythe
applicationofthatprovision.NopetitionseekingDumlao'sdisqualificationhasbeenfiledbeforetheCOMELEC.
Thereisnorulingofthatconstitutionalbodyonthematter,whichthisCourtisbeingaskedtoreviewonCertiorari.
Hisisaquestionposedintheabstract,ahypotheticalissue,andineffect,apetitionforanadvisoryopinionfromthis
CourttoberenderedwithoutthebenefitofadetailedfactualrecordPetitionerDumlao'scaseisclearlywithinthe
primaryjurisdiction(seeconcurringOpinionofnowChiefJusticeFernandoinPeraltavs.Comelec,82SCRA30,96
[1978])ofrespondentCOMELECasprovidedforinsection2,Art.XIIC,fortheConstitutionthepertinentportionof
whichreads:
"Section2.TheCommissiononElectionsshallhavethefollowingpowerandfunctions:
1)xxx
2)Bethesolejudgeofallcontestsrelatingtotheelections,returnsandqualificationsofallmembersof
theNationalAssemblyandelectiveprovincialandcityofficials.(Emphasissupplied)
2/16
1/8/2016
G.R.No.L52245
Theaforequotedprovisionmustalsoberelatedtosection11ofArt.XIIC,whichprovides:
Section11.Anydecision,order,orrulingoftheCommissionmaybebroughttotheSupremeCourton
certioraribytheaggrievedpartywithinthirtydaysfromhisreceiptofacopythereof.
B.Properparty.
Thelongstandingrulehasbeenthat"thepersonwhoimpugnsthevalidityofastatutemusthaveapersonaland
substantialinterestinthecasesuchthathehassustained,orwillsustain,directinjuryasaresultofitsenforcement"
(Peoplevs.Vera,supra).
InthecaseofpetitionersIgotandSalapantan,itwasonlyduringthehearing,notintheirPetition,thatIgotissaidto
beacandidateforCouncilor.Eventhen,itcannotbedeniedthatneitheronehasbeenconvictednorchargedwith
actsofdisloyaltytotheState,nordisqualifiedfrombeingcandidatesforlocalelectivepositions.Neitheroneofthem
hasbeencalleedtohavebeenadverselyaffectedbytheoperationofthestatutoryprovisionstheyassailas
unconstitutionalTheirsisageneratedgrievance.Theyhavenopersonalnorsubstantialinterestatstake.Inthe
absenceofanylitigateinterest,theycanclaimnolocusstandiinseekingjudicialredress.
ItistruethatpetitionersIgotandSalapantanhaveinstitutedthiscaseasataxpayer'ssuit,andthattherule
enunciatedinPeoplevs.Vera,abovestated,hasbeenrelaxedinPascualvs.TheSecretaryofPublicWorks(110
Phil.331[1960],thus:
...itiswellsettledthatthevalidityofastatutemaybecontestedonlybyonewhowillsustainadirect
injuryinconsequenceofitsenforcement.Yet,therearemanydecisionsnullifyingattheinstanceof
taxpayers,lawsprovidingforthedisbursementofpublicfunds,uponthetheorythat"theexpenditureof
publicfunds,byanofficeroftheStateforthepurposeofadministeringanunconstitutionalact
constitutesamisapplicationofsuchfunds,"whichmaybeenjoinedattherequestofataxpayer.
Inthesamevein,ithasbeenheld:
Inthedeterminationofthedegreeofinterestessentialtogivetherequisitestandingtoattackthe
constitutionalityofastatute,thegeneralruleisthatnotonlypersonsindividuallyaffected,butalso
taxpayershavesufficientinterestinpreventingtheillegalexpenditureofmoneysraisedbytaxationand
theymay,therefore,questiontheconstitutionalityofstatutesrequiringexpenditureofpublicmoneys.
(PhilippineConstitutionAssociation,Inc.,etals.,vs.Gimenez,etals.,15SCRA479[1965]).
However,thestatutoryprovisionsquestionedinthiscase,namely,sec.7,BPBlg.51,andsections4,1,and6BP
Blg.52,donotdirectlyinvolvethedisbursementofpublicfunds.While,concededly,theelectionstobeheldinvolve
theexpenditureofpublicmoneys,nowhereintheirPetitiondosaidpetitionersallegethattheirtaxmoneyis"being
extractedandspentinviolationofspecificconstitutionalprotectionsagainstabusesoflegislativepower"(Flastv.
Cohen,392U.S.,83[1960]),orthatthereisamisapplicationofsuchfundsbyrespondentCOMELEC(seePascual
vs.SecretaryofPublicWorks,110Phil.331[1960]),orthatpublicmoneyisbeingdeflectedtoanyimproper
purpose.Neitherdopetitionersseektorestrainrespondentfromwastingpublicfundsthroughtheenforcementofan
invalidorunconstitutionallaw.(PhilippineConstitutionAssociationvs.Mathay,18SCRA300[1966]),citing
PhilippineConstitutionAssociationvs.Gimenez,15SCRA479[1965]).Besides,theinstitutionofataxpayer'ssuit,
perseisnoassuranceofjudicialreview.AsheldbythisCourtinTanvs.Macapagal(43SCRA677[1972]),
speakingthroughourpresentChiefJustice,thisCourtisvestedwithdiscretionastowhetherornotataxpayer'ssuit
shouldbeentertained.
