G.R. No. L-52245 January 22, 1980
PATRICIO DUMLAO, ROMEO B. IGOT, and ALFREDO SALAPANTAN, JR., petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners, in a joint Petition for Prohibition, sought to enjoin the COMELEC from implementing provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. 51, 52, and 53, alleging unconstitutionality. Patricio Dumlao, a former Governor and candidate for re-election, specifically challenged Section 4 of BP Blg. 52, which disqualifies retired local elective officials aged 65 or above at the start of the term from running for the same office from which they retired. He argued this provision was discriminatory class legislation violating equal protection and due process.
Petitioners Romeo Igot and Alfredo Salapantan, Jr., as taxpayers and voters, assailed other provisions: the six-year term for local officials under BP Blg. 51; the provision in BP Blg. 52 declaring a judgment of conviction for acts of disloyalty as conclusive evidence of disqualification and the filing of charges after preliminary investigation as prima facie evidence; and the setting of the election date and campaign period. They also questioned the accreditation of political parties under BP Blg. 53 as discriminatory, though this issue was deferred to a separate case.

ISSUE

The primary issue was whether the challenged statutory provisions violated constitutional guarantees, particularly the equal protection and due process clauses.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition due to procedural infirmities and the prematurity of the constitutional challenges. The Court found a misjoinder of parties and causes of action, as Dumlao’s interest as a candidate was alien to Igot and Salapantan’s taxpayer suit, and they challenged different provisions. On substantive grounds, the Court ruled that Dumlao’s challenge was not justiciable as he presented a hypothetical question; no disqualification case had been filed against him, and he was not adversely affected. The provision disqualifying retirees aged 65 and above was upheld as a valid classification based on a reasonable standard to prevent the perpetuation of political dynasties and ensure a turnover in leadership, satisfying the equal protection requirement.
Regarding the provision on acts of disloyalty, the Court, addressing the broader public interest, declared the second portion unconstitutional. It held that making the mere filing of charges after a preliminary investigation prima facie evidence of disqualification violated due process, as it presumed guilt and deprived a candidate of the presumption of innocence. However, the Court clarified that a “judgment of conviction” must be final and executory to serve as conclusive evidence of disqualification. The other challenged provisions on terms of office, election date, and campaign period were upheld as valid exercises of legislative power. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.