Quinto and Tolentino

vs COMELEC
FACTS:
The court declared as unconstitutional the second provisio in the third paragraph of
sec 13 of RA 9369, Sec 66 of the Omnibus Election Code and Sec 4 of the
COMELEC Resolution 8679 that they violate the equal protection clause of the
Constitution.
BACKGROUND:
Dec 1, 2009 The Court declared the second provisio in the third paragraph of sec 13
of RA 9369, Sec 66 of the Omnibus Election Code and Sec 4 of the COMELEC
Resolution 8679 as unconstitutional.
Dec 14, 2009 COMELEC filed the motion for reconsideration.
The second provisio in the third paragraph of sec 13 of RA 9369, Sec 66 of the
Omnibus Election Code and Sec 4 of the COMELEC Resolution 8679: “Any person
holding a public appointive office or position, including active members of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines, and officers and employees in GOCCs shall be considered
ipso facto resigned from his office upon filling of his certificate of candidacy“
ISSUE:
Whether or not the second provisio in the third paragraph of sec 13 of RA 9369, Sec
66 of the Omnibus Election Code and Sec 4 of the COMELEC Resolution 8679,
violate the equal protection clause of the constitution.
HELD:
The Court reversed their previous decision and declared the second provisio in the
third paragraph of sec 13 of RA 9369, Sec 66 of the Omnibus Election Code and Sec
4 of the COMELEC Resolution 8679 as constitutional.
RULING:
These laws and regulations implement Sec 2 Art IX-B of the 1987 Constitution which
prohibits civil service officers and employees from engaging in any electioneering or
partisan political campaign.
The intention to impose a strict limitation on the participation of civil service officers
and employees in partisan political campaign is unmistakable.
The equal protection of the law clause in the constitution is not absolute, but is subject
to reasonable classification if the groupings are characterized by substantial
distinctions that make real differences, one class may be treated and regulated
different from the other.
The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor and individual or class
privelege, as well as hostile discrimination or the oppression of inequality. It is not
intended to prohibit legislation which is limited either in the object to which it is
directed or by territory within which it is to operate. 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 priveleges conferred and liabilities
enforced. The equal protection clause is not enfringed 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 ground exists for making a distinction between those
who fall within such class and those who do not.
Substantial distinctions clearly exists between elective officials and appointive
officials. Elective officials occupy their office by virtue of the mandate of the
electorate. Appointive officials hold their office by virtue of their designation by an
appointing authority