[G.R. NO.

189698 : December 1, 2009]

ELEAZAR P. QUINTO and GERINO A. TOLENTINO, JR., Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, Respondent.
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
In our predisposition to discover the "original intent" of a statute, courts become the unfeeling pillars of the
status quo. Little do we realize that statutes or even constitutions are bundles of compromises thrown our
way by their framers. Unless we exercise vigilance, the statute may already be out of tune and irrelevant to
our day.1 It is in this light that we should address the instant case.
Before the Court is a petition for prohibition and certiorari, with prayer for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction, assailing Section 4(a) of Resolution No. 8678 of the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC). In view of pressing contemporary events, the petition begs for
immediate resolution.
The Antecedents
This controversy actually stems from the law authorizing the COMELEC to use an automated election system
(AES).
On December 22, 1997, Congress enacted Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8436, entitled "AN ACT AUTHORIZING
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS TO USE AN AUTOMATED ELECTION SYSTEM IN THE MAY 11, 1998
NATIONAL OR LOCAL ELECTIONS AND IN SUBSEQUENT NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTORAL EXERCISES,
PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Section 11 thereof reads:
SEC. 11. Official Ballot. - The Commission shall prescribe the size and form of the official ballot which shall
contain the titles of the positions to be filled and/or the propositions to be voted upon in an initiative,
referendum or plebiscite. Under each position, the names of candidates shall be arranged alphabetically by
surname and uniformly printed using the same type size. A fixed space where the chairman of the Board of
Election inspectors shall affix his/her signature to authenticate the official ballot shall be provided.
Both sides of the ballots may be used when necessary.
For this purpose, the deadline for the filing of certificate of candidacy/petition for registration/manifestation
to participate in the election shall not be later than one hundred twenty (120) days before the elections: Provided, That, any elective official, whether national or local, running for any office other than the one
which he/she is holding in a permanent capacity, except for president and vice president, shall be deemed
resigned only upon the start of the campaign period corresponding to the position for which he/she is
running: Provided, further, That, unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall take effect upon
the start of the aforesaid campaign period: Provided, finally, That, for purposes of the May 11, 1998
elections, the deadline for filing of the certificate of candidacy for the positions of President, Vice President,
Senators and candidates under the Party-List System as well as petitions for registration and/or
manifestation to participate in the Party-List System shall be on February 9, 1998 while the deadline for the
filing of certificate of candidacy for other positions shall be on March 27, 1998.
The official ballots shall be printed by the National Printing Office and/or the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas at
the price comparable with that of private printers under proper security measures which the Commission
shall adopt. The Commission may contract the services of private printers upon certification by the National
Printing Office/Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas that it cannot meet the printing requirements. Accredited political
parties and deputized citizens' arms of the Commission may assign watchers in the printing, storage and
distribution of official ballots.

To prevent the use of fake ballots, the Commission through the Committee shall ensure that the serial
number on the ballot stub shall be printed in magnetic ink that shall be easily detectable by inexpensive
hardware and shall be impossible to reproduce on a photocopying machine and that identification marks,
magnetic strips, bar codes and other technical and security markings, are provided on the ballot.
The official ballots shall be printed and distributed to each city/municipality at the rate of one (1) ballot for
every registered voter with a provision of additional four (4) ballots per precinct. 2
Almost a decade thereafter, Congress amended the law on January 23, 2007 by enacting R.A. No. 9369,
entitled "AN ACT AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8436, ENTITLED "AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS TO USE AN AUTOMATED ELECTION SYSTEM IN THE MAY 11, 1998 NATIONAL OR LOCAL
ELECTIONS AND IN SUBSEQUENT NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTORAL EXERCISES, TO ENCOURAGE
TRANSPARENCY, CREDIBILITY, FAIRNESS AND ACCURACY OF ELECTIONS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE
BATAS PAMPANSA BLG. 881, AS AMEMDED, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7166 AND OTHER RELATED ELECTION
LAWS, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Section 13 of the amendatory law
modified Section 11 of R.A. No. 8436, thus:
SEC. 13. Section 11 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 15. Official Ballot. - The Commission shall prescribe the format of the electronic display and/or the
size and form of the official ballot, which shall contain the titles of the position to be filled and/or the
propositions to be voted upon in an initiative, referendum or plebiscite. Where practicable, electronic
displays must be constructed to present the names of all candidates for the same position in the same page
or screen, otherwise, the electronic displays must be constructed to present the entire ballot to the voter, in
a series of sequential pages, and to ensure that the voter sees all of the ballot options on all pages before
completing his or her vote and to allow the voter to review and change all ballot choices prior to completing
and casting his or her ballot. Under each position to be filled, the names of candidates shall be arranged
alphabetically by surname and uniformly indicated using the same type size. The maiden or married name
shall be listed in the official ballot, as preferred by the female candidate. Under each proposition to be vote
upon, the choices should be uniformly indicated using the same font and size.