C.Unavoidabilityofconstitutionalquestion.
AgainupontheauthorityofPeoplevs.Vera,"itisawellsettledrulethattheconstitutionalityofanactofthe
legislaturewillnotbedeterminedbythecourtsunlessthatquestionisproperlyraisedandpresentedinappropriate
casesandisnecessarytoadeterminationofthecasei.e.,theissueofconstitutionalitymustbetheverylismota
presented."
Wehavealreadystatedthat,bythestandardssetforthinPeoplevs.Vera,thepresentisnotan"appropriatecase"
foreitherpetitionerDumlaoorforpetitionersIgotandSalapantan.Theyareactuallywithoutcauseofaction.It
followsthatthenecessityforresolvingtheissueofconstitutionalityisabsent,andproceduralregularitywould
requirethatthissuitbedismissed.
II.Thesubstantiveviewpoint.
Wehaveresolved,however,torulesquarelyontwoofthechallengedprovisions,theCourtsnotbeingentirely
withoutdiscretioninthematter.Thus,adherencetothestrictproceduralstandardwasrelaxedinTiniovs.Mina(26
SCRA512[1968])Eduvs.Ericta(35SCRA481[1970])andinGonzalezvs.Comelec(27SCRA835[1969]),the
OpinionintheTinioandGonzalezcaseshavingbeenpennedbyourpresentChiefJustice.Thereasonswhichhave
3/16
1/8/2016
G.R.No.L52245
impelledusaretheparamountpublicinterestinvolvedandtheproximityoftheelectionswhichwillbeheldonlya
fewdayshence.
PetitionerDumlao'scontentionthatsection4ofBPBlg.52isdiscriminatoryagainsthimpersonallyisbeliedbythe
factthatseveralpetitionsforthedisqualificationofothercandidatesforlocalpositionsbasedonthechallenged
provisionhavealreadybeenfiledwiththeCOMELEC(aslistedinp.15,respondent'sComment).Thistellingly
overthrowsDumlao'scontentionofintentionalorpurposefuldiscrimination.
TheassertionthatSection4ofBPBlg.52iscontrarytothesaferguardofequalprotectionisneitherwelltaken.The
constitutionalguaranteeofequalprotectionofthelawsissubjecttorationalclassification.Ifthegroupingsarebased
onreasonableandrealdifferentiations,oneclasscanbetreatedandregulateddifferentlyfromanotherclass.For
purposesofpublicservice,employees65yearsofage,havebeenvalidlyclassifieddifferentlyfromyounger
employees.Employeesattainingthatagearesubjecttocompulsoryretirement,whilethoseofyoungeragesarenot
socompulsorilyretirable.
Inrespectofelectiontoprovincial,city,ormunicipalpositions,torequirethatcandidatesshouldnotbemorethan65
yearsofageatthetimetheyassumeoffice,ifapplicabletoeveryone,mightormightnotbeareasonable
classificationalthough,astheSolicitorGeneralhasintimated,agoodpolicyofthelawwouldbetopromotethe
emergenceofyoungerbloodinourpoliticalelectiveechelons.Ontheotherhand,itmightbethatpersonsmorethan
65yearsoldmayalsobegoodelectivelocalofficials.
Comingnowtothecaseofretirees.Retirementfromgovernmentservicemayormaynotbeareasonable
disqualificationforelectivelocalofficials.Foronething,therecanalsoberetireesfromgovernmentserviceatages,
saybelow65.Itmayneitherbereasonabletodisqualifyretirees,aged65,fora65yearoldretireecouldbeagood
localofficialjustlikeone,aged65,whoisnotaretiree.
But,inthecaseofa65yearoldelectivelocalofficial,whohasretiredfromaprovincial,cityormunicipaloffice,
thereisreasontodisqualifyhimfromrunningforthesameofficefromwhichhehadretired,asprovidedforinthe
challengedprovision.Theneedfornewbloodassumesrelevance.Thetirednessoftheretireeforgovernmentwork
ispresent,andwhatisemphaticallysignificantisthattheretiredemployeehasalreadydeclaredhimselftiredand
unavailableforthesamegovernmentwork,but,which,byvirtueofachangeofmind,hewouldliketoassume
again.Itisforthisveryreasonthatinequalitywillneitherresultfromtheapplicationofthechallengedprovision.Just
asthatprovisiondoesnotdenyequalprotectionneitherdoesitpermitofsuchdenial(seePeoplevs.Vera,65Phil.
56[1933]).Personssimilarlysituatedaresinlilarlytreated.
Infine,itbearsreiterationthattheequalprotectionclausedoesnotforbidalllegalclassification.Whatisproscribes
isaclassificationwhichisarbitraryandunreasonable.Thatconstitutionalguaranteeisnotviolatedbyareasonable
classificationbaseduponsubstantialdistinctions,wheretheclassificationisgermanetothepurposeofthelawand
appliestoallChosebelongingtothesameclass(Peraltavs.Comelec,82SCRA30[1978]citingFelwavs.Salas,
18SCRA606[1966]Rafaelv.EmbroideryandApparelControlandInspectionBoard,21SCRA336[1967]
Inchongetc.,etal.vs.Hernandez101Phil.1155[1957]).Thepurposeofthelawistoallowtheemergenceof
youngerbloodinlocalgovernments.Theclassificationinquestionbeingpursuanttothatpurpose,itcannotbe
consideredinvalid"evenitattimes,itmaybesusceptibletotheobjectionthatitismarredbytheoretical
inconsistencies"(ChiefJusticeFernando,TheConstitutionofthePhilippines,1977ed.,p.547).
