Quinto vs Comelec

G. R. No. 189698

FACTS: Petitioners Eleazar P. Quinto and Gerino A. Tolentino, Jr. filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition
against the COMELEC for issuing a resolution declaring appointive officials who filed their certificate of
candidacy as ipso facto resigned from their positions. In this defense, the COMELEC avers that it only copied
the provision from Sec. 13 of R.A. 9369.

ISSUE: Whether or not the said COMELEC resolution was valid.

HELD: NO. In the Farias case, the petitioners challenged Sec. 14 of RA. 9006 repealing Sec. 66 of the
Omnibus Election Code (OEC) for giving undue benefit to elective officials in comparison with appointive
officials. Incidentally, the Court upheld the substantial distinctions between the two and pronounced that
there was no violation of the equal protection clause. However in the present case, the Court held that the
discussion on the equal protection clause was an obiter dictum since the issue raised therein was against the
repealing clause. It didnt squarely challenge Sec. 66.

Sec. 13 of RA. 9369 unduly discriminated appointive and elective officials. Applying the 4 requisites
of a valid classification, the proviso does not comply with the second requirement that it must be
germane to the purpose of the law.

The obvious reason for the challenged provision is to prevent the use of a governmental
position to promote ones candidacy, or even to wield a dangerous or coercive influence of
the electorate. The measure is further aimed at promoting the efficiency, integrity, and
discipline of the public service by eliminating the danger that the discharge of official duty
would be motivated by political considerations rather than the welfare of the public. The
restriction is also justified by the proposition that the entry of civil servants to the
electorate arena, while still in office, could result in neglect or inefficiency in the
performance of duty because they would be attending to their campaign rather than to their
office work.

Sec. 13 of RA. 9369 pertains to all civil servants holding appointive posts without distinction
as to whether they occupy high positions in government or not. Certainly, a utility worker in
the government will also be considered as ipso facto resigned once he files his certificate of
candidacy for the election. This scenario is absurd for, indeed, it is unimaginable how he
can use his position in the government to wield influence in the political world.

The provision s directed to the activity any and all public offices, whether they be partisan
or non partisan in character, whether they be in the national, municipal or barangay level.
Congress has not shown a compelling state interest to restrict the fundamental right
involved on such a sweeping scale.