Case Title Quinto vs.

Commission on Elections
G.R. no. 189698 (Resolution)
Main Topic Equal Protection of the Law
Other Related Topic Statutory Construction; Omnibus Election Code
Date: February 22, 2010

DOCTRINES

1. Section 4 (a) of COMELEC Resolution 8678 Compliant with Law

Section 4 (a) of COMELEC Resolution 8678 is a faithful reflection of the present

state of the law and jurisprudence on the matter, viz.:

Incumbent Appointive Official. — Under Section 13 of RA 9369, which reiterates

Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, 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.

Incumbent Elected Official. — Upon the other hand, pursuant to Section 14 of

RA 9006 or the Fair Election Act, which repealed Section 67 of the Omnibus Election
Code and rendered ineffective Section 11 of R.A. 8436 insofar as it considered an
elected official as resigned only upon the start of the campaign period corresponding to
the positions for which they are running, an elected official is not deemed to have
resigned from his office upon the ling of his certificate of candidacy for the same or any
other elected office or position. In fine, an elected official may run for another position
without forfeiting his seat.

2. Constitutional Law; Equal Protection Clause; Requisites of Valid Classification; In order

that there can be valid classification so that a discriminatory governmental act may pass
the constitutional norm of equal protection, it is necessary that the four (4) requisites of
valid classification be complied with, namely:

(1) It must be based upon substantial distinctions;

(2) It must be germane to the purposes of the law;
(3) It must not be limited to existing conditions only; and
 (4) It must apply equally to all members of the class.

3. Remedial Law; Certiorari; Certiorari under Rule 65 in relation to Rule 64, cannot be
availed because it is a remedy to question decisions, resolution and issuances made in the
exercise of a judicial or quasi-judicial function.

4. Actions; Parties; Locus Standi; Court finds that while petitioner are not yet candidates,
they have the standing to raise the constitutional challenge simply because they are
qualified voters; Both candidates and voters may challenge on grounds of equal
protection, the assailed measure because of its impact on voting rights.

5. Judicial Review; Exercise by the Court of judicial power is limited to the determination
and resolution of the actual cases and controversies stressed in prior decisions.

FACTS:

COMELEC; Respondent; Pursuant to its constitutional mandate to enforce and administer

election laws, issued Resolution No. 8678; 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.

ELEAZAR P. QUINTO AND GERINO A. TOLENTINO JR; Petitioners

Alarmed that they will be deemed ipso facto resigned from their offices the moment they file
their CoCs, petitioners, who hold appointive positions in the government and who intend to run
in the coming elections, 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.

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.

Senators Manual A. Roxas, Franklin M. Drilon, and Tom V. Apacible are ruled as movant-
intervenors.
ISSUE:

Whether the second proviso in the third paragraph of Section 13 of R.A. No. 9369 and Section
4(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678 are violative of the equal protection clause.
HELD:
No. The Supreme Court held that Section 4 (a) of Resolution 8678 and Section 13 of RA 9369,
which merely reiterate Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, are NOT unconstitutionally
overboard. And it does not violate the equal protection clause.

The Respondents and Intervenors motion for reconsideration is GRANTED.

Justice Nachura Dissenting;

I vote to maintain this Court's December 1, 2009 Decision. The automatic resignation rule on
appointive government officials and employees running for elective posts is, to my mind,
unconstitutional. I therefore respectfully register my dissent to the resolution of the majority
granting the motion for reconsideration.

I earnestly believe that by this resolution, the majority refused to rectify an unjust rule, leaving in
favor of a discriminatory state regulation and disregarding the primacy of the people's
fundamental rights to the equal protection of the laws. EHDCAI

Let it be recalled that, on December 1, 2009, the Court rendered its Decision granting the petition
and declaring as unconstitutional the second proviso in the third paragraph of Section 13 of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9369, Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) and Section 4
(a) of Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Resolution No. 8678.