Thereisanadditionalconsideration.Absenthereinisashowingoftheclearinvalidityofthequestionedprovision.
Wellacceptedistherulethattojustifythenullificationofalaw,theremustbeaclearandunequivocalbreachofthe
Constitution,notadoubtfulandequivocalbreach.Courtsarepracticallyunanimousinthepronouncementthatlaws
shallnotbedeclaredinvalidunlesstheconflictwiththeConstitutionisclearbeyondreasonabledoubt(Peraltavs.
COMELEC,82SCRA55[1978],citingCoopervs.Telfair4Dall14Dodd,CasesonConstitutionalLaw,3rded.
1942,56).Lastly,itiswithinthecompentenceofthelegislaturetoprescribequalificationsforonewhodesiresto
becomeacandidateforofficeprovidedtheyarereasonable,asinthiscase.
InsofarasthepetitionofIgotandSalapantanareconcerned,thesecondparagraphofsection4ofBatas
PambansaBlg.52,quotedinfullearlier,andwhichtheychallenge,maybedividedintwoparts.Thefirstprovides:
a.judgmentofconvictionjoranyoftheaforementionedcrimesshallbeconclusiveevidenceofsuch
fact...
ThesupremacyoftheConstitutionstandsoutasthecardinalprinciple.Weareawareofthepresumptionofvalidity
thatattachestoachallengedstatute,ofthewellsettledprinciplethat"allreasonabledoubtsshouldberesolvedin
favorofconstitutionality,"andthatCourtswillnotsetasideastatuteasconstitutionallydefective"exceptinaclear
case."(Peoplevs.Vera,supra).Weareconstrainedtoholdthatthisisonesuchclearcase.
Explicitistheconstitutionalprovisionthat,inallcriminalprosecutions,theaccusedshallbepresumedinnocentuntil
thecontraryisproved,andshallenjoytherighttobeheardbyhimselfandcounsel(ArticleIV,section19,1973
Constitution).Anaccusation,accordingtothefundamentallaw,isnotsynonymouswithguilt.Thechallenged
4/16
1/8/2016
G.R.No.L52245
provisocontravenestheconstitutionalpresumptionofinnocence,asacandidateisdisqualifiedfromrunningfor
publicofficeonthegroundalonethatchargeshavebeenfiledagainsthimbeforeacivilormilitarytribunal.It
condemnsbeforeoneisfullyheard.Inultimateeffect,exceptastothedegreeofproof,nodistinctionismade
betweenapersonconvictedofactsofdislotaltyandoneagainstwhomchargeshavebeenfiledforsuchacts,as
bothofthemwouldbeineligibletorunforpublicoffice.Apersondisqualifiedtorunforpublicofficeontheground
thatchargeshavebeenfiledagainsthimisvirtuallyplacedinthesamecategoryasapersonalreadyconvictedofa
crimewiththepenaltyofarresto,whichcarrieswithittheaccessorypenaltyofsuspensionoftherighttoholdoffice
duringthetermofthesentence(Art.44,RevisedPenalCode).
Andalthoughthefilingofchargesisconsideredasbutprimafacieevidence,andtherefore,mayberebutted,yet.
thereis"clearandpresentdanger"thatbecauseoftheproximityoftheelections,timeconstraintswillpreventone
chargedwithactsofdisloyaltyfromofferingcontraryprooftoovercometheprimafacieevidenceagainsthim.
Additionally,itisbestthatevidenceproandconofactsofdisloyaltybeairedbeforetheCourtsratherthanbeforean
administrativebodysuchastheCOMELEC.Ahighlypossibleconflictoffindingsbetweentwogovernmentbodies,
totheextremedetrimentofapersoncharged,willtherebybeavoided.Furthermore,alegislative/administrative
determinationofguiltshouldnotbeallowedtobesubstitutedforajudicialdetermination.
Beinginfectedwithconstitutionalinfirmity,apartialdeclarationofnullityofonlythatobjectionableportionis
mandated.Itisseparablefromthefirstportionofthesecondparagraphofsection4ofBatasPambansaBig.52
whichcanstandbyitself.
WHEREFORE,1)thefirstparagraphofsection4ofBataspambansaBilang52isherebydeclaredvalid.Said
paragraphreads:
SEC.4.Specialdisqualification.InadditiontoviolationofSection10ofArticleXII(C)ofthe
Constitutionanddisqualificationsmentionedinexistinglawswhichareherebydeclaredas
disqualificationforanyoftheelectiveofficialsenumeratedinSection1hereof,anyretiredelective
provincial,cityormunicipalofficial,whohasreceivedpaymentoftheretirementbenefitstowhichheis
entitledunderthelawandwhoshallhavebeen65yearsofageatthecommencementofthetermof
officetowhichheseekstobeelected,shallnotbequalifiedtorunforthesameelectivelocaloffice
fromwhichhehasretired.
