9/15/2015 Farias vs Comelec : 147387 : December 10, 2003 : J.

Callejo Sr : En Banc : Decision

ENBANC

[G.R.No.147387.December10,2003]

RODOLFO C. FARIAS, MANUEL M. GARCIA, FRANCIS G. ESCUDERO, and

AGAPITO A. AQUINO, AS MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES AND ALSO AS TAXPAYERS, IN THEIR OWN
BEHALF AND IN REPRESENTATION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE
MINORITYINTHEHOUSEOFREPRESENTATIVES,petitioners,vs.THE
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, HON.
FELICIANO R. BELMONTE, JR., SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, SECRETARY OF THE SENATE, AND
SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
respondents.

[G.R.No.152161.December10,2003]

CONG. GERRY A. SALAPUDDIN, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON

ELECTIONS,respondent.

DECISION
CALLEJO,SR.,J.:

Before the Court are two Petitions under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended,
seekingtodeclareasunconstitutionalSection14ofRepublicActNo.9006(TheFairElection
Act), insofar as it expressly repeals Section 67 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (The Omnibus
ElectionCode)whichprovides:

SEC. 67. Candidates holding elective office. 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.

ThepetitionforcertiorariandprohibitioninG.R.No.147387wasfiledbyRodolfoC.Farias,
Manuel M. Garcia, Francis G. Escudero and Agapito A. Aquino. At the time of filing of the
petition, the petitioners were members of the minority bloc in the House of Representatives.
Impleaded as respondents are: the Executive Secretary, then Speaker of the House of
RepresentativesFelicianoR.Belmonte,Jr.,theCommissiononElections,theSecretaryofthe
DepartmentoftheInteriorandLocalGovernment(DILG),theSecretaryoftheSenateandthe
SecretaryGeneraloftheHouseofRepresentatives.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/147387.htm 1/17
9/15/2015 Farias vs Comelec : 147387 : December 10, 2003 : J. Callejo Sr : En Banc : Decision

ThepetitionforprohibitioninG.R.No.152161wasfiledbyGerryA.Salapuddin,thenalsoa
memberoftheHouseofRepresentatives.ImpleadedasrespondentistheCOMELEC.

LegislativeHistoryofRepublicActNo.9006

Rep. Act No. 9006, entitled An Act to Enhance the Holding of Free, Orderly, Honest,
Peaceful and Credible Elections through Fair Election Practices, is a consolidation of the
followingbillsoriginatingfromtheHouseofRepresentativesandtheSenate,respectively:

House Bill (HB) No. 9000 entitled AN ACT ALLOWING THE USE OF MASS MEDIA FOR
ELECTION PROPAGANDA, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 881,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE, AS AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER
[1]
PURPOSES;

Senate Bill (SB) No. 1742 entitled AN ACT TO ENHANCE THE HOLDING OF FREE, ORDERLY,
[2]
HONEST, PEACEFUL, AND CREDIBLE ELECTIONS THROUGH FAIR ELECTION PRACTICES.
[3]
A Bicameral Conference Committee, composed of eight members of the Senate and
[4]
sixteen(16)membersoftheHouseofRepresentatives, wasformedtoreconciletheconflicting
provisionsoftheHouseandSenateversionsofthebill.
[5]
On November 29, 2000, the Bicameral Conference Committee submitted its Report,
signedbyitsmembers,recommendingtheapprovalofthebillasreconciledandapprovedby
theconferees.
During the plenary session of the House of Representatives on February 5, 2001, Rep.
Jacinto V. Paras proposed an amendment to the Bicameral Conference Committee Report.
Rep.DidagenP.DilangalenraisedapointofordercommentingthattheHousecouldnolonger
submit an amendment thereto. Rep. Sergio A.F. Apostol thereupon moved that the House
returnthereporttotheBicameralConferenceCommitteeinviewoftheproposedamendment
thereto. Rep. Dilangalen expressed his objection to the proposal. However, upon viva voce
voting,themajorityoftheHouseapprovedthereturnofthereporttotheBicameralConference
[6]
Committeeforproperaction.
In view of the proposed amendment, the House of Representatives elected anew its
[7] [8]
conferees tothe BicameralConferenceCommittee. Thenagain,forunclear reasons,upon
[9]
the motion of Rep. Ignacio R. Bunye, the House elected another set of conferees to the
[10]
BicameralConferenceCommittee.
On February 7, 2001, during the plenary session of the House of Representatives, Rep.
Bunye moved that the House consider the Bicameral Conference Committee Report on the
contrasting provisions of HB No. 9000 and SB No. 1742. Rep. Dilangalen observed that the
report had been recommitted to the Bicameral Conference Committee. The Chair responded
thattheBicameralConferenceReportwasanewone,andwasaresultofthereconveningofa
new Bicameral Conference Committee. Rep. Dilangalen then asked that he be given time to
examinethenewreport.UponmotionofRep.Apostol,theHousedeferredtheapprovalofthe
[11]
reportuntiltheothermembersweregivenacopythereof.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/147387.htm 2/17
9/15/2015 Farias vs Comelec : 147387 : December 10, 2003 : J. Callejo Sr : En Banc : Decision

After taking up other pending matters, the House proceeded to vote on the Bicameral
ConferenceCommitteeReportonthedisagreeingprovisionsofHBNo.9000andSBNo.1742.
TheHouseapprovedthereportwith125affirmativevotes,3negativevotesandnoabstention.
Inexplainingtheirnegativevotes,Reps.FariasandGarciaexpressedtheirbeliefthatSection
14thereofwasarider.EvenRep.Escudero,whovotedintheaffirmative,expressedhisdoubts
ontheconstitutionalityofSection14.Priortocastinghisvote,Rep.Dilangalenobservedthatno
senator signed the Bicameral Conference Committee Report and asked if this procedure was
[12]
regular.
On the same day, the Senate likewise approved the Bicameral Conference Committee
ReportonthecontrastingprovisionsofSBNo.1742andHBNo.9000.
Thereafter,Rep.ActNo.9006wasdulysignedbythenSenatePresidentAquilinoPimentel,
Jr.andthenSpeakeroftheHouseofRepresentativesFelicianoR.Belmonte,Jr.andwasduly
certified by the Secretary of the Senate Lutgardo B. Barbo and the Secretary General of the
HouseofRepresentativesRobertP.NazarenoastheconsolidationofHouseBillNo.9000and
SenateBillNo.1742,andfinallypassedbybothHousesonFebruary7,2001.
President Gloria MacapagalArroyo signed Rep. Act No. 9006 into law on February 12,
2001.

