Dumlao v.

Commission on Elections
G.R. No. L-52245 — 22 January 1980
Melencio-Herrera, J.:

Topic: Bill of Rights - Equal Protection

Petitioner: Patricio Dumlao, Romeo B. Igot, and Alfredo Salapantan, Jr.
Respondent: Commission on Elections

FACTS:

I. This Petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction and/or Restraining Order assails
the constitutionality of Batas Pambansa (BP) Blg. 51, 52, and 53.
A. Dumlao—the former and retired Governor of Nueva Vizcaya running for the same
position—assails the constitutionality of Sec. 4 of BP Blg. 52 for being
discriminatory and contrary to the equal protection and due process guarantees of the
1973 Constitution; he claims that the classification is based on purely arbitrary
grounds and is class legislation.
1. Said provision disqualifies any retired elective provincial, city, or municipal
officials 65 years of age from running for the same elective local office from
which he retired.
B. Igot and Salapantan—both suing as taxpayers and qualified voters—assail Sec. 7 of
the same BP as well as the second paragraph of Sec. 4.
1. Said provision states that the judgement of conviction for any act of disloyalty to
the State, including acts amounting to subversion, insurrection, rebellion, or other
similar crimes shall be conclusive evidence of such fact, while the mere filing of
charges for the commission of such crimes before a civil court or military tribunal
shall be prima facie evidence of such fact.

ISSUES + HOLDING:

W/N the instant petitions meet the requisite for judicial review — NO but the Court will rule
on the petition due to the paramount public interest involved as well as the proximity of the
elections to the promulgation of this decision.
I. The petition meets the requisite of being filmed at the earliest opportunity; however, it
does not meet the other three criteria.
A. There is no actual case and controversy, as Dumlao has not been adversely affected
by the provision which he assails, i.e. no one has filed a suit for Dumlao’s
disqualification based on said provision.
B. Petitioners Igot and Salapantan, filing as taxpayers, are not the proper parties to file
the instant suit, as the assailed provisions do no involve the disbursement of public
funds.
1. Furthermore, the Court has previously held that the institution of a taxpayer’s suit
does not guarantee judicial review, as the Court is vested with discretion on
whether or not a taxpayer’s suit should be entertained.
C. The issue of constitutionality is not the very lis mota of the case, as the instant case is
not an appropriate case for all the petitioners; they do not have any causes of action.
W/N Sec. 4 of BP Blg. 52 is constitutional — YES
I. The Court holds that said provision is not discriminatory to Dumlao alone, as several
petitions for disqualification of other candidates for local positions have already been
filed with the COMELEC.
II. The provision does not go against the safeguard of equal protection as well, there being a
rational classification as the provision’s basis.
A. The distinction based on age is valid, as employees 65 years of age and above have
been validly classified differently from younger employees; the individuals falling
under the former group are subject to compulsory retirement, while those under the
latter group are not.
B. Retirement from government service also provides a basis for reasonable
disqualification for elective officials in this instant case.
1. Someone like Dumlao who has already retired from a local elective position
cannot suddenly rescind his declaration of unavailability for the same position.
2. The Court takes note of the Solicitor General’s intimation that a good policy of
the law should be to promote the emergence of younger blood in our political
elective echelons; such need for young blood assumes relevance in the instant
case.
3. Thus, the classification in this provision being pursuant to the aim of the law to
bring younger blood in, such cannot be considered invalid.
C. The instant case also lacks a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, and it
has been held time and time again that laws shall not be declared invalid unless the
conflict with the Constitution is clear beyond reasonable doubt.

W/N Sec. 4, Par. 2 of BP Blg. 52 is constitutional — NO

I. The Constitution clearly provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by
himself and counsel.
A. Thus, an accusation can never be synonymous with guilt; the challenged proviso
stating that the mere filing of charges constitutes as prima facie evidence of such fact
is thus contrary to the Constitutional guarantee of innocence prior to conviction.
B. Such provision also provides no distinction between a person convicted of acts of
disloyalty and one against whom charges have merely been filed for such acts.
C. While prima facie evidence may be rebutted by evidence, there is a “clear and present
danger” due to the proximity of the elections.
1. One charged under BP Blg. 52 will be constrained by time in offering contrary
proof to overcome said prima facie evidence against him.
D. Furthermore, it is best the evidence for and against accusations of acts of disloyalty
be presented before the Courts rather than an administrative body like the COMELEC
—having jurisdiction over qualifications of candidates—in order to avoid the
possibility of conflicting findings between two government bodies.
1. Such would also avoid the unallowable substitution of legislative/administrative
determination of guilt for a judicial determination of such.

RULING:
WHEREFORE,
1. Sec. 4, Par. 1 of BP Blg. 52—providing for the disqualification of any retired elective
local official who has received payment of retirement benefits and is 65 years of age and
above— is declared VALID.
2. Sec. 4, Par. 2 of BP Blg. 52—providing that the filing of charges for the commission of
crimes of acts of disloyalty shall be prima facie evidence of such fact—is declared
INVALID for being violative of the constitutional presumption of innocence guaranteed
to an accused.