Justices reverse ruling, say officials running must resign

THE Supreme Court on Monday reversed its controversial Dec. 1, 2009 ruling that allowed government executives to run for office without resigning, and instead ruled that they were considered resigned after they had filed their certificates of candidacy.

Voting 10-5, the justices held that there was a “valid distinction between appointive and elected officials,” as the Court en banc had ruled in 2003 in Fariñas vs. Executive Secretary Alberto Romulo.

In December 2009, the Court had said the Omnibus Election Code violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause because it allowed elected officials to stay in office while compelling appointed officials to resign before running.

But Court administrator and spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said a change in the Court’s composition led to Monday’s reversal.

He said the early retirement of Justice Minita Chico-Nazario, who joined the former majority ruling, and the appointments of Justices Jose Perez and Jose Mendoza, who both voted with the new majority, were major factors in the reversal.

Marquez also noted that Justices Arturo Brion and Mariano Del Castillo changed their votes.

Under the Court’s latest decision, Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera, Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, Budget Secretary Rolando Andaya, and Agriculture Secretary Arturo Yap were deemed resigned after they filed their certificates of candidacy for the congressional races for the First District of Quezon Province, the First District of Batangas, the First District of Camarines Sur, and the Third District of Bohol, respectively.

Presidential legal counsel Raul Gonzalez, who is running for mayor of Iloilo City, was also deemed resigned.

President Arroyo’s lawyer, Romulo Macalintal, said he would file a motion for reconsideration, saying the ruling was not yet final.

But Marquez added: “Pending the filing of the motion for reconsideration, the law stands… Under the law, they are deemed resigned upon their filing of certificates of candidacy.”

Devanadera said she would await the Court’s final decision.

It was Macalintal who had filed a petition on behalf of Environment Department officials last year that led to the Court’s controversial December 2009 ruling.

In reversing that decision, Chief Justice Reynato Puno said the danger of allowing appointed officials to retain their positions while running for office far outweighed the less likely risk of discriminating against them.

The Court’s December ruling, Puno said, sought to level the playing field for appointive and elected officials “by invalidating provisions of law that seek to restrain the evils from running riot.”

“Under the pretext of equal protection, it would favor a situation in which the evils are unconfined and vagrant, existing at the behest of both appointive and elected officials, over another in which a significant portion thereof is contained. The absurdity of that position is self-evident, to say the least,” Puno said.

“The probable harm to society in permitting incumbent appointive officials to remain in office, even as they actively pursue elective posts, far outweighs the less likely evil of having arguably protected candidacies blocked by the possible inhibitory effect of a potentially overly broad statute.’’

Puno said the Court’s ruling in the 2003 Fariñas case that there were reasonable distinctions between appointive and elected officials “stands on solid ground even if reexamined.”

Associate Justices Conchita Carpio-Morales, Brion, Diosdado Peralta, Del Castillo, Roberto Abad, Martin Villarama, Perez and Mendoza concurred with Puno’s ruling.

Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio concurred but wrote a separate opinion.

Senior Associate Justice Renato Corona and Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachura, Presbitero Velasco Jr., Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, and Lucas Bersamin dissented.

Nachura, who wrote the former majority ruling, wrote a dissenting opinion. –Rey E. Requejo, Manila Standard Today