ThePetitionersCase

ThepetitionersnowcometotheCourtalleginginthemainthatSection14ofRep.ActNo.
9006, insofar as it repeals Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, is unconstitutional for
beinginviolationofSection26(1),ArticleVIoftheConstitution,requiringeverylawtohaveonly
onesubjectwhichshouldbeexpressedinitstitle.
According to the petitioners, the inclusion of Section 14 repealing Section 67 of the
OmnibusElectionCodeinRep.ActNo.9006constitutesaproscribedrider.Theypointoutthe
dissimilarityinthesubjectmatterofRep.ActNo.9006,ontheonehand,andSection67ofthe
OmnibusElectionCode,ontheother.Rep.ActNo.9006primarilydealswith theliftingofthe
banontheuseofmediaforelectionpropagandaandtheeliminationofunfairelectionpractices,
whileSection67oftheOmnibusElectionCodeimposesalimitationonelectiveofficialswhorun
foranofficeotherthantheonetheyareholdinginapermanentcapacitybyconsideringthemas
ipsofactoresignedtherefromuponfilingofthecertificateofcandidacy.TherepealofSection67
of the Omnibus Election Code is thus not embraced in the title, nor germane to the subject
matterofRep.ActNo.9006.
The petitioners also assert that Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 9006 violates the equal
protectionclauseoftheConstitutionbecauseitrepealsSection67onlyoftheOmnibusElection
Code,leavingintactSection66thereofwhichimposesasimilarlimitationtoappointiveofficials,
thus:

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

They contend that Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 9006 discriminates against appointive
officials.BytherepealofSection67,anelectiveofficialwhorunsforofficeotherthantheone
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/147387.htm 3/17
9/15/2015 Farias vs Comelec : 147387 : December 10, 2003 : J. Callejo Sr : En Banc : Decision

which he is holding is no longer considered ipso facto resigned therefrom upon filing his
certificate of candidacy. Elective officials continue in public office even as they campaign for
reelection or election for another elective position. On the other hand, Section 66 has been
retainedthus,thelimitationonappointiveofficialsremainstheyarestillconsideredipsofacto
resignedfromtheirofficesuponthefilingoftheircertificatesofcandidacy.
ThepetitionersassertthatRep.ActNo.9006isnullandvoidinitsentiretyasirregularities
attendeditsenactmentintolaw.Thelaw,notonlySection14thereof,shouldbedeclarednull
and void. Even Section 16 of the law which provides that [t]his Act shall take effect upon its
approvalisaviolationofthedueprocessclauseoftheConstitution,aswellasjurisprudence,
whichrequirepublicationofthelawbeforeitbecomeseffective.
Finally,thepetitionersmaintainthatSection67oftheOmnibusElectionCodeisagoodlaw
hence,shouldnothavebeenrepealed.ThepetitionerscitedtherulingoftheCourtinDimaporo
[13]
v. Mitra, Jr., that Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code is based on the constitutional
[14]
mandateontheAccountabilityofPublicOfficers:

Sec. 1. Public office is a public trust. 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.

Consequently, the respondents Speaker and Secretary General of the House of

Representativesactedwithgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtoexcessorlackofjurisdiction
for not considering those members of the House who ran for a seat in the Senate during the
May 14, 2001 elections as ipso facto resigned therefrom, upon the filing of their respective
certificatesofcandidacy.

TheRespondentsArguments

Fortheirpart,therespondents,throughtheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral,urgethisCourtto
dismiss the petitions contending, preliminarily, that the petitioners have no legal standing to
institute the present suit. Except for the fact that their negative votes were overruled by the
majorityofthemembersoftheHouseofRepresentatives,thepetitionershavenotshownthat
theyhavesufferedharmasaresultofthepassageofRep.ActNo.9006.Neitherdopetitioners
have any interest as taxpayers since the assailed statute does not involve the exercise by
Congressofitstaxingorspendingpower.
Invoking the enrolled bill doctrine, the respondents refute the petitioners allegations that
irregularities attended the enactment of Rep. Act No. 9006. The signatures of the Senate
President and the Speaker of the House, appearing on the bill and the certification signed by
therespectiveSecretariesofbothhousesofCongress,constituteproofbeyondcavilthatthebill
wasdulyenactedintolaw.
TherespondentscontendthatSection14ofRep.ActNo.9006,asitrepealsSection67of
theOmnibusElectionCode,isnotaproscribedridernordoesitviolateSection26(1)ofArticle
VIoftheConstitution.ThetitleofRep.ActNo.9006,AnActtoEnhancetheHoldingofFree,
Orderly, Honest, Peaceful and Credible Elections through Fair Election Practices, is so broad
that it encompasses all the processes involved in an election exercise, including the filing of
certificatesofcandidacybyelectiveofficials.
TheyarguethattherepealofSection67isgermanetothegeneralsubjectofRep.ActNo.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/147387.htm 4/17
9/15/2015 Farias vs Comelec : 147387 : December 10, 2003 : J. Callejo Sr : En Banc : Decision

