Dumlao v. COMELEC G.R. No. L-52245 | January 22, 1980 | J. Mln!"o-#rrra | $$%&$'$D ($C)*+ The petitioners in this case are: are: Patricio Dumlao - former Governor of Nueva Vizcaya, who has led his certicate of candidacy for said position of Governor in the forthcomin elections of !anuary "#, $%&#' (omeo (omeo )' *ot - ta+payer, ualied voter and memer of the )ar' .lfredo /alapantan, !r', - ta+payer, ualied voter, and resident of /an 0iuel, *loilo' Dumlao specically uestions the constitutionality of /ec' 1 of )P 23 as discriminatory and contrary to the eual protection and due process uarantees of the 4onstitution, as provided: •
Any retired elective provincial city or municipal ofcial who has received payment o the retirement benets to which he is entitled unde underr the the law law, and and who who shal shalll have have been been 6,5 6,5 year years s o age age at the the commencement o the term o ofce to which he seeks to be elected shall not be qualied to run or the same elective local ofce rom which he has retired.
5e allees that the aforecited provision is directed insidiously aainst him, and that the classication provided therein is ased on 6purely aritrary rounds and, therefore, class leislation' 7n the other hand, *ot and /alapantan /alapa ntan assail the validity of the 8: )P 2$ 2$,, /ec /ec 9' Terms erms of 7ce 7ce ; ? years, which shall commence on the rst 0onday of 0arch $%&#' )P 23, /ec 1' ''' .ny person who has committed any act of disloyalty to the /tate, includin acts amountin to suversion, insur insurrrecti ection, on, reel eelli lion on or othe otherr simi simila larr crim crimes es,, sh shal alll not not e ualied to e a candidate for any of the oces covered y this .ct, .c t, or to partic participa ipate te in any partis partisan an politi political cal activ activity ity there therein: in: provided that a udgment o conviction or any o the aorementioned crimes shall be conclusive evidence o such act and the the lin ling g o char charge ges s or or the the comm commis issio sion n o su such ch crim crimes es beo beore re a civi civill cour courtt or mili milita tary ry trib tribun unal al ate aterr prel prelim imin inar ary y investigation shall be prima ascie evidence o such act. )P23, )P23, /ec $' @lection @lection of certain certain Aocal 7cials ; ''' The election election shall e held on !anuary "#, $%&#' )P 23 23,, /ec /ec >' @lec @lecti tion on and and 4amp 4ampai ain n Perio eriod d ; The The elec electi tion on per period iod sh shal alll e +ed +ed y the 4om 4ommissi ssion on @lec @lecti tion ons s in •
•
•
•
accordance with /ection >, .rt' B**-4 of the 4onstitution' The period of campain shall commence on Decemer 3%, $%9% and terminate on !anuary 3&, $%&#' They also uestion the accreditation of some political parties y respondent 470@A@4, as authorized y ) 2", on the round that it is contrary to section %=$?.rt' B**4 of the 4onstitution, which provides that a 6ona de candidate for any pulic oce shall e it' from any form of harassment and discrimination' &ROCEDR$L $*&EC) .t the outset, it should e stated that this Petition su8ers from asic procedural inrmities, hence, traditionally unacceptale for Cudicial resolution' 0isCoinder of parties and actions =interest of Dumlao alien to that of *ot and /alapantanE they contest di8erent provisionsE nature of Coinin suit di8erent? 7ut of the four reuisites for the e+ercise of Cudicial, only the reuisite of raisin the issue at the earliest opportunity was complied with' Actual case and controversy Dumlao has not een adversely a8ected y the application of provision as there is no petition has een led seeFin his disualication *n e8ect, his petition is one seeFin an advisory opinion 5is case is within 470@A@4s primary Curisdiction
&ror ary / only rlvan ar o !a3 *t was only durin the hearin =not in their petition? that *ot is said to e a 4ouncilor candidate Neither *ot nor /alapantan has een convicted H chared with acts of disloyalty, and they have not een disualied from ein candidates =enerated rievance only? .s to the ta+payers suit: (eworded, the issue with reards to our discussion: ON ""onr !an "n"u "r !a a a aayr6 u"7 NO. *t is true that petitioners *ot and /alapantan have instituted this case as a ta+payerIs suit, and that the rule enunciated in People vs' Vera, aove stated, has een rela+ed in Pascual vs' The /ecretary of Pulic JorFs =$$# Phil' ""$ K$%>#L, thus: ''' it is well settled that the validity of a statute may e contested only y one who will sustain a direct inCury in conseuence of its enforcement' Met, there are many decisions nullifyin at the instance of ta+payers, laws providin for the disursement of pulic funds, upon the theory that 6the e+penditure of pulic funds, y an ocer of the /tate for the purpose of
administerin an unconstitutional act constitutes a misapplication of such funds,6 which may e enCoined at the reuest of a ta+payer'
*n the same vein, it has een held: *n the determination of the deree of interest essential to ive the reuisite standin to attacF the constitutionality of a statute, the eneral rule is that not only persons individually a8ected, ut also ta+payers have sucient interest in preventin the illeal e+penditure of moneys raised y ta+ation and they may, therefore, uestion the constitutionality of statutes reuirin e+penditure of pulic moneys' =Philippine 4onstitution .ssociation, *nc', et als', vs' Gimenez, et als', $2 /4(. 19% K$%>2L?'
5owever, auory rov""on u"on: "n " !a , namely, sec' 9, )P )l' 2$, and sections 1, $, and > )P )l' 23 , :o no :"r!ly "nvolv :";urmn o u;l"! un:. Jhile, concededly, the elections to e held involve the e+penditure of pulic moneys, nowhere in their Petition do said petitioners allee that their ta+ money is 6ein e+tracted and spent in violation of specic constitutional protections aainst auses of leislative power6 or that there is a misapplication of such funds y respondent 470@A@4, or that pulic money is ein deected to any improper purpose' Neither do petitioners seeF to restrain respondent from wastin pulic funds throuh the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law' )esides, "n"u"on o a aayr< u", r " no auran! o =u:"!"al rv">. .s held y this 4ourt in !an vs. "acapagal, this 4ourt is vested with discretion as to whether or not a ta+payerIs suit should e entertained' #navoidability o constitutional question This case is not an appropriate case for either of the petitioners ecause there is no cause of actionE hence, the necessity for resolvin the issue of constitutionality is asent'
*%*)$N)?@E @?E&O?N) $egarding %umlao&s contentions Dumlaos contention that the provision is aainst him personally is )@A*@D y the fact that several petitions for the disualication of other candidates have een led with the 470@A@4' @ual protection is suCect to rational classication @mployees >2 yHo =they are suCect to compulsory retirement? have een classied di8erently from the youner ones =for purposes of pulic service? (eason to disualify from same oce: retired employee has already declared himself tired and unavailale from the same
ovt worF ut y virtue of a chane of mind, he would liFe to assume same post Purpose of the law: to allow emerence of youner lood in local ovt .sent is a showin of the clear invalidity of the uestioned provision' *t is within the competence of the leislature to prescrie ualications for candidates provided they are reasonale' $egarding 'got and (alapantan&s contentions .ccused shall e presumed innocent until the contrary is provedE accusation O uilt 4hallened provision =)P 23, /ec' 1, par' 3? contravenes constitutional presumption of innocence ecause candidate is disualied on the round alone that chares have een led aainst him
D?*&O*?)?@E+ &""onr :n":.