2)Thatportionofthesecondparagraphofsection4ofBatasPambansaBilang52providingthat"...
thefilingofchargesforthecommissionofsuchcrimesbeforeacivilcourtormilitarytribunalafter
preliminaryinvestigationshallbeprimafacieevidenceofsuchfact",isherebydeclarednullandvoid,
forbeingviolativeoftheconstitutionalpresumptionofinnocenceguaranteedtoanaccused.
SOORDERED.
Makasiar,Antonio,Concepcion,Jr.,FernandezandGuerrero,JJ.,concur.
Fernando,C.J.,concursandsubmitsabriefseparateopinion.
DeCastro,J.,abstainasfaraspetitionerDumlaoisconcerned.
SeparateOpinions
BARREDO,J.,concurring:
Butasregardsthematterofequalprotection,IreiteratemyviewforPeraltathatSec.9(1)Art.XIIismore
expensivethantheequalprotectionclause.
AQUINO,J,concurring:
concurintheresultastoparagraphIofthedispositivepartofthedecision.Idissentastoparagraph2.Inmy
opinion,paragraph2,section4ofBatasPambansaBilang52isvalid,beingsimilartocertainpresumptionsin
Articles217and315ofthePenalCode,asamendedbyRepublicActNo.4885.SeeU.S.v.Luling,34Phil.725and
Peoplev.Mingoa,92Phil.856.
ABADSANTOS,J.,concurring:
5/16
1/8/2016
G.R.No.L52245
concurbutwishtoaddthatajudgmentofconvictionasprovidedinSec.4,par.2ofBatasPambansaBig.52should
beonewhichisfinalandunappealable.
FERNANDO,C.J.,concurring.
ItisparticularlygratifyingthatthereiterationintheablywrittenandscholarlyopinionoftheCourt,pennedbyJustice
MelencioHerrera,ofthestandardthatmustbemetbeforethepowerofjudicialreviewmaybeavailedof,setforth
withsuchlucidityandforcebyJusticeLaurelinthetwoleadingcasesofAngarav.ElectoralCommission1and
Peoplev.Vera,2didnotconstituteanobstacletothisCourtrulingonthecrucialconstitutionalissuesraised.Itwasacause
forconcern,formeatleast,thatcounselofprivatepartiesinnotafewcasesintherecentpasthadshownlessthanfull
awarenessofthedoctrines,proceduralincharacter,thatcallforapplicationwhenevertheexerciseofthisawesomeand
delicateresponsibilityofadjudgingthevalidityofastatuteorpresidentialdecreeisinvoked.3WhilethisCourtcannotbe
accusedofbeingboundbythelettersofjudicialtimidity,itremainstruethatnocavalierdisregardoftriedandtested
conceptsshouldbegivenencouragement.Apetitionerwhobaseshisclaimforreliefonassertedconstitutionaldeficiencies
deservestobeheard.Thatgoeswithoutsaying.Forthejudiciarymusteverendeavortovindicaterightssafeguardedbythe
fundamentallaw.Inthatsense,thisTribunalisnotsusceptibletothereproachthatithasimprisoneditselfinitsallegianceto
thephilosophyofjudicialselfrestraint.Thereare,however,limitstojudicialactivism.Itcannotbetoostronglystressedthata
petitionofthischaractermusteverremainanorderlyproceedingthatcannotbeobliviousoftherequisitestobecomplied
withtojustifyapronouncementonconstitutionalissues.Wherethereisexuberanceintheexerciseofjudicialpower,the
formsoflitigationarebutslightretainingwalls.ItisrightandproperthatthevoiceoftheSolicitorGeneralshouldbeheardin
protestagainstsuchneglectofrudimentaryprecepts.Necessarilythen,wheneverobjectionsbasedonrefusaltoabidebythe
proceduralprinciplesarepresented,thisCourtmustrule.Itwouldsufficeiftherebythepetitionisdismissedfornon
observanceofthecontrollingdoctrines.Therearetimes,however,whenthecontroversyisofsuchacharacterthatto
resolvedoubts,eraseuncertainty,andassurerespectforconstitutionallimitations,thisTribunalmustpassonthemerits.
Thisisonesuchcase.IthereforeconcurwiththeopinionoftheCourt.
Itmaybeataskofsuperfluitythentowriteaconcurringopinion.Nonetheless,afewwordsmaynotbeamisson
whatformeistheproperapproachtotakeastothelackofpowerofthisCourttopassonthemotivesofthe
legislativebody,onthelackofpersuasivenessofpetitioner'sargumentbasedontheequalprotectionguarantee,
andonthefundamentalconceptoffairnessofwhichthedueprocessclauseisanembodiment,thuscallingforthe
nullificationofthedisqualificationofacandidateuponthemerefilingofchargesagainsthim.