9006asexpressedinitstitleasiteliminatestheeffectofprematurelyterminatingthetermofan
electiveofficialbyhisfilingofacertificateofcandidacyforanofficeotherthantheonewhichhe
ispermanentlyholding,suchthatheisnolongerconsideredipsofactoresignedtherefrom.The
legislature,byincludingtherepealofSection67oftheOmnibusElectionCodeinRep.ActNo.
9006, has deemed it fit to remove the unfairness of considering an elective official ipso facto
resignedfromhisofficeuponthefilingofhiscertificateofcandidacyforanotherelectiveoffice.
WiththerepealofSection67,allelectiveofficialsarenowplacedonequalfootingastheyare
allowedtofinishtheirrespectivetermseveniftheyrunforanyoffice,whetherthepresidency,
vicepresidencyorotherelectivepositions,otherthantheonetheyareholdinginapermanent
capacity.
TherespondentsassertthattherepealofSection67oftheOmnibusElectionCodeneed
not be expressly stated in the title of Rep. Act No. 9006 as the legislature is not required to
makethetitleoftheactacompleteindexofitscontents.Itmustbedeemedsufficientthatthe
title be comprehensive enough reasonably to include the general subject which the statute
seeks to effect without expressing each and every means necessary for its accomplishment.
Section26(1)ofArticleVIoftheConstitutionmerelycallsforallthepartsofanactrelatingtoits
subjecttofindexpressioninitstitle.Meredetailsneednotbesetforth.
Accordingtotherespondents,Section14ofRep.ActNo.9006,insofarasitrepealsSection
67,leavingSection66oftheOmnibusElectionCodeintactandeffective,doesnotviolatethe
equalprotectionclauseoftheConstitution.Section67pertainstoelectiveofficialswhileSection
66 pertains to appointive officials. A substantial distinction exists between these two sets of
officialselectiveofficialsoccupytheirofficebyvirtueoftheirmandatebaseduponthepopular
will,whiletheappointiveofficialsarenotelectedbypopularwill.Thelattercannot,therefore,be
similarly treated as the former. Equal protection simply requires that all persons or things
similarlysituatedaretreatedalike,bothastorightsconferredandresponsibilitiesimposed.
Further,Section16,ortheEffectivityclause,ofRep.ActNo.9006doesnotrunafoulofthe
due process clause of the Constitution as it does not entail any arbitrary deprivation of life,
libertyandproperty.Specifically,thesectionprovidingforpenaltiesincasesofviolationsthereof
presumethattheformalitiesofthelawwouldbeobserved,i.e.,chargeswouldfirstbefiled,and
the accused would be entitled to a hearing before judgment is rendered by a court having
jurisdiction.In any case, the issue about lack of due process is premature as no one has, as
yet,beenchargedwithviolationofRep.ActNo.9006.
Finally,therespondentssubmitthattherespondentsSpeakerandSecretaryGeneralofthe
House of Representatives did not commit grave abuse of discretion in not excluding from the
RollsthosemembersthereofwhoranfortheSenateduringtheMay14,2001elections.These
respondentsmerelycompliedwithRep.ActNo.9006,whichenjoysthepresumptionofvalidity
untildeclaredotherwisebytheCourt.

TheCourtsRuling

Before resolving the petitions on their merits, the Court shall first rule on the procedural
issueraisedby the respondents,i.e., whether the petitioners have the legal standing or locus
standitofilethepetitionsatbar.
The petitions were filed by the petitioners in their capacities as members of the House of
Representatives,andastaxpayersandregisteredvoters.
Generally, a party who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/147387.htm 5/17
9/15/2015 Farias vs Comelec : 147387 : December 10, 2003 : J. Callejo Sr : En Banc : Decision

substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a
[15]
result of its enforcement. The rationale for requiring a party who challenges the
constitutionalityofastatutetoallegesuchapersonalstakeintheoutcomeofthecontroversyis
toassurethatconcreteadversenesswhichsharpensthepresentationofissuesuponwhichthe
[16]
courtsolargelydependsforilluminationofdifficultconstitutionalquestions.
However,beingmerelyamatterofprocedure,thisCourt,inseveralcasesinvolvingissues
[17]
ofoverarchingsignificancetooursociety, hadadoptedaliberalstanceonstanding.Thus,in
[18]
Tatad v. Secretary of the Department of Energy, this Court brushed aside the procedural
requirementofstanding,tookcognizanceof,andsubsequentlygranted,thepetitionsseparately
filed by then Senator Francisco Tatad and several members of the House of Representatives
assailing the constitutionality of Rep. Act No. 8180 (An Act Deregulating the Downstream Oil
IndustryandForOtherPurposes).
TheCourtlikewise took cognizanceofthepetitionfiledbythenmembersoftheHouseof
RepresentativeswhichimpugnedasunconstitutionalthevalidityofaprovisionofRep.ActNo.
[19]
6734(OrganicActfortheAutonomousRegioninMuslimMindanao)inChiongbianv.Orbos.
Similarly,theCourttookcognizanceofthepetitionfiledbythenmembersoftheSenate,joined
byotherpetitioners,whichchallengedthevalidityofRep.ActNo.7716(ExpandedValueAdded
[20]
TaxLaw)inTolentinov.SecretaryofFinance.
Members of Congress, such as the petitioners, were likewise allowed by this Court to
challenge the validity of acts, decisions, rulings, or orders of various government agencies or
[21]
instrumentalitiesinDel Mar v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, Kilosbayan,
[22] [23] [24]
Inc.v.Guingona,Jr., PhilippineConstitutionAssociationv.Enriquez, Albanov.Reyes,
[25]
andBagatsingv.CommitteeonPrivatization.
Certainly,theprincipalissueposedbythepetitions,i.e.,whetherSection67oftheOmnibus
[26]
ElectionCode,whichthisCourthaddeclaredinDimaporo asderivingitsexistencefromthe
constitutionalprovisiononaccountabilityofpublicofficers,hasbeenvalidlyrepealedbySection
14ofRep.ActNo.9006,isoneofoverarchingsignificancethatjustifiesthisCourtsadoptionof
aliberalstancevisvistheproceduralmatteronstanding.Moreover,withthenationalelections
barely seven months away, it behooves the Court to confront the issue now and resolve the
sameforthrightly.ThefollowingpronouncementoftheCourtisquiteapropos:

... All await the decision of this Court on the constitutional question. Considering, therefore, the
importance which the instant case has assumed and to prevent multiplicity of suits, strong reasons of
public policy demand that [its] constitutionality . . . be now resolved. It may likewise be added that the
exceptional character of the situation that confronts us, the paramount public interest, and the undeniable
[27]
necessity for a ruling, the national elections beings barely six months away, reinforce our stand.
[28]
Everystatuteispresumedvalid. Thepresumptionisthatthelegislatureintendedtoenact
a valid, sensible and just law and one which operates no further than may be necessary to
[29]
effectuatethespecificpurposeofthelaw.
It is equally wellestablished, however, that the courts, as guardians of the Constitution,
havetheinherentauthoritytodeterminewhetherastatuteenactedbythelegislaturetranscends
[30]
the limit imposed by the fundamental law. And where the acts of the other branches of
governmentrunafouloftheConstitution,itisthejudiciaryssolemnandsacreddutytonullifythe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/147387.htm 6/17
9/15/2015 Farias vs Comelec : 147387 : December 10, 2003 : J. Callejo Sr : En Banc : Decision
[31]
same.
Proceedingfromtheseguideposts,theCourtshallnowresolvethesubstantialissuesraised
bythepetitions.