A fixed space where the chairman of the board of election inspectors shall affix his/her signature to
authenticate the official ballot shall be provided.
For this purpose, the Commission shall set the deadline for the filing of certificate of candidacy/petition of
registration/manifestation to participate in the election. Any person who files his certificate of candidacy
within this period shall only be considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he
filed his certificate of candidacy: Provided, That, unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall
take effect only upon the start of the aforesaid campaign period: Provided, finally, That any person holding a
public appointive office or position, including active members of the armed forces, and officers and
employees in government-owned or -controlled corporations, shall be 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.
Political parties may hold political conventions to nominate their official candidates within thirty (30) days
before the start of the period for filing a certificate of candidacy.
With respect to a paper-based election system, the official ballots shall be printed by the National Printing
Office and/or the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas at the price comparable with that of private printers under
proper security measures which the Commission shall adopt. The Commission may contract the services of
private printers upon certification by the National Printing Office/Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas that it cannot
meet the printing requirements. Accredited political parties and deputized citizens' arms of the Commission
shall assign watchers in the printing, storage and distribution of official ballots.

To prevent the use of fake ballots, the Commission through the Committee shall ensure that the necessary
safeguards, such as, but not limited to, bar codes, holograms, color shifting ink, microprinting, are provided
on the ballot.
The official ballots shall be printed and distributed to each city/municipality at the rate of one ballot for every
registered voter with a provision of additional three ballots per precinct. 3
Pursuant to its constitutional mandate to enforce and administer election laws, COMELEC issued Resolution
No. 8678,4 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, 2010 National and Local Elections.
Sections 4 and 5 of Resolution No. 8678 provide:
SEC. 4. Effects of Filing Certificates of Candidacy. - a) Any person holding a public appointive office or
position including active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and other officers and employees
in government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon
the filing of his certificate of candidacy.
b) Any person holding an elective office or position shall not be considered resigned upon the filing of his
certificate of candidacy for the same or any other elective office or position.
SEC. 5. Period for filing Certificate of Candidacy. - The certificate of candidacy shall be filed on regular days,
from November 20 to 30, 2009, during office hours, except on the last day, which shall be until midnight.
Alarmed that they will be deemed ipso facto resigned from their offices the moment they file their CoCs,
petitioners Eleazar P. Quinto and Gerino A. Tolentino, Jr., who hold appointive positions in the government
and who intend to run in the coming elections,5 filed the instant petition for prohibition and certiorari,
seeking the declaration of the afore-quoted Section 4(a) of Resolution No. 8678 as null and void.
The Petitioners' Contention
Petitioners contend that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it issued the assailed Resolution.
