Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-32436 September 9, 1970
ABELARDO SUBIDO, Commissioner of Civil Service, petitioner. In re: Validity of Section 4 and Section 8(a), paragraph 2, Republic Act 6132.
G.R. No. L-32439 September 9, 1970
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE DECLARATORY RELIEF RE: VALIDITY AND CONSTITUTIONALITY REPUBLIC ACT 6132, HON. GUARDSON LOOD Judge, CFI Pasig, Rizal, et al., petitioners.
Abelardo Subido in his own behalf.
Quezon City Fiscal Justiniano P. Cortez and Fidel Manalo for petitioners Judge Guardson Lood, et al.
Lorenzo Tañada, Arturo Tolentino, Emmanuel Pelaez and Jovito Salonga as amici curiae.
R E S O L U T I O N
The above-entitled petitions for declaratory relief, cognate in nature and similar in purpose, having been filed with this Court pursuant to Section 19 of Republic Act 6132, to which petitions the Solicitor General has filed the corresponding answers; and hearings having been held wherein not only the parties but also amici curiae, namely, Senators Lorenzo Tañada, Arturo Tolentino, Jovito Salonga and Emmanuel Pelaez, orally argued; .
IT APPEARING:
That on 16 March 1967, acting pursuant to Section 1, Article XV of the Constitution, the Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote of three-fourths of all the members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives voting separately, passed Resolution No. 2 calling a Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution and providing inter alia as follows:
SEC. 3. The office of Delegate shall be honorary and shall be compatible with any other public office: Provided, That Delegates who do not receive any salary from the government shall be entitled to a per diem of fifty pesos for every day of attendance in the Convention or in any of its committees: Provided, however, That every Delegate shall be entitled to necessary travelling expenses to and from his place of residence when attending sessions of the Convention or of its committees.
That on 17 June 1969 the Congress in the same manner passed Resolution No. 4 amending Sections 1 and 2 of Resolution No. 2 and adding a new provision as Section 8 thereof, which reads:
SEC. 8. Any other details relating to the specific apportionment of delegates, election of delegates to, and the holding of, the Constitutional Convention shall be embodied in an implementing legislation: Provided, That it shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of this Resolution.
That Republic Act No. 6132 approved on 24 August 1970, which is the implementing legislation called for in Section 8 of Resolution No. 2 as added by Resolution No. 4, provides in its Sections 4 and 8(a), paragraph 2, as follows:
SEC. 4. Persons Holding office. — Any person holding a public office or position, whether elective or appointive, including members of the armed forces and officers and employees of corporations or enterprises, owned and/or controlled by the government, shall be considered resigned upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy: Provided, That any government official who resigns in order to run for delegate and who does not yet qualify for retirement under existing laws, may, if elected, add to his length of service in the government the period from the filing of his certificate of candidacy until the final adjournment of the Constitutional Convention.
SEC. 8. Prohibited Acts. — In addition to and supplementing prohibited acts provided for in the Revised Election Code, in the election of delegates:
ℒαwρhi৷
(a) ...
Likewise, no head of any executive department, bureau or office, official or officer nominated or appointed by the President of the Philippines, head or appointing officer of any government-owned or controlled corporation, shall intervene in the nomination of any such candidate, or in the filing of his certificate of candidacy or give aid or support, directly or indirectly, material or otherwise, in favor of or against his campaign for election.