Section14ofRep.Act
[32]
No.9006IsNotaRider

At the core of the controversy is Section 14, the repealing clause of Rep. Act No. 9006,
whichprovides:

Sec. 14. Sections 67 and 85 of the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881) and Sections 10
and 11 of Republic Act No. 6646 are hereby repealed. As a consequence, the first proviso in the third
paragraph of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 8436 is rendered ineffective. All laws, presidential decrees,
executive orders, rules and regulations, or any part thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are
hereby repealed or modified or amended accordingly.

Therepealedprovision,Section67oftheOmnibusElectionCode,quotedearlier,reads:

SEC. 67. Candidates holding elective office. 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.

Section26(1),ArticleVIoftheConstitutionprovides:

SEC. 26 (1). Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed
in the title thereof.

The proscription is aimed against the evils of the socalled omnibus bills and logrolling
legislationaswellassurreptitiousand/orunconsideredencroaches.Theprovisionmerelycalls
[33]
forallpartsofanactrelatingtoitssubjectfindingexpressioninitstitle.
To determine whether there has been compliance with the constitutional requirement that
thesubjectofanactshallbeexpressedinitstitle,theCourtlaiddowntherulethat

Constitutional provisions relating to the subject matter and titles of statutes should not be so narrowly
construed as to cripple or impede the power of legislation. The requirement that the subject of an act shall
be expressed in its title should receive a reasonable and not a technical construction. It is sufficient if the
title be comprehensive enough reasonably to include the general object which a statute seeks to effect,
without expressing each and every end and means necessary or convenient for the accomplishing of that
[34]
object. Mere details need not be set forth. The title need not be an abstract or index of the Act.

The title of Rep. Act No. 9006 reads: An Act to Enhance the Holding of Free, Orderly,
Honest, Peaceful and Credible Elections through Fair Election Practices. Section 2 of the law
providesnotonlythedeclarationofprinciplesbutalsotheobjectivesthereof:

Sec. 2. Declaration of Principles. The State shall, during the election period, supervise or regulate the
enjoyment or utilization of all franchises or permits for the operation of media of communication or

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/147387.htm 7/17
9/15/2015 Farias vs Comelec : 147387 : December 10, 2003 : J. Callejo Sr : En Banc : Decision

information to guarantee or ensure equal opportunity for public service, including access to media time
and space, and the equitable right to reply, for public information campaigns and fora among candidates
and assure free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections.

The State shall ensure that bona fide candidates for any public office shall be free from any form of
[35]
harassment and discrimination.

The Court is convinced that the title and the objectives of Rep. Act No. 9006 are
comprehensiveenoughtoincludetherepealofSection67oftheOmnibusElectionCodewithin
itscontemplation.TorequirethatthesaidrepealofSection67oftheCodebeexpressedinthe
[36]
titleistoinsistthatthetitlebeacompleteindexofitscontent.
The purported dissimilarity of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, which imposes a
limitationonelectiveofficialswhorunforanofficeotherthantheonetheyareholding,tothe
otherprovisionsofRep.ActNo.9006,whichdealwiththeliftingofthebanontheuseofmedia
forelectionpropaganda,doesnotviolatetheonesubjectonetitlerule.ThisCourthasheldthat
an act having a single general subject, indicated in the title, may contain any number of
provisions, no matter how diverse they may be, so long as they are not inconsistent with or
foreign to the general subject, and may be considered in furtherance of such subject by
[37]
providingforthemethodandmeansofcarryingoutthegeneralsubject.
The deliberations of the Bicameral Conference Committee on the particular matter are
particularlyinstructive:
SEN.LEGARDALEVISTE:
Yes,Mr.Chairman,Ijustwantedtoclarify.
Soallwerelookingfornowisanappropriatetitletomakeitbroadersothatitwouldcover
thisprovision[referringtotherepealofSection67oftheOmnibusElectionCode],isthat
correct?Thatsall.BecauseIbelieve...
THECHAIRMAN(REP.SYJUCO):
Wearelookingforanappropriatecoveragewhichwillresultinthenomenclatureortitle.
SEN.LEGARDALEVISTE:
Because I really do not believe that it is out of place.I think that even with the term fair
election practice, it really covers it, because as expressed by Senator Roco, those
conditions inserted earlier seemed unfair and it is an election practice and, therefore, I
think,ImverycomfortablewiththetitleFairElectionPracticesothatwecangetoverwith
these things so that we dont come back again until we find the title. I mean, its one
provisionwhichIthinkisfairforeverybody.Itmayseemlikealimitationbutthislimitation
actuallyprovidesforfairnessinelectionpracticesasthetitleimplies.
THECHAIRMAN(REP.SYJUCO):
Yes.
SEN.LEGARDALEVISTE:
SoIwouldwanttobegtheHousecontingent,letsgetitoverwith.Tome,ha,itsnotavery
touchyissue.Forme,itsevenaverycorrectprovision.Ifeelverycomfortablewithitandit
wasvotedintheSenate,atleast,soIwouldliketoappealtothe...paramataposna,then
wecomebackasaBicamjustforthetitleIsthatwhatyoure...?
THECHAIRMAN(REP.SYJUCO):
Itsnotthetitleperse,itsthecoverage.Soifyouwilljustkindlybearwithus.Imhappythat
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/147387.htm 8/17
9/15/2015 Itsnotthetitleperse,itsthecoverage. Soifyouwilljustkindlybearwithus.
Farias vs Comelec : 147387 : December 10, 2003 : J. Callejo Sr : En Banc : Decision Imhappythat
there is already one comfortable senator there among ... several of us were also
comfortable with it. But it would be well that when we rise from this Bicam that were all
comfortablewithit.
THECHAIRMAN(SEN.ROCO):
Yes.Anyway,letslistentoCongressmanMarcos.
REP.MARCOS:
Mr. Chairman, may I just make the observation that although it is true that the bulk of
provisionsdealswiththeareaofpropagandaandpoliticaladvertising,thecompletetitleis
actually one that indulge full coverage. It says An Act to enhance the holding of free,
orderly,honest...electionsthroughfairelectionpractices.Butasyousaid,wewillputthat
asidetodiscusslaterone.
Secondly, I think the Declaration of Principles contained in Section 2, paragraph 2 is
perfectlyadequateinthatitsaysthatitshallensurecandidatesforpublicofficethatmaybe
freefromanyformofharassmentanddiscrimination.
SurelythisprovisioninSection67oftheoldElectionCodeoftheexistingOmnibusElection
Codeisaformofharassmentordiscrimination.AndsoIthinkthatintheeffortatleveling
theplayingfield,wecancoverthisanditshouldnotbeconsideredarider.
SEN.LEGARDALEVISTE:
Iagree,Mr.Chairman.IthinktheCongresswomanfromIlocoshadveryclearlyputit,thatit
iscoveredintheDeclarationofPrinciplesandintheobjectiveofthisbill.Andtherefore,I
hope that the House contingent would agree to this so that we can finish it now. And it
expresslyprovidesforfairelectionpracticesbecause...
THECHAIRMAN(SEN.ROCO):
Yeah,Ithinkwhatisonthetableisthatwearenotdisputingthis,butwearelookingfora
title that is more generic so that then we have less of an objection on constitutionality. I
thinkthatsthetheory.So,thereisacceptanceofthis.
Maybe we should not call it na limitation on elected officials. Maybe we should say the
specialprovisiononelectedofficials.Sohowisthat?Alammoito...
REP.MARCOS:
IthinkwejustchangetheSection1,theshorttitle.
THECHAIRMAN(SEN.ROCO):
Also,ThenwesayontheshorttitleoftheAct,wesay...
REP.MARCOS:
Whatifwesayfairelectionpractices?Maybethatshouldbechanged...
THECHAIRMAN(SEN.ROCO):
O,sige,fine,fine.Letsabrainstorm.Equal...
REP.PADILLA:
Mr. Chairman, why dont we use An Act rationalizing the holding of free, orderly, honest,
peacefulandcredibleelections,amendingforthepurposeBatasangPambansaknownas
theOmnibusElectionCode?
THECHAIRMAN(SEN.ROCO):
WhydontweremovefairandthenthisshallbecitedasElectionPracticesAct?
REP.PICHAY:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/147387.htm 9/17
9/15/2015 Farias vs Comelec : 147387 : December 10, 2003 : J. Callejo Sr : En Banc : Decision