They aver that the advance filing of CoCs for the 2010 elections is intended merely for the purpose of early
printing of the official ballots in order to cope with time limitations. Such advance filing does not
automatically make the person who filed the CoC a candidate at the moment of filing. In fact, the law
considers him a candidate only at the start of the campaign period. Petitioners then assert that this being
so, they should not be deemed ipso facto resigned from their government offices when they file their CoCs,
because at such time they are not yet treated by law as candidates. They should be considered resigned
from their respective offices only at the start of the campaign period when they are, by law, already
considered as candidates.6
Petitioners also contend that Section 13 of R.A. No. 9369, the basis of the assailed COMELEC resolution,
contains two conflicting provisions. These must be harmonized or reconciled to give effect to both and to
arrive at a declaration that they are not ipso facto resigned from their positions upon the filing of their
CoCs.7
Petitioners further posit that the provision considering them as ipso facto resigned from office upon the filing
of their CoCs is discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause in the Constitution. 8
The Respondent's Arguments
On the procedural aspect of the petition, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing respondent
COMELEC, argues that petitioners have no legal standing to institute the suit." Petitioners have not yet filed
their CoCs, hence, they are not yet affected by the assailed provision in the COMELEC resolution. The OSG
further claims that the petition is premature or unripe for judicial determination." Petitioners have admitted
that they are merely planning to file their CoCs for the coming 2010 elections. Their interest in the present

controversy is thus merely speculative and contingent upon the filing of the same. The OSG likewise
contends that petitioners availed of the wrong remedy. They are questioning an issuance of the COMELEC
made in the exercise of the latter's rule-making power. Certiorari under Rule 65 is then an improper
remedy.9
On the substantive aspect, the OSG maintains that the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in
phrasing Section 4(a) of Resolution No. 8678 for it merely copied what is in the law. The OSG, however,
agrees with petitioners that there is a conflict in Section 13 of R.A. No. 9369 that should be resolved.
According to the OSG, there seems to be no basis to consider appointive officials as ipso facto resigned and
to require them to vacate their positions on the same day that they file their CoCs, because they are not yet
considered as candidates at that time. Further, this - deemed resigned - provision existed in Batas
Pambansa Bilang (B.P. Blg.) 881, and no longer finds a place in our present election laws with the
innovations brought about by the automated system.10
Our Ruling
I.
At first glance, the petition suffers from an incipient procedural defect. What petitioners assail in their
petition is a resolution issued by the COMELEC in the exercise of its quasi-legislative power. Certiorariunder
Rule 65, in relation to Rule 64, cannot be availed of, because it is a remedy to question decisions,
resolutions and issuances made in the exercise of a judicial or quasi-judicial function. 11Prohibition is also an
inappropriate remedy, because what petitioners actually seek from the Court is a determination of the
proper construction of a statute and a declaration of their rights thereunder. Obviously, their petition is one
for declaratory relief,12 over which this Court does not exercise original jurisdiction. 13
However, petitioners raise a challenge on the constitutionality of the questioned provisions of both the
COMELEC resolution and the law. Given this scenario, the Court may step in and resolve the instant petition.
The transcendental nature and paramount importance of the issues raised and the compelling state interest
involved in their early resolution the period for the filing of CoCs for the 2010 elections has already started
and hundreds of civil servants intending to run for elective offices are to lose their employment, thereby
causing imminent and irreparable damage to their means of livelihood and, at the same time, crippling the
government's manpowerfurther dictate that the Court must, for propriety, if only from a sense of obligation,
entertain the petition so as to expedite the adjudication of all, especially the constitutional, issues.
In any event, the Court has ample authority to set aside errors of practice or technicalities of procedure and
resolve the merits of a case. Repeatedly stressed in our prior decisions is the principle that the Rules were
promulgated to provide guidelines for the orderly administration of justice, not to shackle the hand that
dispenses it. Otherwise, the courts would be consigned to being mere slaves to technical rules, deprived of
their judicial discretion.14
II.
To put things in their proper perspective, it is imperative that we trace the brief history of the assailed
provision. Section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678 is a reproduction of the second proviso in the third
paragraph of Section 13 of R.A. No. 9369, which for ready reference is quoted as follows:
For 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 be considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he
filed his certificate of candidacy: Provided, That, unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall
take effect only upon the start of the aforesaid campaign period: Provided, finally, That any person holding a
public appointive office or position, including active members of the armed forces, and officers and
employees in government-owned or -controlled corporations, shall be 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.15
Notably, this proviso is not present in Section 11 of R.A. No. 8436, the law amended by R.A. No. 9369. The
proviso was lifted from Section 66 of B.P. Blg. 881 or the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) of the Philippines,
which reads:
Sec. 66. Candidates holding appointive office or position. - Any person holding a public appointive office or
position, including active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and officers and employees in
government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon
the filing of his certificate of candidacy.
