DUMLAO vs.

COMELEC
95 SCRA 392, Jan. 22, 1980

FACTS:
A petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injuction and/or Restraining Order was filed to
enjoin respondent form implementing certain provisions of BP 51, 52 and 53 for being
unconstitutional.
Petitioner Dumlao questions Sec. 4 of BP 51 as discriminatory and contrary to equal
protection and due process guarantees of the Constitution. Meanwhile, Petitioners Igot
and Salapantan, Jr questions the accreditation of some political parties by respondent as
contrary to the constitution that provides that a bona fide candidate shall be free from
any form of harassment and discrimination.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the filed petition is an actual case or controversy subject to judicial
review.
Whether or not petitioners have legal standing on the case at bar.

HELD:
The Supreme Court held that the petitioners fell short of the necessity that the case be
an actual controversy. Dumlao has not been adversely affected by the application of BP
52 nor is any party seeking for his disqualification. The question he poses is in the
abstract and a hypothetical issue.
Whether or not petitioners are the proper party to submit the petition, the Supreme Court
held in the case of Igot and Salapatan, neither of them has been called to have been
adversely affected by the operation of the statutory provisions they assail as
unconstitutional. What they have is only generated grievance as contrasted to a direct
injury creating a substantial interest in the case. Without a litigate interest, they cannot
claim any locus standi.
However, due to the impelling public interest involved and the proximity of the elections,
the strict procedure for judicial relaxed. The Supreme Court held that Sec. 4 of BP 51
was not discriminatory and contrary to equal protection and due process guarantees of
the Constitution. The equal protection clause of the constitution does not forbid all legal
classification. It only proscribes arbitrary and unreasonable classification. Furthermore, it
should be emphasized the purpose of such classification was to allow emergence of
younger blood in local governments.
Regarding the accreditation of Comelec in pursuance to BP 52, it was held that charges
for committing any act of disloyalty to the state should not be a basis to disqualify a
candidate. An accusation is not synonymous with guilt.
Therefore, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the first paragraph of Sec. 4 of BP
52 while the second paragraph of Sec. 4 of BP 52 as null and void for being violative of
the constitutional presumption of innocence guaranteed to the accused.