1.Thechallengetotheprovisioninquestionispredicatedonwhatwasreferredtoas"aknownfactintheprovince
ofNuevaVizcayathattheaforesaidprovisionwasconcoctedanddesignedpreciselytofrustrateanybidofherein
petitionertomakeapoliticalcomeback[sic]asgovernorofNuevaVizcaya.Thewordings[sic]ofthelawisso
peculiarlyattunedtodiscriminateagainsthereinpetitionerbecauseeveryconditionimposedasdisqualification
groundsareknowntobepossessedbyhimbecausehewasaformerelectiveprovincialofficialwhohasreceived
hisretirementbenefits,hedesirestorunforthesameelectiveofficeandatthecommencementofthetermofoffice
towhichhenowseekstobeelected,heshallhavereached65yearsofage.4Clearlythen,thepleaforinvalidating
suchprovisionisthemotiveattributedtotheInterimBatasangPambansa.Forpetitioner,itamountedtoaconstitutional
infirmityfatalincharacter.Theweaknessofthepetitionisthusapparent.NodecisionofthisTribunalcanbecitedinsupport
ofsuchaproposition.Itwouldbetoextendundulytheconceptofjudicialreviewifacourtcanroamfarandwideandrange
atwilloverthevarietyanddiversityofthereasons,thepromptingsthatmayleadalegislatortocasthisvotefororagainsta
proposedlegislation.Itisnotwhatinspiredtheintroductionofabillbuttheeffectthereofifdulyenactedthatisdecisive.That
wouldbethetestforitsvalidityorlackofit.ThereisthisrelevantexcerptfromMcCrayv.UnitedStates:5"Thedecisionsof
thisCourt[SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates]fromthebeginninglendnosupportwhatevertotheassumptionthatthe
judiciarymayrestraintheexerciseoflawfulpowerontheassumptionthatawrongfulpurposeofmotivehascausedthe
powertobeexerted.6ThelateChiefJusticeWarren,whopennedtheopinioninUnitedStatesv.O'Brien7putthematter
thus:"Inquiriesintocongressionalmotivesorpurposesareahazardousmatter.Whentheissueissimplytheinterpretationof
legislation,theCourtwilllooktostatementsbylegislatorsforguidanceastothepurposeofthelegislature,becausethe
benefittosounddecisionmakinginthiscircumstanceisthoughtsufficienttoriskthepossibilityofmisreadingCongress'
purpose.Itisentirelyadifferentmatterwhenweareaskedtovoidastatutethatis,underwellsettledcriteria,constitutional
onitsface,onthebasisofwhatfewerthanahandfulofCongressmensaidaboutit.Whatmotivatesonelegislatortomakea
speechaboutastatuteisnotnecessarilywhatmotivatesscoresofotherstoenactit,andthestakesaresufficientlyhighfor
ustoeschewguesswork.WedeclinetovoidessentiallyonthegroundthatitisunwiselegislationwhichCongresshadthe
undoubtedpowertoenactandwhichcouldbereenactedinitsexactformifthesameoranotherlegislatormadea'wiser'
speechaboutit."8
2.If,however,theprovisioninquestionissusceptibletothereproachthatitamountstoadenialofequalprotection,
thenhispleafornullificationshouldbeaccordedasympatheticresponse.AstheopinionoftheCourtmakesclear,
suchimputationisnotdeservingofcredence.Theclassificationcannotbestigmatizedaslackinginrationality.Itis
germanetothesubject.Age,aswellasthefactofretirementandthereceiptofretirementbenefitsarefactorsthat
canenterintoanylegislativedeterminationofwhatdisqualificationstoimpose.AswaspointedoutinJ.M.Tuason
andCo.,Inc.v.LandTenureAdministration:9"Itsufficesthenthatthelawsoperateequallyanduniformlyonallpersons
undersimilarcircumstancesorthatallpersonsmustbetreatedinthesamemanner,theconditionsnotbeingdifferent,both
intheprivilegesconferredandtheliabilitiesimposed.Favoritismandunduepreferencecannotbeallowed.Fortheprinciple
isthatequalprotectionandsecurityshallbegiventoeverypersonundercircumstances,whichifnotIdentical,are
6/16
1/8/2016
G.R.No.L52245
analogous.Iflawbelookeduponintermsofburdenorcharges,thosethatfallwithinaclassshouldbetreatedinthesame
fashion,whateverrestrictionscastonsomeinthegroupequallybindingontherest.10Itcannotbedeniedthatothers
similarlyfallunderthesameban.Itwasnotdirectedatpetitionersolely.Themostthatcanbesaidisthathefallswithinthe
proscribedclass.Thepointwaslikewiseraisedastowhyshouldnationalofficialsbeexcludedintheaboveprovision.The
answerissimple.Thereisnothingtopreventthelegislativebodyfromfollowingasystemofpriorities.Thisitdidunderthe
challengedlegislativeprovision.Initsopinion,whatcalledforsuchameasureisthepropensityofthelocalofficialshaving
reachedtheretirementageandhavingreceivedretirementbenefitsonceagainrunningforpublicoffice.Accordingly,the
provisioninquestionwasenacted.AportionoftheopinionintheaforesaidJ.M.TuasonandCo.,Inc.findsrelevance:"Itwas
confrontedwithasituationthatcanedforcorrection,andthelegislationthatwastheresultofitsdeliberationsoughttoapply
