Title
Quinto vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 189698
Decision Date
Dec 1, 2009
Appointive officials challenged COMELEC Resolution No. 8678, arguing ipso facto resignation upon filing CoCs violated equal protection. SC ruled it unconstitutional, holding resignation should occur at campaign period start.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 26236)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Legislative and Regulatory Background
    • Republic Act No. 8436 (1997)
      • Authorized the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to use an Automated Election System (AES).
      • Advanced the deadline for filing Certificates of Candidacy (CoCs) to 120 days before elections and provided that elective officials running for a different office (except President/Vice-President) “shall be deemed resigned only upon the start of the campaign period.”
    • Republic Act No. 9369 (2007)
      • Amended RA 8436 to prescribe the format of the official ballot and continued the 120-day rule for CoC filing.
      • Introduced a final proviso deeming all public appointive officials (including AFP members and GOCC employees) “ipso facto resigned” from office upon the filing of their CoCs.
    • Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881, 1985)
      • Section 66 likewise deemed appointive officials automatically resigned upon CoC filing.
      • Section 67 deemed elective officials (national or local), except President/Vice-President, automatically resigned upon CoC filing—later repealed in 2001.
  • COMELEC Resolution No. 8678 (Oct. 6, 2009)
    • Guidelines on the Filing of Certificates of Candidacy for the May 10, 2010 elections.
    • Section 4(a): Appointive officials and GOCC employees “shall be considered ipso facto resigned” upon CoC filing.
    • Section 4(b): Elective officials shall not be deemed resigned upon CoC filing for any elective office.
  • Petitioners’ Challenge
    • Eleazar P. Quinto and Gerino A. Tolentino, Jr.—incumbent appointive government officials intending to run in 2010—filed a petition for prohibition and certiorari, praying for temporary restraining order (TRO) and writ of preliminary injunction (PI).
    • They assail Section 4(a) of Resolution 8678 as beyond COMELEC’s power and argue:
      • Under RA 8436/9369, a CoC filer becomes a candidate only at the start of campaign period; thus resignation should likewise take effect then.
      • Automatic resignation upon CoC filing is discriminatory against appointive officials in violation of equal protection.

Issues:

  • Procedural:
    • Is certiorari/prohibition the proper remedy and do petitioners have standing?
  • Statutory Interpretation:
    • Does Section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution 8678 correctly reflect the law as amended by RA 9369?
    • Is there a conflict between RA 9369’s clause that CoC filers become candidates only at the start of the campaign period and the final proviso deeming appointive officials ipso facto resigned upon CoC filing?
  • Constitutional:
    • Does the automatic-resignation rule for appointive officials violate the equal protection clause?
    • Is the rule overbroad in restricting fundamental rights of expression and association?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.