It may be recalled-in inverse chronology-that earlier, Presidential Decree No. 1296, or the 1978 Election
Code, contained a similar provision, thus'
SECTION 29. Candidates holding appointive office or position. - Every person holding a public appointive
office or position, including active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and officers and
employees in government-owned or controlled corporations, shall ipso facto cease in his office or position on
the date he files his certificate of candidacy. Members of the Cabinet shall continue in the offices they
presently hold notwithstanding the filing of certificate of candidacy, subject to the pleasure of the President
of the Philippines.
Much earlier, R.A. No. 6388, or the Election Code of 1971, likewise stated in its Section 23 the following:
SECTION 23. Candidates Holding Appointive Office or Position. - Every person holding a public appointive
office or position, including active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and every officer or
employee in government-owned or controlled corporations, shall ipso facto cease in his office or position on
the date he files his certificate of candidacy: Provided, That the filing of a certificate of candidacy shall not
affect whatever civil, criminal or administrative liabilities which he may have incurred.
Going further back in history, R.A. No. 180, or the Revised Election Code approved on June 21, 1947, also
provided that
SECTION 26. Automatic cessation of appointive officers and employees who are candidates. - Every person
holding a public appointive office or position shall ipso facto cease in his office or position on the date he
files his certificate of candidacy.
During the Commonwealth era, Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 725, entitled "AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE
NEXT ELECTION FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, SENATORS AND MEMBERS OF
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND APPROPRIATING THE NECESSARY FUNDS THEREFOR," approved on
January 5, 1946, contained, in the last paragraph of its Section 2, the following:
A person occupying any civil office by appointment in the government or any of its political subdivisions or
agencies or government-owned or controlled corporations, whether such office by appointive or elective,
shall be considered to have resigned from such office from the moment of the filing of such certificate of
candidacy.
Significantly, however, C.A. No. 666, entitled "AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE FIRST ELECTION FOR
PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, SENATORS, AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND THE AMENDMENTS THEREOF," enacted without
executive approval on June 22, 1941, the precursor of C.A. No. 725, only provided for automatic resignation
of elective, but not appointive, officials.
Nevertheless, C.A. No. 357, or the Election Code approved on August 22, 1938, had, in its Section 22, the
same verbatim provision as Section 26 of R.A. No. 180.

The earliest recorded Philippine law on the subject is Act No. 1582, or the Election Law enacted by the
Philippine Commission in 1907, the last paragraph of Section 29 of which reads:
Sec. 29. Penalties upon officers. - x x x.
No public officer shall offer himself as a candidate for election, nor shall he be eligible during the time that
he holds said public office to election, at any municipal, provincial or Assembly election, except for reelection
to the position which he may be holding, and no judge of the Court of First Instance, justice of the peace,
provincial fiscal, or officer or employee of the Bureau of Constabulary or of the Bureau of Education shall aid
any candidate or influence in any manner or take any part in any municipal, provincial, or Assembly election
under penalty of being deprived of his office and being disqualified to hold any public office whatever for a
term of five years: Provided, however, That the foregoing provisions shall not be construed to deprive any
person otherwise qualified of the right to vote at any election.
From this brief historical excursion, it may be gleaned that the second proviso in the third paragraph of
Section 13 of R.A. No. 9369 - that any person holding a public appointive office or position, including active
members of the armed forces, and officers, and employees in government-owned or controlled corporations,
shall be 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 - traces its roots to the period of the American occupation.
In fact, during the deliberations of Senate Bill No. 2231, the bill later to be consolidated with House Bill No.
