Title
Dumlao vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. L-52245
Decision Date
Jan 22, 1980
Petitioners challenged BP 52's age and retirement disqualifications, BP 51's term limits, and BP 53's political party accreditation, alleging constitutional violations. Court upheld age limits, voided disqualification based on charges, and ruled petitioners lacked standing.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-52245)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Petition
    • Petitioner Patricio Dumlao, former Governor of Nueva Vizcaya, filed his certificate of candidacy for re-election.
    • Petitioners Romeo B. Igot and Alfredo Salapantan Jr. are taxpayers and qualified voters (Igot is also a Bar member).
  • Challenged Statutory Provisions
    • Section 4, Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 – Special disqualification of any retired elective provincial, city or municipal official who has received retirement benefits and is 65 years of age at commencement of term, from running for the same office.
    • Section 7, Batas Pambansa Blg. 51 – Six-year term of local elective officials beginning March 1980.
    • Section 4 (second paragraph), Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 – Disqualification for acts of disloyalty: conviction is conclusive evidence and filing of charges is prima facie evidence.
    • Sections 1 and 6, Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 – Election date (January 30, 1980) and campaign period (December 29, 1979 to January 28, 1980).
  • Procedural Posture
    • Petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction and/or restraining order against COMELEC.
    • Prayer to declare the above provisions unconstitutional and enjoin their implementation.

Issues:

  • Procedural
    • Is there an actual case or controversy and a proper party with personal and substantial interest to warrant judicial review?
  • Merits
    • Does Section 4 (first paragraph) of BP 52 violate equal protection and due process by singling out retired officials aged 65?
    • Does the provision declaring the mere filing of charges as prima facie evidence of disloyalty (Section 4, second paragraph) violate the constitutional presumption of innocence and due process?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.