Thatsnotanelectionpractice.Thatsalimitation.
THECHAIRMAN(SEN.ROCO):
Ahayawmoiyongpractice.O,givemeanothernoun.
REP.MARCOS:
TheFairElection.
THECHAIRMAN(SEN.ROCO):
O,FairElectionAct.
REP.MACARAMBON:
Nagbibrainstormtayodito,eh.Howaboutifwechangethetitletoenhancetheholdingof
free,orderly,honest,peacefulandensureequalopportunityforpublicservicethroughfair
electionpractices?
REP.PICHAY:
Fairelectionpractices?
REP.MACARAMBON:
Yeah.Toensureequalopportunityforpublicservicethroughfair...
THECHAIRMAN(SEN.ROCO):
Walanangpracticesnga.
REP.PICHAY:
Walanangpractices.
THECHAIRMAN(SEN.ROCO):
ItshallbecitedasFairElectionAct.
(Informaldiscussions)
REP.PICHAY:
Approvenaiyan.
THECHAIRMAN(SEN.ROCO):
Done.So,okaynaiyon.ThetitlewillbeFairElectionAct.
Therestwalanangproblemaano?
VOICES:
Walana.
REP.MACARAMBON:
Walanaiyongpractices?
THECHAIRMAN(SEN.ROCO):
Walana,walana.Mahinatayosapractice,eh.
O,walana?Wewillcleanup.
REP.MARCOS:
Title?
THECHAIRMAN(SEN.ROCO):
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/147387.htm 10/17
9/15/2015 Farias vs Comelec : 147387 : December 10, 2003 : J. Callejo Sr : En Banc : Decision

Theshorttitle,ThisAct...
THECHAIRMAN(REP.SYJUCO):
YourebacktoyourNo.21already.
REP.MARCOS:
Thefulltitle,thesame?
THECHAIRMAN(SEN.ROCO):
Iyonnanga.ThefulltitleisAnActtoenhancetheholding...ThatstheHouseversion,eh,
dahilpareho,hindiba?ThentheshorttitleThisActshallbeknownastheFairElectionAct.
[38]

The legislators considered Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code as a form of

harassment or discrimination that had to be done away with and repealed. The executive
department found cause with Congress when the President of the Philippines signed the
measureintolaw. For sure, some sectors of society and in government may believe that the
repeal of Section 67 is bad policy as it would encourage political adventurism. But policy
mattersarenottheconcernoftheCourt.Governmentpolicyiswithintheexclusivedominionof
[39]
the political branches of the government. It is not for this Court to look into the wisdom or
proprietyoflegislativedetermination.Indeed,whetheranenactmentiswiseorunwise,whether
it is based on sound economic theory, whether it is the best means to achieve the desired
results, whether, in short, the legislative discretion within its prescribed limits should be
exercisedinaparticularmanneraremattersforthejudgmentofthelegislature,andtheserious
[40]
conflict of opinions does not suffice to bring them within the range of judicial cognizance.
CongressisnotprecludedfromrepealingSection67bytherulingoftheCourtinDimaporo v.
[41]
Mitra upholdingthevalidityoftheprovisionandbyitspronouncementinthesamecasethat
theprovisionhasalaudablepurpose.Overtime,Congressmayfinditimperativetorepealthe
lawonitsbeliefthattheelectionprocessistherebyenhancedandtheparamountobjectiveof
election laws the fair, honest and orderly election of truly deserving members of Congress is
achieved.
Moreover,theavowedpurposeoftheconstitutionaldirectivethatthesubjectofabillshould
beembracedinitstitleistoapprisethelegislatorsofthepurposes,thenatureandscopeofits
provisions,andpreventtheenactmentintolawofmatterswhichhavenotreceivedthenotice,
[42]
actionandstudyofthelegislatorsandthepublic. Inthiscase,itcannotbeclaimedthatthe
legislatorswerenotapprisedoftherepealofSection67oftheOmnibusElectionCodeasthe
samewasamplyandcomprehensivelydeliberateduponbythemembersoftheHouse.Infact,
the petitioners, as members of the House of Representatives, expressed their reservations
regardingitsvaliditypriortocastingtheirvotes.Undoubtedly,thelegislatorswereawareofthe
existenceoftheprovisionrepealingSection67oftheOmnibusElectionCode.