5352 and enacted as R.A. No. 9369, Senator Richard Gordon, the principal author of the bill, acknowledged
that the said proviso in the proposed legislative measure is an old provision which was merely copied from
earlier existing legislation, thus'
Senator Osme a. - May I just opine here and perhaps obtain the opinion of the good Sponsor. - This reads
like, "ANY PERSON HOLDING [means currently] A PUBLIC APPOINTIVE POSITION" SHALL BE CONSIDERED
IPSO FACTO RESIGNED - [which means that the prohibition extends only to appointive officials] "INCLUDING
ACTIVE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES, OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES" - This is a prohibition, Mr.
President. - This means if one is chairman of SSS or PDIC, he is deemed ipso facto resigned when he files
his certificate of candidacy. - Is that the intention
Senator Gordon. - This is really an old provision, Mr. President.
Senator Osme a. - It is in bold letters, so I think it was a Committee amendment.
Senator Gordon. - No, it has always been there.
Senator Osme a. - I see.
Senator Gordon. - I guess the intention is not to give them undue advantage, especially certain people.
Senator Osme a. - All right.16
In that Senate deliberation, however, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago expressed her concern over the
inclusion of the said provision in the new law, given that the same would be disadvantageous and unfair to
potential candidates holding appointive positions, while it grants a consequent preferential treatment to
elective officials, thus'
Senator Santiago. - On page 15, line 31, I know that this is a losing cause, so I make this point more as a
matter of record than of any feasible hope that it can possibly be either accepted or if we come to a division
of the House, it will be upheld by the majority.

I am referring to page 15, line 21. - The proviso begins: "PROVIDED FINALLY, THAT ANY PERSON HOLDING
A PUBLIC APPOINTIVE OFFICE - SHALL BE CONSIDERED IPSO FACTO RESIGNED FROM HIS/HER OFFICE."
The point that I made during the appropriate debate in the past in this Hall is that there is, for me, no valid
reason for exempting elective officials from this inhibition or disqualification imposed by the law. - If we are
going to consider appointive officers of the government, including AFP members and officers of governmentowned and controlled corporations, or any other member of the appointive sector of the civil service, why
should it not apply to the elective sector for, after all, even senators and congressmen are members of the
civil service as well
Further, it is self-serving for the Senate, or for the Congress in general, to give an exception to itself which is
not available to other similarly situated officials of government. Of course, the answer is, the reason why we
are special is that we are elected. Since we are imposing a disqualification on all other government officials
except ourselves, I think, it is the better part of delicadeza to inhibit ourselves as well, so that if we want to
stay as senators, we wait until our term expires. But if we want to run for some other elective office during
our term, then we have to be considered resigned just like everybody else. That is my proposed
amendment. But if it is unacceptable to the distinguished Sponsor, because of sensitivity to the convictions
of the rest of our colleagues, I will understand.
Senator Gordon. Mr. President, I think the suggestion is well-thought of. - It is a good policy. - However, this
is something that is already in the old law which was upheld by the Supreme court in a recent case that the
rider was not upheld and that it was valid.17
The obvious inequality brought about by the provision on automatic resignation of appointive civil servants
must have been the reason why Senator Recto proposed the inclusion of the following during the period of
amendments: "ANY PERSON WHO FILES HIS CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY WITHIN THIS PERIOD SHALL
ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS A CANDIDATE AT THE START OF THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD FOR WHICH HE FILED
HIS COC."18 The said proviso seems to mitigate the situation of disadvantage afflicting appointive officials by
considering persons who filed their CoCs as candidates only at the start of the campaign period, thereby,
conveying the tacit intent that persons holding appointive positions will only be considered as resigned at
the start of the campaign period when they are already treated by law as candidates.
Parenthetically, it may be remembered that Section 67 of the OEC and Section 11 of R.A. No. 8436
contained a similar provision on automatic resignation of elective officials upon the filing of their CoCs for
any office other than that which they hold in a permanent capacity or for President or Vice-President.
However, with the enactment of R.A. No. 9006, or the Fair Election Act, 19 in 2001, this provision was
repealed by Section 1420 of the said act. There was, thus, created a situation of obvious discrimination
against appointive officials who were deemed ipso facto resigned from their offices upon the filing of their
CoCs, while elective officials were not.