DUMLAO, ET AL.

VS COMELEC
G.R. NO. L-52245 JANUARY 22, 1980
FACTS:
Dumlao was the former governor of Nueva Viscaya. He has already retired from his office and
has been receiving retirement benefits. In 1980, he filed for reelection to the same office.
Meanwhile, BP Blg. 52 was enacted. This law provides that retirees from public office are
disqualified to run for office. Dumlao assailed the law averring that it is class legislation hence
unconstitutional. In general, he invoked equal protection of law. His petition was joined by Atty.
Romeo Igot and Alfredo Salapantan, Jr. These two, however, have different issues. The suits of
Igot and Salapantan are more of a taxpayer’s suit assailing the other provisions of BP Blg. 52
regarding the term of office of the elected officials, the length of the campaign, and the provision
which bars person charged for crimes from running for public office as well as the provision that
provides that the mere filing of complaints against them after preliminary investigation would
already disqualify them from office.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Dumlao, Igot, and Salapantan have a cause of action.

RULING:
NO. The Supreme Court pointed out the procedural lapses of this case for the latter should have
never been merged. Dumlao’s issue is different from Igot and Salapantan. They have different
issues. Further, this case does not meet all requisites to be eligible for judicial review, namely:
(1) the existence of an appropriate case; (2) an interest personal and substantial by the party
raising the constitutional question; (3) the plea that the function be exercised at the earliest
opportunity; and (4) the necessity that the constitutional question be passed upon in order to
decide the case.

In this case, only the 3rd requisite was met.

The SC ruled however that the provision barring persons charged for crimes may not run for
public office and that the filing of complaints against them after preliminary investigation would
already disqualify them from office as null and void.

The assertion that BP Blg. 52 is contrary to the safeguard of equal protection is neither well
taken. The constitutional guarantee of the equal protection of the laws is subject to rational
classification. If the groupings are based on reasonable and real differentiation, one class can
be treated and regulated differently from another class. For purposes of public service,
employees 65 years of age, have been validly classified differently from younger employees.
Employees attaining that age are subject to compulsory retirement, while those of younger ages
are not so compulsorily retirable.

In respect of election to provincial, city, or municipal positions, to require that candidates should
not be more than 65 years of age at the time they assume office, if applicable to everyone,
might or might not be a reasonable classification although, as the Solicitor General has
intimated a good policy of the law should be to promote the emergence of younger blood in our
local governments. On the other hand, it might be that persons more than 65 years old may also
be good elective local officials.
Retirement from government service may or may not be reasonable disqualification for elective
local officials. But, in the case of a 65-year old elective local official (Dumlao), who has retired
from a provincial, city, or municipal office, there is reason to disqualify him from running for the
same office from which he had retired, as provided for in the challenged provision.