Section14ofRep.ActNo.9006
IsNotViolativeoftheEqual
[43]
ProtectionClauseoftheConstitution

The petitioners contention, that the repeal of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code
pertaining to elective officials gives undue benefit to such officials as against the appointive
onesandviolatestheequalprotectionclauseoftheconstitution,istenuous.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/147387.htm 11/17
9/15/2015 Farias vs Comelec : 147387 : December 10, 2003 : J. Callejo Sr : En Banc : Decision

TheequalprotectionofthelawclauseintheConstitutionisnotabsolute,butissubjectto
reasonable classification. If the groupings are characterized by substantial distinctions that
[44]
makerealdifferences,oneclassmaybetreatedandregulateddifferentlyfromtheother. The
Courthasexplainedthenatureoftheequalprotectionguaranteeinthismanner:

The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor and individual or class privilege, 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 privileges conferred and liabilities enforced. The equal
protection clause is not 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
[45]
a distinction between those who fall within such class and those who do not.

Substantialdistinctionsclearlyexistbetweenelectiveofficialsandappointiveofficials. The
former occupy their office by virtue of the mandate of the electorate. They are elected to an
[46]
officeforadefinitetermandmayberemovedtherefromonlyuponstringentconditions. On
theotherhand,appointiveofficialsholdtheirofficebyvirtueoftheirdesignationtheretobyan
appointingauthority.Someappointiveofficialsholdtheirofficeinapermanentcapacityandare
[47] [48]
entitledtosecurityoftenure whileothersserveatthepleasureoftheappointingauthority.
Another substantial distinction between the two sets of officials is that under Section 55,
Chapter8,TitleI,SubsectionA.CivilServiceCommission,BookVoftheAdministrativeCode
of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292), appointive officials, as officers and employees in the civil
service,arestrictlyprohibitedfromengaginginanypartisanpoliticalactivityortakepartinany
election except to vote. Under the same provision, elective officials, or officers or employees
holding political offices, are obviously expressly allowed to take part in political and electoral
[49]
activities.
By repealing Section 67 but retaining Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, the
legislatorsdeemeditpropertotreatthesetwoclassesofofficialsdifferentlywithrespecttothe
effect on their tenure in the office of the filing of the certificates of candidacy for any position
otherthanthoseoccupiedbythem.Again,itisnotwithinthepoweroftheCourttopassuponor
lookintothewisdomofthisclassification.
SincetheclassificationjustifyingSection14ofRep.ActNo.9006,i.e.,electedofficialsvis
avis appointive officials, is anchored upon material and significant distinctions and all the
persons belonging under the same classification are similarly treated, the equal protection
clauseoftheConstitutionis,thus,notinfringed.

TheEnrolledBillDoctrine
IsApplicableInthisCase

Not content with their plea for the nullification of Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 9006, the
petitionersinsistthattheentirelawshouldbenullified.Theycontendthatirregularitiesattended
thepassageofthesaidlawparticularlyintheHouseofRepresentativescataloguedthus:

a. Creation of two (2) sets of BCC (Bicameral Conference Committee) members by the House
during its session on February 5, 2001;
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/147387.htm 12/17
9/15/2015 Farias vs Comelec : 147387 : December 10, 2003 : J. Callejo Sr : En Banc : Decision

b. No communication from the Senate for a conference on the compromise bill submitted by the
BCC on November 29, 2000;

c. The new Report submitted by the 2nd/3rd BCC was presented for approval on the floor without
copies thereof being furnished the members;

d. The 2nd/3rd BCC has no record of its proceedings, and the Report submitted by it was not
signed by the Chairman (Sen. Roco) thereof as well as its senator-members at the time it
was presented to and rammed for approval by the House;

e. There was no meeting actually conducted by the 2nd/3rd BCC and that its alleged Report was
instantly made and passed around for the signature of the BCC members;

f. The Senate has no record of the creation of a 2nd BCC but only of the first one that convened
on November 23, 2000;

g. The Effectivity clauses of SB No. 1741 and HB No. 9000, as well as that of the compromise
bill submitted by the BCC that convened on November 20, 2000, were couched in terms
that comply with the publication required by the Civil Code and jurisprudence, to wit:

...

However, it was surreptitiously replaced in its final form as it appears in 16, R.A. No.
9006, with the provision that This Act shall take effect immediately upon its approval;

h. The copy of the compromise bill submitted by the 2nd/3rd BCC that was furnished the
members during its consideration on February 7, 2001, did not have the same 16 as it now
appears in RA No. 9006, but 16 of the compromise bill, HB 9000 and SB 1742, reasons
for which no objection thereto was made;

i. The alleged BCC Report presented to the House on February 7, 2001, did not contain a
detailed, sufficiently explicit statement of the changes in or amendments to the subject
measure; and

j. The disappearance of the Cayetano amendment, which is Section 12 of the compromise bill
submitted by the BCC. In fact, this was the subject of the purported proposed amendment
to the compromise bill of Member Paras as stated in paragraph 7 hereof. The said
provision states, thusly:

Sec. 12. Limitation on Elected Officials. Any elected official who runs for
president and vice-president shall be considered ipso facto resigned from
[50]
his office upon the filing of the certificate of candidacy.
Thepetitioners,thus,urgetheCourttogobehindtheenrolledcopyofthebill.TheCourtis
notpersuaded.Undertheenrolledbilldoctrine,thesigningofabillbytheSpeakeroftheHouse
and the Senate President and the certification of the Secretaries of both Houses of Congress
[51]
thatitwaspassedareconclusiveofitsdueenactment.Areviewofcases revealstheCourts
consistentadherencetotherule.TheCourtfindsnoreasontodeviatefromthesalutaryrulein
thiscasewheretheirregularitiesallegedbythepetitionersmostlyinvolvedtheinternalrulesof
Congress,e.g.,creationofthe2ndor3rdBicameralConferenceCommitteebytheHouse.This
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/147387.htm 13/17
9/15/2015 Farias vs Comelec : 147387 : December 10, 2003 : J. Callejo Sr : En Banc : Decision

