G.R. No. L-24761 and L-24828; September 7, 1965.
Leon G. Maquera, petitioner, vs. Juan Borra, Cesar Miraflor, and Gregorio Santayana, in their respective capacities as Chairman and Members of the Commission on Elections, and the COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondents. / Felipe N. Aurea and Melecio Malabanan, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

FACTS

Republic Act No. 4421 , effective June 19, 1965, required all candidates for national, provincial, city, and municipal offices to post a surety bond equivalent to the one-year salary of the position sought. The bond would be forfeited in favor of the relevant government if the candidate, unless declared the winner, failed to obtain at least 10% of the votes cast for that office, provided there were not more than four candidates. In compliance, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) issued guidelines on July 20, 1965, setting specific bond amounts (e.g., P60,000 for President, P32,000 for Senator/Congressman) and stating that failure to post the bond would result in the COMELEC refusing to give due course to the certificate of candidacy. Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 4421 .

ISSUE

Whether Republic Act No. 4421 is unconstitutional.

RULING

The Supreme Court declared Republic Act No. 4421 unconstitutional and null and void. The Court resolved that the law effectively imposed a property qualification for candidates, as it prevented individuals who could not pay the bond premium or provide the necessary counter-bond from running for office, despite possessing the constitutional qualifications. This requirement was inconsistent with the republican system and the principle of social justice enshrined in the Constitution, which holds that sovereignty resides in the people and the right to be voted for shall not depend on wealth. The bond and its forfeiture were not based on defraying election expenses or compensating services and were thus arbitrary and oppressive. The Court enjoined the respondents from enforcing the law.