That the petitioners in these two cases, who are all government officials and employees, assail the validity of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6132, and the petitioner in G.R. No. L-32436 assails likewise the validity of Section 8(a), paragraph 2, of the same Act, on the grounds: (a) that they are contrary to and inconsistent with Section 3 of Resolution No. 2, and violate the proviso in the aforementioned Section 8 thereof which states that the implementing legislation "shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of this Resolution," Republic Act No. 6132 being an enactment of the Congress, sitting as a legislative body, which cannot validly amend the Resolution passed by it as a constituent assembly; and (b) that Section 4 of the said Act constitutes class legislation which denies the equal protection of the laws, since in effect it disqualifies public officials and employees from serving as Delegates to the Constitutional Convention by considering them resigned from office upon the filing of their certificates of candidacy — a disqualification that does not apply to persons employed in private enterprises:
CONSIDERING:
1. That Section 3 of Resolution No. 2, in providing that "the office of Delegate shall be honorary and shall be compatible with any other public office," is a mere declaration which does not affect the intrinsic nature of the Office of Delegate from the standpoint of its compatibility or incompatibility with any other public office within the meaning of the Constitution; that a compatible office does not necessarily preclude its being subject to such restrictions as may be imposed by the Congress in the exercise of its legislative power as long as such restrictions do not contravene the Constitution;
2. That viewed in this light there is no inconsistency between the declaration in Section 3 of Resolution No. 2 and the provision of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6132, and that in fact this Section, as well as Section 8(a), paragraph 2, are in accord with Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, which prohibits officers and employees in the Civil Service, including members of the armed forces, from engaging "directly or indirectly in partisan political activities" or taking part "in any election except to vote";
3. That whatever the Congress (as a constituent assembly) might have intended by the declaration aforesaid it could not have been to allow government officials and employees, without exception, to run for or hold the office of Delegate to the Constitutional Convention without relinquishing the positions, considering that the Congress itself (as a constituent assembly), in line with the prohibition in Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, provided in Section 2 of the same Resolution No. 2 that "The Delegates to the Convention shall be elected in an election to be held on the second Tuesday in November, 1970, in accordance with the provisions of the Revised Election Code;" and Sections 26 and 27 of the said Code provide as follows:
SEC. 26. Automatic cessation of appointive officers and employees who are candidates. Every person holding a public appointive office or position shall ipso facto cease in his office or position on the date he files his certificate of candidacy.ℒαwρhi৷
SEC. 27. Candidate holding office. — Any elective provincial, municipal, or city official running for an office, other than the one which he is actually holding, shall be considered resigned from his office from the moment of the filing of his certificate of candidacy.
4. That although the aforequoted clause of Section 2 of Resolution No. 2 was subsequently omitted in Resolution No. 4, it is nevertheless indicative of the intent of the Congress (as a constituent assembly in respect of Section 3, the two sections having been passed at the same time and in the same Resolution, and that in fact the said omission was left to be filled by implementing legislation, as it was in effect filled by Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6132, in conformity with Section 8 of Resolution No. 2, which latter section was added by Section 3 of Resolution No. 4.
5. That while Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6132 applies exclusively to officials and employees of the government or of government-owned and/or controlled corporations, it does not constitute discriminatory legislation which offends against the equal protection clause of the Constitution, since the classification is germane to the purpose of the Act and is based on substantial differences between the situation of said officials and employees and that of persons outside of the government of the government service.1
6. Finally, that under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6132 government officials and employees are not absolutely barred from becoming candidates for the office of Delegate to the Constitutional Convention, the only condition being that when they do so they should relinquish their positions; that this condition is imposed for reasons of public interest, among the most important of which are, first, that there are certain government offices which afford their occupants many built-in advantages not available to others and which may be used or abused to enhance their own candidacies, contrary to the very spirit of the equal protection clause invoked by the petitioners; and second, that to allow government officials and employees to campaign for the Convention and, if elected, to sit as Delegates therein without vacating their positions would be clearly detrimental to the government and to the public at large, which would thereby be deprived of their services for the unpredictable length of time that the Convention may last, without such positions being filled through new appointments, resulting in disruption of public service.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolved to deny the prayers in the petitions and to declare that Sections 4 and 8 (a), paragraph 2, of Republic Act No. 6132 are not invalid or unconstitutional.£A⩊phi£
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Fernando and Makasiar, JJ., concur.
Villamor, J., concurs in the result.
Teehankee, J., is on leave.
Footnotes
1 "It is a well-settled rule in constitutional law that a legislation which affects with equal force all persons of the same class and not those of another, is not class legislation and does not infringe the constitutional guaranty of equal protection of the laws, if the division into classes is not arbitrary and is based on differences which are apparent and reasonable." Manila Electric Co. vs. Public Utilities Employees' Assn., 79 Phil. 410, 412. See also People vs. Carlos, 78 Phil. 535, 542.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