CourtisnottheproperforumfortheenforcementoftheseinternalrulesofCongress,whether
House or Senate. Parliamentary rules are merely procedural and with their observance the
[52]
courtshavenoconcern. WhateverdoubtstheremaybeastotheformalvalidityofRep.Act
[53]
No.9006mustberesolvedinitsfavor.TheCourtreiteratesitsrulinginArroyov.DeVenecia,
viz.:

But the cases, both here and abroad, in varying forms of expression, all deny to the courts the power to
inquire into allegations that, in enacting a law, a House of Congress failed to comply with its own rules,
in the absence of showing that there was a violation of a constitutional provision or the rights of private
individuals. In Osmea v. Pendatun, it was held: At any rate, courts have declared that the rules adopted by
deliberative bodies are subject to revocation, modification or waiver at the pleasure of the body adopting
them. And it has been said that Parliamentary rules are merely procedural, and with their observance, the
courts have no concern. They may be waived or disregarded by the legislative body. Consequently, mere
failure to conform to parliamentary usage will not invalidate the action (taken by a deliberative body)
when the requisite number of members have agreed to a particular measure.

TheEffectivityClause
IsDefective

Finally,theEffectivityclause(Section16)ofRep.ActNo.9006whichprovidesthatitshall
takeeffectimmediatelyuponitsapproval,isdefective.However,thesamedoesnotrenderthe
[54]
entirelawinvalid.InTaadav.Tuvera, thisCourtlaiddowntherule:

... the clause unless it is otherwise provided refers to the date of effectivity and not to the requirement of
publication itself, which cannot in any event be omitted. This clause does not mean that the legislator may
make the law effective immediately upon approval, or on any other date without its previous publication.

Publication is indispensable in every case, but the legislature may in its discretion provide that the usual
[55]
fifteen-period shall be shortened or extended.
[56]
FollowingArticle2oftheCivilCode andthedoctrineenunciatedinTaada,Rep.ActNo.
9006,notwithstandingitsexpressstatement,tookeffectfifteendaysafteritspublicationinthe
OfficialGazetteoranewspaperofgeneralcirculation.
Inconclusion,itbearsreiteratingthatoneofthefirmlyentrenchedprinciplesinconstitutional
law is that the courts do not involve themselves with nor delve into the policy or wisdom of a
statute. That is the exclusive concern of the legislative branch of the government. When the
validityofastatuteischallengedonconstitutionalgrounds,thesolefunctionofthecourtisto
[57]
determinewhetherittranscendsconstitutionallimitationsorthelimitsoflegislativepower. No
suchtransgressionhasbeenshowninthiscase.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionsareDISMISSED.Nopronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, YnaresSantiago, Sandoval
Gutierrez,Carpio,AustriaMartinez,Corona,CarpioMorales,Azcuna,andTinga,JJ.,concur.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/147387.htm 14/17
9/15/2015 Farias vs Comelec : 147387 : December 10, 2003 : J. Callejo Sr : En Banc : Decision
[1]
AnnexA,Petition.
[2]
AnnexB,id.
[3]
Senators Raul S. Roco, Francisco S. Tatad, Vicente C. Sotto III, Gregorio B. Honasan, Robert S. Jaworski,
TeresaAquinoOreta,LorenLegardaLevisteandSergioOsmeaIII.
[4]
Representatives Augusto L. Syjuco, Jr., Imee R. Marcos, Benasing O. Macarambon, Jr., Rodolfo C. Farias,
Roseller L. Barinaga, Hussin U. Amin, Edmundo O. Reyes, Jr., Constantino G. Jaraula, Alipio Cirilo V.
Badelles,FrancisJosephG.Escudero,EleandroJesusF.Madrona,ErnestoANieva,AnicetoG.Saludo,
EduardoR.Gullas,FelicianoR.Belmonte,Jr.,SergioAntonioF.Apostol,ProsperoA.Pichay,Jr.andRoy
Padilla,Jr.
[5]
AnnexC,Petition.
[6]
JournaloftheHouseofRepresentatives,Vol.62,February5,2001,pp.1213.
[7]
Representatives Edmundo O. Reyes, Jr., Jacinto V. Paras, Augusto Boboy Syjuco, Prospero A. Pichay, Jr.,
CarlosM.Padilla,AnicetoG.Saludo,Jr.,GerardoS.Espina,RicardoV.QuintosandIsidroS.Rodriguez,
Jr.
[8]
Seenote6.
[9]
Representatives Carlos M. Padilla, Salvio B. Fortuno, Dante V.Liban, Roan I. Libarios, Nestor C. Ponce, Jr.,
LorettaAnnP.Rosales,MagtanggolT.GunigundoandEdmundoO.Reyes,Jr.
[10]
Seenote6at20.
[11]
JournaloftheHouseofRepresentatives,Vol.64,February7,2001,p.29.
[12]
Id.at3235.
[13]
202SCRA779(1991).
[14]
SECTION1,ARTICLEXI,CONSTITUTION.
[15]
Peoplev.Vera,65Phil.56(1937).
[16]
Bakerv.Carr,369U.S.186,7L.Ed.2d633(1962).
[17]
Del Mar v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, 346 SCRA 485 (2000) Carpio v. Executive
Secretary, 206 SCRA 290 (1992) Osmea v. Comelec, 199 SCRA 750 (1991) Basco v. PAGCOR, 197
SCRA 52 (1991) Guingona v. Carague, 196 SCRA 221 (1991) Civil Liberties Union v. Executive
Secretary,194SCRA317(1991)Philconsav.Gimenez,15SCRA479(1965).
[18]
281SCRA330(1997).
[19]
245SCRA253(1995).
[20]
235SCRA630(1994).
[21]
Supra.
[22]
232SCRA110(1994).
[23]
235SCRA506(1994).
[24]
175SCRA264(1989).
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/147387.htm 15/17
9/15/2015 Farias vs Comelec : 147387 : December 10, 2003 : J. Callejo Sr : En Banc : Decision
[25]
246SCRA334(1995).
[26]
Supra.
[27]
Gonzalesv.CommissiononElections,27SCRA835(1969).
[28]
Samsonv.Aguirre,315SCRA53(1999).
[29]
InreGuarina,24Phil.37(1913).
[30]
Tatadv.SecretaryofDepartmentofEnergy,supra.
[31]
SECTION1,ARTICLEVIII,CONSTITUTIONreads:
Sec.1.ThejudicialpowershallbevestedinoneSupremeCourtandinsuchlowercourtsasmaybeestablished
bylaw.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government.
[32]
Ariderisaprovisionnotgermanetothesubjectmatterofthebill.(Alalayanv.NPC,24SCRA172[1968]).
[33]
Alalayanv.NPC,supra.
[34]
Corderov.Cabatuando,6SCRA418(1962).
[35]
Underscoringours.
[36]
Tolentinov.SecretaryofFinance,supra.
[37]
Tiov.VideogramRegulatoryBoard,151SCRA208(1987).
[38]
RecordsoftheBicameralConferenceCommitteeontheDisagreeingProvisionsofSenateBillNo.1742and
HouseBillNo.9000(CommitteeonElectoralReforms),November23,2000,pp.9599.
[39]
Valmontev.Belmonte,Jr.,170SCRA256(1989).
[40]
BaysideFishFlourCo.v.Gentry,297US422,80LEd772(1935).SeealsoGarciav.Corona,321SCRA218
(1999)Samsonv.Aguirre,315SCRA54(1999)Victorianov.ElizaldeRopeWorkersUnion,59SCRA54
(1974)Morfev.Mutuc,22SCRA424(1968).
[41]
Supra.
[42]
Ichongv.Hernandez,101Phil.1155(1957).
[43]
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be
deniedtheequalprotectionofthelaws(SECTION1,ARTICLEIII,CONSTITUTION).
[44]
Tiuv.CourtofAppeals,301SCRA278(1999).
[45]
Ichongv.Hernandez,supra,citing2Cooley,ConstitutionalLimitations,pp.824825.
[46]
For example, under the Constitution, the grounds by which the tenure of the members of the House of
RepresentativesandtheSenatemaybeshortenedmaybesummarizedasfollows:
a) Sec. 16, Art. VI: Forfeiture of his seat by holding any other office or employment in the government or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including governmentowned or controlled corporations or

