Dimaporo v.

Mitra
FACTS:
Dimaporo was elected as a representative for the second legislative district of Lanao del Sur during the 1987 congressional elections.
Dimaporo filed a certificate of candidacy for the position of governor of AR. Secretary and Spea!er of the "ouse e#cluded the name of
Dimaporo from the Roll of em$ers of "R %nder Art &' of Sec (7 of the )mni$us *lection +ode. Dimaporo lost the election wrote a letter intending to
resume performing his duties and functions as an elected mem$er of the +ongress. %nfortunately, he was not a$le to regain his seat in the +ongress.
Dimaporo contended that he did not lose his seat as a +ongressman $ecause Art. &' Sec. (7 of -. 881 is not operative in the present
constitution, and therefore not applica$le to the mem$ers of +ongress.
/rounds may $e termed to $e shortened0
1. "olding any officer or employment in the government or ant su$division, agency, or instrumentality thereof.
1. *#pulsion as a disciplinary action for a disorderly $ehavior
2. Dis3ualification as determined $y a resolution of the electoral tri$unal in an election contest
4. 5oluntary renunciation of office
ISSUE: 678 Dimaporo can still $e considered as a mem$er of +ongress even after he has filed for another government position
HELD: 8o.
&n the constitution there is a new chapter on the accounta$ility of pu$lic officers. &n the 1929 +onstitution, it was provided that pu$lic office is
a pu$lic trust. .u$lic officers should serve with the highest degree of responsi$ility and integrity.
&f you allow a -atasan or a governor or a mayor who has mandated to serve for ( years to file for an office other than the one he was elected
to, then that clearly shows that he did not intend to serve the mandate of the people which was placed upon him and therefore he should $e considered
ipso facto resigned.
:he filling of a certificate shall $e considered as an overt act or a$andoning or relin3uishing his mandate to the people and he should
therefore resign if he want to see! another position which he feels he could $e of $etter service.
Farinas, et al. v. Executive Secretar ! in view with Section 26(1), Article VI
/.R. 8o. 147287, Decem$er 1;, 1;;2
FACTS:
:he petition $efore the court see!s to declare Section 14 of RA no. 9;;( <:he =air *lection Act> unconstitutional as it e#pressly repeals Section (7 of
-atas .am$ansa -lg. 881 <:he )mni$us *lection +ode ? <not ver$atim> any elective official running for office e#cept for pres or vp shall $e considered
resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy>.
%nconstitutional for violating section 1(, article ( of the constitution for re3uiring every law to have only one su$@ect which should $e e#pressed in its title.
Section 14 of RA no. 9;;( primarily deals with the lifting of the $an on the use of media as election propaganda and the elimination of unfair election
practices. 6hile Section (7 deals with any elective official running for office e#cept for pres or vp shall $e considered resigned from his office upon the
filing of his certificate of candidacy.
:he repeal of Section (7 of the )mni$us *lection +ode is thus not em$raced in the title, nor germane to the su$@ect matter of RA no. 9;;(.
Other facts though not essential for Sec. 26, Art. IV of the constitution:
RA no. 9;;( violates the e3ual protection clause $ecause it repeals only section (7 and not section (( which states that appointive official shall $e
considered resigned from his office upon filing of +o+. :hus RA no. 9;;( discriminates appointive officials $ecause elective officials can still hold office
while campaigning with RA no. 9;;(As repeal.
RA no. 9;;( in its entirety is null and void $ecause irregularities attended to its enactment into lawB Section 1( states0 CDtEhis Act shall ta!e effect upon its
approvalF is a violation of the due process clause.
Sec. (7 is a good lawB hence, it should not have $een repealed.
ISSUE ? in view with Section 26(1), Article VI0
6)8 sec. 14 of RA 8o. 9;;( is a riderG
"ULI#$:
#%& Sec 1(<1>, Article &5 provides0
C*very $ill passed $y the +ongress shall em$race only one su$@ect which shall $e e#pressed in the title thereof.F
Constitutional rovisions relating to the su!"ect #atter an$ titles of statutes shoul$ not !e so narrowl% construe$ as to crile or i#e$e the ower of
legislation. It is sufficient if the title !e co#rehensive enough reasona!l% to inclu$e the general o!"ect which a statute see&s to effect, without
e'ressing each an$ ever% en$ an$ #eans necessar% or convenient for the acco#lishing of that o!"ect.
