Rodolfo Farinas vs The Executive Secretary

GR No. 147387
10 December 2003

This is a consolidated case about 2 petitions seeking to declare RA 9006 or the Fair Election
Act unconstitutional.
Petitioners point out the dissimilarity of the subject of RA 9006 (which “deals with the lifting
of the ban on the use of media for election propaganda and the elimination of unfair election
practices”) and Sec. 67 of the Omnibus Election Code (which “imposes limitation on elective
officials who run for an office other than the one they are holding in a permanent capacity by
considering them as ipso facto resigned therefrom upon filing the cert. of candidacy.”)
Petitioners also assert that Sec. 14 of RA 9006 violates the equal protection clause (EPC) of
the Constitution because it repeals Sec. 67 only of the Omnibus Election Code, leaving intact
Sec. 66 which imposes a similar limitation to appointive officials.
They contend that Sec. 14 of RA 9006 discriminates against appointive officials and that by
repealing Sec. 67, an elective official who runs for office other than the one he is holding is
no longer considered ipso facto resigned upon filing his certificate of candidacy. Elective
officials continue in public office even as they campaign for reelection for another elective
positition. On the other hand, Sec. 66 which states that appointive officials ipso facto resigned
from their offices upon filing of certificates of candidacy – remained.
Petitioners also maintain that Sec.67 of OEC is a good law based on the constitutional
mandate on accountability of public officers which states “public officers and employees
must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility,
integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice and lead modest lives.
ISSUE + RULING: Whether RA 9006 violates the equal protection clause of the
Constitution. NO
NO. RA 9006 does not infringe EPC. The equal protection of the law clause is against undue
favor and individual or class privilege, and hostile discrimination or the oppression of
inequality. It does not demand absolute equality among residents; it merely requires that all
persons shall be treated alike under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges
conferred and liabilities enforced. EPC is infringed by legislation which applies only to those
persons falling within a specified class IF it applies alike to all persons within such class, and
reasonable grounds exist for making a distinction between those who fall within such class
and those who don’t.
In this case, substantial distinctions clearly exists between appointive officials and elective
officials.
Appointive officials hold their office by virtue of their designation thereto by an appointing
authority. Some appointive officials hold their office in a permanent capacity and are entitled
to security of tenure while other serve at the pleasure of appointing authority. They are also
strictly prohibited from engaging in any partisan political activity or take part in any election
except to vote.
Elective officials occupy their office by virtue of the mandate of the electorate. They are
elective to an office for a definite term and may be removed therefrom only upon stringent
conditions. They are obviously expressly allowed to take part in political and electoral
activities.
ISSUE + RULING: Whether Sec. 67 is a good law based on “accountability of public
officers” and thus is not validly repealed by Sec. 14 of RA 9006.
NO. It is validly repealed. Whether Sec. 67 has been validly repealed by Sec. 14 is one of the
“overarching significance” that justifies this Court’s adoption of a liberal stance on the
procedural matter on standing. The Court is compelled to confront and resolve the issue now
because the national elections is also barely 7 months away. Considering the importance of
the instant case and to avoid multiplicity of suits, and by strong reasons of public policy, the
exceptional character of the situation and necessity for a ruling reinforce our stand.

NOTES:
Sec. 66 – Any person holding a public appointive office or position, including active members
of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and officers and employed in government-owned or
controlled corporations shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing
of the certificate of candidacy.