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/147387.htm 16/17
9/15/2015 Farias vs Comelec : 147387 : December 10, 2003 : J. Callejo Sr : En Banc : Decision
subsidiaries
b)Sec.16(3),Art.VI:Expulsionasadisciplinaryactionfordisorderlybehavior
c)Sec.17,Art.VI:DisqualificationasdeterminedbyresolutionoftheappropriateElectoralTribunalinanelection
contestand
d)Sec.7,par.2,Art.VI:Voluntaryrenunciationofoffice.
Further, under Sec. 2, Art. XI of the Constitution, the President and the VicePresident, along with other
impeachable officers, may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable
violationoftheConstitution,treason,bribery,graftandcorruption,otherhighcrimes,orbetrayalofpublic
trust.
[47]
Section46,Chapter7,TitleI,SubtitleA.CivilServiceCommission,BookVofthe1987AdministrativeCode
provides,inpart,thatNoofficeroremployeeintheCivilServiceshallbesuspendedordismissedexcept
forcauseasprovidedbylawandafterdueprocess.Further,Section23,RuleXIVoftheOmnibusRules
ImplementingBookVofthe1987AdministrativeCodeenumeratesthegraveoffenseswhicharegrounds
for dismissal upon the commission of first offense as follows: dishonesty, gross neglect of duty, gross
misconduct, being notoriously undesirable, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, falsification of
officialdocument,physicalormentalincapacityordisabilityduetovicioushabits,amongothers.
[48]
Officersandemployeesholdingprimarilyconfidentialpositionshavetermsofofficewhichexpireuponlossof
confidenceinthembytheappointingauthority.(Hernandezv.Villegas,14SCRA544[1965]).
[49]
Section 55, Chapter 8, Title I Subsection A. Civil Service Commission, Book V of the Administrative Code of
1987(ExecutiveOrderNo.292)readsinfull:
Sec.55.PoliticalActivity.NoofficeroremployeeintheCivilServiceincludingmembersoftheArmedForces,shall
engage,directlyorindirectly,inanypartisanpoliticalactivityortakepartinanyelectionexcepttovotenor
shall he use his official authority or influence to coerce the political activity of any other person or body.
Nothinghereinprovidedshallbeunderstoodtopreventanyofficeroremployeefromexpressinghisviews
on current political problems or issues, or from mentioning the names of his candidates for public office
whomhesupports:Provided,Thatpublicofficersandemployeesholdingpoliticalofficesmaytakepartin
political and electoral activities but it shall be unlawful for them to solicit contributions from their
subordinatesorsubjectthemtoanyoftheactsinvolvingsubordinatesprohibitedintheElectionCode.
[50]
MEMORANDUMofthePetitionersinG.R.No.147387,pp.1920.
[51]
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, supra Morales v. Subido, 27 SCRA 131 (1969) Casco (Phil.) Inc. v.
Gimenez,7SCRA347(1963)Mabanagv.LopezVito,78Phil.1(1947).
[52]
Osmea,Jr.v.Pendatun,109Phil.863(1960).
[53]
277SCRA268(1997).
[54]
146SCRA446(1986).
[55]
Id.at452.
[56]
Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette,
unlessitisotherwiseprovided.ThisCodeshalltakeeffectoneyearafterpublication.
[57]
SeeTatadv.SecretaryoftheDepartmentofEnergy,supraTaadav.Angara,272SCRA18(1997)Bondocv.
Pineda,201SCRA792(1991)Osmeav.COMELEC,199SCRA750(1991)LuzFarmsv.Secretaryof
theDepartmentofAgrarianReform,192SCRA51(1990)Gonzalesv.COMELEC,21SCRA774(1967).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/147387.htm 17/17