thenecessarypalliative.Thatitstoppedshortofpossiblyattainingthecureofotheranalogousillscertainlydoesnot
stigmatizeitseffortasadenialofequalprotection.Wehavegivenoursanctiontotheprincipleunderlyingtheexerciseof
policepowerandtaxation,butcertainlynotexcludingeminentdomain,that'thelegislatureisnotrequiredbytheConstitution
toadheretothepolicyofall"ornone."'Thus,toreiterate,theinvocationbypetitioneroftheequalprotectionclauseisfutile
andunavailing."11
3.Thatbringsustotheassailedprovisionastothesufficiencyofthefilingofchargesforthecommissionofsuch
crimesassubversion,insurrection,rebellionorothersofsimilarnaturebeforeacivilcourtormilitarytribunalafter
preliminaryinvestigation,beingaprimafacieevidenceofsuchfactandthereforejustifyingthedisqualificationofa
candidate.TheopinionoftheCourtinvokedtheconstitutionalpresumptionofinnocenceasabasisforitsbeing
annulled.Thatconclusioniswellfounded.Suchbeingthecase,Iaminfullagreement.Iwouldaddthatsucha
provisionismoreovertaintedwitharbitrarinessandthereforeisviolativeofthedueprocessclause.Sucha
constitutionalright,toquotefromLuzonSuretyCo.,Inc.v.Beson,12is"notamereformalitythatmaybedispensed
withatwill.Itsdisregardisamatterofseriousconcern.Itisaconstitutionalsafeguardofthehighestorder.Itisaresponseto
man'sinnatesenseofjustice."13AsrightfullystressedintheopinionoftheCourt,thetimeelementmayinvariablypreclude
afullhearingonthechargeagainsthimandthuseffectivelynegatetheopportunityofanindividualtopresenthimselfasa
candidate.If,ashasbeeninvariablythecase,aprosecutor,whetherinacivilcourtorinamilitarytribunalsaddledasheis
withsomanycomplaintsfiledonhisdeskwouldgiveintothealltoohumanpropensitytotaketheeasywayoutandtofile
charges,thenacandidateWouldbehardputtodestroythepresumption.Asenseofrealismformecompelsadeclarationof
nullityofaprovisionwhichonitsfaceispatentlyoffensivetotheConstitution.
Hencemyconcurrence.
TEEHANKEE,J.,dissenting:
FilesaseparateopiniondissentingfromtheadverserulingonDumlaoscandidacyanddecliningtoruleonthe
invalidityofthefirstpartofSection4ofthequestionedLawandconcurswiththepronouncementthatthemere
filingofchargesshallbeprimafaciecausefordisqualificationisvoid.
I.Idissentfromthemajority'sdismissalofthepetitioninsofarasitupholdsthediscriminatoryandarbitraryprovision
ofSec.4ofBatasPambansaBlg.52whichwouldimposeaspecialdisqualificationonpetitionerPatricioDumlao
fromrunningfortheelectivelocalofficeofgovernorofhishomeprovinceofNuevaVizcayaandwouldineffectbar
theelectorsofhisprovincefromelectinghimtosaidofficeintheJanuary30elections,simplybecauseheisa
retiredprovincialgovernorofsaidprovince"whohasreceivedpaymentoftheretirementbenefitstowhichheis
entitledunderthelawandwhoshallhavebeen65yearsofageatthecommencementofthetermofofficetowhich
heseekstobeelected."
Tospeciallyandpeculiarlybana65yearoldpreviouslyretiredelectivelocalofficialfromrunningforthesame
electiveoffice(ofgovernor,inthiscase)previouslyheldbyhimandfromwhichhehasretiredisarbitrary,
oppressiveandunreasonable.Personssimilarlysituatedarenotsimilarlytreated,e.g.aretiredvicegovernor,
mayororcouncilorof65isentitledtorunforgovernor(becausethedisqualificationisfortheretireeof65torunfor
thesameelectiveofficefromwhichheretired)butpetitionerisbarredfromdoingso(althoughhemayrunforany
otherlesseroffice).Bothare65andareretirees,yetoneisbarredfromrunningfortheofficeofgovernor.Whatis
thevaliddistinction?Isthisnotanarbitrarydiscriminationagainstpetitionerwhohascausetothat"theaforesaid
provisionwasconcoctedanddesignedpreciselytofrustrateanybidofpetitiontomakeapoliticalcomebackas
governorofNuevaVizcaya1(sincenoothercasebyaformergovernorsimilarlybarredbyvirtueofsaidprovisioncan
neverbecited2).Istherenothere,thereforeagrossdenialofthecardinalconstitutionalguaranteethatequalprotectionand
securityshallbegivenunderthelawtoeveryperson,underanalogousifnotIdenticalcircumstances?
Respondent'sclaim,asacceptedbythemajority,isthatthepurposeofthespecialdisqualificationis"toinfusenew
bloodinlocalgovernmentsbuttheclassification(thatwouldbar65yearoldretireesfromrunningforthesame
electivelocaloffice)isnotrationalnorreasonable.Itisnotgermanenorrelevanttotheallegedpurposeof"infusing
newblood"becausesuch"oldblood"retireesmaycontinueinlocalgovernmentssincetheyarenotdisqualifiedat
alltorunforanyotherlocalelectiveofficesuchasfromprovincialgovernor,vicegovernor,city,municipalordistrict
mayorandvicemayortomemberoftheSangguniangPanlalawiganSangguniangPanglunsodandSangguniang
Bayan,otherthanthelocalelectiveofficefromwhichtheyretired.
