Dimaporo v Mitra

G.R. No. 96859

October 15, 1991
I. Facts

The petitioner Dimaporo was a member of the House of Representatives for Lanao del Sur. Prior
to the petition, he filed a certificate of candidacy for the position of Regional Governor of the
ARMM, which caused the House of Representatives to exclude the petitioner from its roll of
members. This exclusion is pursuant to BP 881, or the Omnibus Election Code, Art. IX, Sec. 76,
which states the following:

“Any elective official whether national or local running for any office other than the one
which he is holding in a permanent capacity except for President and Vice-President shall be
considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.”

Following his loss from the incumbent elections, the petitioner prayed to resume his duties as the
district representative, but was denied by the House, hence this petition, which the petitioner
argues the abovementioned provision as unconstitutional insofar as it violates the
representative’s term as it was prescribed by the Constitution.

II. Issue

WON the cited provision from the Omnibus Election Code is unconstitutional.

III. Ruling

The Supreme Court cited the ruling in Monroy v CA, reiterating that forfeiture of office comes as
a consequence of filing the certificate of candidacy for another office. Regardless of the outcome
of the following election, said seat is irrevocable and can only be gained through another election
or appointment. When the petitioner filed the certificate of candidacy, only the act of filing is
considered, and as the SC states, it is not necessary for the other position to be held.

The Supreme Court also ruled that the provision being questioned is not violative of the
Constitution, considering the technicality as a mode of voluntary renunciation, under Sec. 7 Par.
2 of Art. VI of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court denies the petition for lack of merit.