:he title of RA no. 9;;( reads0 CAn Act to *nhance the "olding of =ree, )rderly, "onest, .eaceful and +redi$le elections through =air *lection
.ractices.F
Section 1 provides the principles and o$@ectives thereof0 (he State shall, $uring the election erio$, suervise or regulate the en"o%#ent or utili)ation of
all franchises or er#its for the oeration of #e$ia of co##unication or infor#ation to guarantee or ensure e*ual oortunit% for u!lic service, inclu$ing
access to #e$ia ti#e an$ sace, an$ the e*uita!le right to rel%, for u!lic infor#ation ca#aigns an$ for a#ong can$i$ates an$ assure free, or$erl%,
honest, eaceful an$ cre$i!le elections.
(he State shall ensure that !ona fi$e can$i$ates for an% u!lic office shall !e free fro# an% for# of harass#ent an$ $iscri#ination.
:he +ourt is convinced that the title and o$@ectives of RA no. 9;;( are comprehensive enough to include the repeal of Sec. (7 within its contemplation.
RA no. 9;;( does not violate the Cone su$@ectHone titleF rule. An act having a single general su$@ect , indicated in the title, may contain any num$er of
provisions as long as they are not inconsistent or foreign to the general su$@ect, and may $e considered furtherance of such su$@ect $y providing for the
method and means of carrying out the general su$@ect.
Quinto V. COMELEC 2010
COMELEC issued a resolution declaring appointive ofcials who fled their certifcate of candidacy as ipso facto resigned from their
positions.
FACTS: Petitioners Eleazar P. uinto and !erino ". #olentino$ %r. fled a petition for certiorari and prohi&ition against the COMELEC for
issuing a resolution declaring appointive ofcials who fled their certifcate of candidacy as ipso facto resigned from their positions. 'n
this defense$ the COMELEC avers that it only copied the provision from (ec. )* of +.". ,*-,.
ISSUE: .hether or not the said COMELEC resolution was valid.
HELD: 'n a )/01 vote$ the (upreme Court reversed its 2ecision rendered in the case of uinto vs. Comelec last 2ecem&er 3//, and
declared that appointed ofcials$ including mem&ers of the 4udiciary and the Comelec itself$ who have fled their certifcate of
candidacy for the May )/ elections are already deemed resigned. 'n the +esolution dated 33 5e&ruary 3/)/$ the Court said that its
2ecem&er 3//, 2ecision failed to consider the threat to government 6posed &y the partisan potential of a large and growing
&ureaucracy7 the danger of systematic a&use perpetuated &y a 8powerful political machine9 that has amassed 8the scattered powers
of government wor:ers9 so as to give itself and its incum&ent wor:ers an 8un&rea:a&le grasp on the reins of power.; #he Court added
that 6in the case at &ar$ the pro&a&le harm to society in permitting incum&ent appointive ofcials to remain in ofce$ even as they
actively pursue elective posts$ far outweighs the less li:ely evil of having argua&ly protected candidacies &loc:ed &y the possi&le
inhi&itory e<ect of a potentially overly &road
=ere$ it strongly upholds the constitutionality of the resolution saying that it does not violate the e>ual protection clause. 't is settled
that the e>ual protection clause does not demand a&solute e>uality? it merely re>uires that all persons shall &e treated ali:e$ under
li:e circumstances and conditions &oth as to privileges conferred and lia&ilities enforced. #he test used is reasona&leness which
re>uires that7
). #he classifcation rests on su&stantial distinctions?
3. 't is germane to the purposes of the law?
*. 't is not limited to e@isting conditions only? and
A. 't applies e>ually to all mem&ers of the same class.
'n the case under consideration$ there is a su&stantial distinction &etween pu&lic and elective ofcials which has &een rendered moot
and academic &y the ruling made in the case of 5arinas$ etl. al. vs. E@ecutive (ecretary$ et. al.
(ection A BaC of COMELEC +esolution Do. E-FE is constitutional.