Furthermore,other65yearoldswhohavelikewiseretiredfromthejudiciaryandotherbranchesofgovernmentare
7/16
1/8/2016
G.R.No.L52245
notinanymannerdisqualifiedtorunforanylocalelectiveoffice,asinthecaseofretiredCourtofFirstInstance
Judge(formerCongressman)AlbertoS.Ubaywhoretiredwithfullsubstantialretirementbenefitsassuchjudgein
1978atage70andnowatpast71yearsofage,isrunningastheofficialKBLcandidateforgovernorofhis
province.Andeveninthecaseof65yearoldlocalelectiveofficials,theyaredisqualifiedonlywhentheyhave
receivedpaymentoftheretirementbenefitstowhichtheyareentitledunderthelaw(whichamounttoverylittle,
comparedtoretirementbenefitsofotherexecutiveofficialsandmembersofthejudiciary).Iftheyhavenotreceived
suchretirementbenefits,theyarenotdisqualified.Certainly,theirdisqualificationornondisqualificationand
consequentclassificationas"oldblood"or"newblood"cannothingeonsuchanirrelevantquestionofwhetheror
nottheyhavereceivedtheirretirementbenefits.
Theclassificationispatentlyarbitraryandunreasonableandisnotbasedonsubstantialdistinctionswhichmakefor
realdifferencesthatwouldjustifythespecialdisqualificationofpetitioner,which,itisclaimed,"isbasedona
presumptionthatelectivelocalofficialswhohaveretiredandareofadvancedagecannotdischargethefunctionsof
theofficetheyseekasthosewhoaredifferentlysituated."3Suchpresumptionissheerconjecture.Themerefactthata
candidateislessthan65orhas"youngornewblood"doesnotmeanthathewouldbemoreefficient,effectiveand
competentthanamature65yearoldlikepetitionerwhohashadexperienceonthejobandwhowasobservedatthehearing
toappeartobemostphysicallyfit.SuficeittocitytheoutstandingcaseoftheincumbentebullientMinisterofForeignAffairs,
GeneralCarlosP.Romulo,whowaselecteda80asamemberoftheInterimBatasanPambansaandwhohasjustthis
monthcompleted81yearsofageandhasbeenhailedbythePresidenthimselfas"thebestforeignministertheRepublic
haseverhad
Agehassimplyjustneverbeenayardstickforqualificationordisqualification.Al.themost,aminimum
agetoholdpublicofficehasbeenrequiredasaqualificationtoinsureamodicumofmaturity'now
reducedto21yearsinthepresentbatas),butnomaximumagehaseverbeenimposedasa
disqualificationforelectpublicofficesincetherightandwinofthepeopletoelectthecandidateoftheir
choiceforanyelectiveoffice,nomatterhisagehasalwaysbeenrecognizedassupreme.
Thedisqualificationinquestionthereforeisgrosslyviolativeoftheequalprotectionclausewhichmandatesthatall
personssubjectedtolegislationshallbetreatedalike,underlikecircumstancesandconditions,bothintheprivileges
conferredandintheliabilitiesimposed.Theguaranteeismeanttoproscribeunduefavorandindividualorclass
privilegeontheonehandandhostilediscriminationandtheoppressionofinqualityontheother.Thequestioned
provisionshouldthereforeattheleastbedeclaredinvalidinitsapplicationinsofarasitwoulddisqualifypetitioner
fromrunningfortheofficeofgovernorofhisprovince.
AsaptlyrestatedbytheChiefJustice,"Personssimilarlysituatedshouldbesimilarlytreated.Wherenovalid
distinctioncouldbemadeastotherelevantconditionsthatcallforconsideration,thereshouldbenoneastothe
privilegesconferredandtheliabilitiesimposed.Therecanbenounduefavoritismorpartialityontheonehandor
hostilityontheother.Arbitraryselectionanddiscriminationagainstpersonsinthusruledout.Fortheprincipleisthat
equalprotectionandsecurityshallbegiventoeverypersonundercircumstances,whichifnotIdenticalare
analogous.Iflawbelookeduponintermsofburdenorcharges,thosethatfullwithinaclassshouldbetreatedinthe
samefashion,whateverrestrictionscastonsomeinthegroupequallybindingontherest."4
Finally,thisarbitrarydisqualificationislikewisegrosslyviolativeofArticleXII,subarticleC,section9(1)ofthe1973
ConstitutionthatBonafidecandidatesforanypublicofficeshallbefreefromanyformofharassmentand
discrimination.
II.Iconcurwiththemajority'sdeclarationofinvalidityoftheportionofthesecondparagraphofSection4ofBatas
PambansaBlg.52whichwouldmakethemerefilingofchargesofsubversion,insurrection,rebellionorothersimilar
crimesbeforeacivilcourtormilitarytribunalafterpreliminaryinvestigationprimafacieevidenceofthefactof
commissionofanactofdisloyaltytotheStateonthepartofthecandidateanddisqualifyhimfromhiscandidacy.
Suchaprovisioncouldbethemostinsidiousweapontodisqualifybonafidecandidateswhoseemtobeheadedfor
electionandplacesinthehandsofthemilitaryandcivilprosecutorsadangerousanddevastatingweaponofcutting
offanycandidatewhomaynotbetotheirfilingthroughthefilingoflasthourchargesagainsthim.
Ialsoconcurwiththepronouncementmadeinthemajoritydecisionthatinorderthatajudgmentofconvictionmay
bedeemed"asconclusiveevidence"ofthecandidate'sdisloyaltytotheStateandofhisdisqualificationfromoffice,
suchjudgmentofconvictionmustbefinalandunappealable.ThisissospecificallyprovidedinSection22ofthe
1978ElectionCode.5Otherwise,thequestionedprovisionwoulddenythebonafidecandidatesubstantivedueprocess
andwouldbegrosslyviolativeofhisconstitutionalrightofpresumptionofinnocenceandoftheabovequotedprovisionofthe
1973Constitutionprotectingcandidatesforpublicofficefromanyformofharassmentanddiscrimination.
