GR 189698; (December, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 189698; December 1, 2009
ELEAZAR P. QUINTO and GERINO A. TOLENTINO, JR., Petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners Eleazar P. Quinto and Gerino A. Tolentino, Jr., both appointive officials, filed a petition for prohibition and certiorari assailing Section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678. The resolution implemented the second proviso in Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9369, which amended the automated election law. The challenged provision stated that any person holding a public appointive office, including those in the civil service, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from their office upon the filing of a certificate of candidacy. Petitioners argued this provision violated their constitutional rights to equal protection and suffrage, creating an undue distinction between appointive and elective officials, as elective officials were only deemed resigned upon the start of the campaign period.
ISSUE
The core issue was whether Section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678, implementing the statutory rule that appointive officials are deemed ipso facto resigned upon filing a certificate of candidacy, is constitutional.
RULING
The Supreme Court declared the provision UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Court held that the differential treatment between appointive and elective officials violated the equal protection clause. The state’s interest in preventing the use of government resources for partisan politics and ensuring the neutrality of the civil service, while legitimate, was not substantially served by the immediate resignation rule for appointive officials. The Court found the means employed—forcing an immediate resignation—to be unduly harsh and not reasonably necessary to achieve the state’s objectives. The law already contained sufficient safeguards, such as election offenses and administrative sanctions, to deter improper partisan activity by appointive officials without requiring their automatic resignation. The distinction was not based on substantial differences that justified the severe restriction on the fundamental political rights of appointive officials to seek public office. The provision imposed an invalid condition on the exercise of a constitutional right.