Case Summary (G.R. No. 1380)
Petitioner’s Election and Subsequent Candidacy
Dimaporo won in the 1987 congressional elections and performed legislative duties thereafter. On January 15, 1990, he filed a Certificate of Candidacy for the February 17, 1990 regional elections. After losing that election, he sought to resume his congressional functions by letter dated June 28, 1990, but no action was taken, prompting him to file this petition on January 31, 1991.
Respondents’ Administrative Exclusion
Pursuant to Section 67, Article IX of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code), which provides that any elective official (except President and Vice-President) running for another office ipso facto resigns upon filing a certificate of candidacy, the House Secretary omitted Dimaporo’s name from the Roll. The Speaker reported this as a ministerial compliance with the clear statutory mandate.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Section 67, Article IX of B.P. 881 is repugnant to the 1987 Constitution because the Constitution alone prescribes the term of office and grounds for shortening it.
- The Constitution (Art. VI, Secs. 2, 7, 13, 16(3), 17; Art. XVIII, Sec. 2) enumerates all grounds for vacancy—term expiration, holding another office, expulsion, election contest, and voluntary renunciation—so the statutory ground in Section 67 was omitted deliberately and thus should be inapplicable.
- Filing a certificate of candidacy is not equivalent to holding another office and does not constitute voluntary renunciation.
- Respondents’ “administrative act” lacked authority and impermissibly cut short his tenure without due process.
Respondents’ Counterarguments
- Section 67 remains operative under the 1987 Constitution because “voluntary renunciation” (Art. VI, Sec. 7, par. 2) is a broad concept that includes filing a certificate of candidacy.
- Constitutional grounds for vacancy are not exclusive; the legislature may prescribe additional modes (e.g., resignation, death, conviction).
- Petitioner is estopped from denying the statutory effect of his filing, as public officials are presumed aware of the law.
- The removal of his name was a ministerial act enforcing a statute with clear legal effects, not an adjudicative exercise.
Legislative History and Rationale of Section 67, Art. IX, B.P. 881
– 1941 CA No. 666 first provided for ipso facto resignation upon filing a certificate of candidacy for local officials.
– Republic Act 180 (1957) and the 1971 Election Code reiterated this for provincial, city, and municipal officers.
– The 1978 Election Code altered the rule to forced leave for local officials but still did not include legislators.
– In 1985, B.P. 881 uniquely extended ipso facto resignation to members of the legislature. Debates emphasized enforcing the latest popular mandate and public accountability under the new constitutional emphasis on public trust.
Constitutionality under the 1987 Constitution
– Article XI, Section 1 reaffirms that public office is a public trust and underscores accountability, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency.
– Article XI, Section 2 permits removal of “all other public officers and employees…as provided by law,” implying that grounds for vacancy beyond impeachment are valid legislative enactments.
– Distinction between “term” (fixed by the Constitution) and “tenure” (actual period served) allows Section 67 to operate by shortening tenure without altering the constitutional term.
Presumption of Constitutionality and Interpretive Principles
– Legislative enactments are presumptively constitutional; invalidation requires clear breach of the Constitution.
– The maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius applies only faintly in constitutional construction; omissions in constitutional text do not automatically prohibit legislative additions unless expressly forbidden.
– The Constitutional Commission described “voluntary renunciation” as broad and embracing overt acts beyond mere resignation or abandonment.
Filing a Certificate as Voluntary Renunciation
– Debates in the Batasang Pambansa characterized filing a cert
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 1380)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner Mohamed Ali Dimaporo was proclaimed Representative of the Second Legislative District of Lanao del Sur after the 1987 elections and took his oath on January 9, 1987.
- On January 15, 1990, he filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Regional Governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), with elections set for February 17, 1990.
- Upon notice from the Commission on Elections, the Speaker and Secretary of the House excluded his name from the Roll under Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881, deeming him ipso facto resigned.
- After losing the ARMM race, petitioner wrote the Speaker on June 28, 1990, seeking to resume his congressional duties; no effective action followed.
- On January 31, 1991, he filed this petition claiming deprivation of salary, staff, office space, and participation in legislative proceedings.
Issues Presented
- Whether Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881 remains operative under the 1987 Constitution.
- Whether the Speaker and Secretary could, by an “administrative act,” remove petitioner’s name from the Roll, effectively terminating his congressional functions and privileges.
Legal Provisions Involved
- Section 67, Article IX, B.P. Blg. 881: “Any elective official … running for any office other than the one which he is holding in a permanent capacity … shall be considered ipso facto resigned … upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.”
- Constitutional term and tenure clauses:
• Sec. 2, Art. XVIII (transitional term until June 30, 1992)
• Sec. 7, Art. VI (three-year term beginning June 30 after election)
• Sec. 13, Art. VI (forfeiture by holding other office)
• Sec. 16(3), Art. VI (expulsion for disorderly behavior)
• Sec. 17, Art. VI (disqualification by Electoral Tribunal)
• Sec. 7(2), Art. VI (voluntary renunciation) - Art. XI, Sec. 1 (public office as a public trust; accountability).
Petitioner’s Contentions
- Section 67 is inoperative under the 1987 Constitution because it shortens tenure on a ground not enumerated in the Constitution.
- By expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the omission of this ground in the Constitution signals its exclusion.
- Filing a COC is not “holding another office” and thus does not trigger forfeiture under Sec. 13, Art. VI.
- The Speaker’s removal of his name was an ultra vires administrative act lacking judicial basis.
Respondents’ Arguments
- Section 67 remains valid: its “ipso facto” resign