ADDENDUM
WhenthecasewasvoteduponasecondtimelastJanuary21st,thereappearedtobeamajorityinfavorofthe
declarationsandpronouncementsabovereferredtointhetwoprecedingparagraphs,inviewoftheurgencyofthe
matterandtheevilsoughttobeavoided.However,asofthiswriting,January23,1980intheafternoon,such
majorityseemstohavebeendissipatedbytheviewthattheactiontonullifysuchsecondparagraphofsection4of
8/16
1/8/2016
G.R.No.L52245
theBatasinquestionisprematureandhasnotbeenproperlysubmittedforajudicationunderthestrictprocedural
require.Ifthisbethecase,myaboveviews,termedasconcurrences,shouldbetakenasdissentsagainstthe
majorityaction.
SeparateOpinions
9/16
1/8/2016
G.R.No.L52245
speechaboutit."8
andunavailing."11
Hencemyconcurrence.
I.Idissentfromthemajority'sdismissalofthepetitioninsofarasitupholdsthediscriminatoryandarbitraryprovision
ofSec.4ofBatasPambansaBlg.52whichwouldimposeaspecialdisqualificationonpetitionerPatricioDumlao
10/16
1/8/2016
G.R.No.L52245
fromrunningfortheelectivelocalofficeofgovernorofhishomeprovinceofNuevaVizcayaandwouldineffectbar
theelectorsofhisprovincefromelectinghimtosaidofficeintheJanuary30elections,simplybecauseheisa
retiredprovincialgovernorofsaidprovince"whohasreceivedpaymentoftheretirementbenefitstowhichheis
entitledunderthelawandwhoshallhavebeen65yearsofageatthecommencementofthetermofofficetowhich
heseekstobeelected."
haseverhad
11/16
1/8/2016
G.R.No.L52245
discrimination.
ADDENDUM
majorityaction.
SeparateOpinions
12/16
1/8/2016
G.R.No.L52245
speechaboutit."8
andunavailing."11
13/16
1/8/2016
G.R.No.L52245
Hencemyconcurrence.
I.Idissentfromthemajority'sdismissalofthepetitioninsofarasitupholdsthediscriminatoryand
arbitraryprovisionofSec.4ofBatasPambansaBlg.52whichwouldimposeaspecialdisqualification
onpetitionerPatricioDumlaofromrunningfortheelectivelocalofficeofgovernorofhishomeprovince
ofNuevaVizcayaandwouldineffectbartheelectorsofhisprovincefromelectinghimtosaidofficein
theJanuary30elections,simplybecauseheisaretiredprovincialgovernorofsaidprovince"whohas
receivedpaymentoftheretirementbenefitstowhichheisentitledunderthelawandwhoshallhave
been65yearsofageatthecommencementofthetermofofficetowhichheseekstobeelected.
14/16
1/8/2016
G.R.No.L52245
haseverhad
discrimination.
ADDENDUM
majorityaction.
Footnotes
Fernando,CJ.:
163Phil.139(1936).
265Phil.56(1937).
3Cf.Sanidad,CommisiononElectionL44640,October12,1976,73SCRA333DelaTLlanav.
Election.L47245,December9,1917,80SCRA525Hidalgov.MarcosL17329,December9,1977,
80SCRA538Peraltav.CommissiononElections,L47771,March11,1978,82SCRA30),
15/16
1/8/2016
G.R.No.L52245
4Petition,34.
5195US27(1904).
6Ibid,56.
7391US367(1968).
8lbid,383384.
9L21064,February18,1970,31SCRA413.
10lbid,435.
11Ibid,439.
12L2686566,January30,1970,31SCRA313.
13Ibid,318.
Teehankee,K.:
1Petitionatpage4.
2Respondentscitesinitscomment(atpage15)ahandfulofpendingcasesfordisqualificationof
mayoralcandidates.
3Respondent'sComment,atpages1213.
4E.M.Fernando:TheBillofRights,2ndEd.,p.100,cit.J.M.Tuason&Co.,Inc.vs.LandTenure
Administration,31SCRA413(1970).
5SEC.22.IneligibilityofpersonfounddisloyaltotheGovernment.Anypersonfoundguiltyinafinal
judgmentororderofacompetentcourtortribunalofanycrimeinvolvingdisloyaltytotheduly
constitutedGovernmentsuchasrebellion,sedition,violationsoftheantisubversionandfirearmslaws,
andcrimesagainstthenationalsecurityshallnot,unlessrestoredtohisfullcivilandpoliticalrightsin
accordancewithlaw,beeligibleandhiscertificateofcandidancyshallnotbegivenduecoursenot
shallthevotescastinhisfavorbecounted.Intheeventhisfinalconvictioncomesafterhiselection,he
shallautomaticallyceaseinoffice.(P.D.1296,decreedFebruary7,1978).
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation
16/16

14 Dumlao vs. Comelec

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

14 Dumlao vs. Comelec

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

1/8/2016

Você também pode gostar