SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY V DANGEROUS DRUG BOARD

FACTS:In 2002, RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 was implemented. Sec 36
thereof requires mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office, students of secondary and tertiary schools,
officers and employees of public and private offices, and persons charged before the prosecutors office with certain
offenses. On 23 Dec 2003, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 6486, prescribing the rules and regulations on the
mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office in connection with the May 10, 2004 synchronized national
and local elections. Pimentel, Jr., a senator and a candidate for re-election in the May elections, filed a Petition for
Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65. In it, he seeks (1) to nullify Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC
Resolution No. 6486 dated December 23, 2003 for being unconstitutional in that they impose a qualification for
candidates for senators in addition to those already provided for in the 1987 Constitution; and (2) to enjoin the
COMELEC from implementing Resolution No. 6486. According to Pimentel, the Constitution only prescribes a
maximum of five (5) qualifications for one to be a candidate for, elected to, and be a member of the Senate. He says
that both the Congress and COMELEC, by requiring, via RA 9165 and Resolution No. 6486, a senatorial aspirant,
among other candidates, to undergo a mandatory drug test, create an additional qualification that all candidates for
senator must first be certified as drug free. He adds that there is no provision in the Constitution authorizing the
Congress or COMELEC to expand the qualification requirements of candidates for senator.
ISSUE: Whether or not Sec 36 of RA 9165 is an amendment to the Constitution on the qualifications of Senators.
HELD: Pimentels contention is valid. Accordingly, Sec. 36 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional. It is basic that if a
law or an administrative rule violates any norm of the Constitution, that issuance is null and void and has no effect.
The Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must conform; no act shall be valid if it conflicts with the
Constitution. In the discharge of their defined functions, the three departments of government have no choice but to
yield obedience to the commands of the Constitution. Whatever limits it imposes must be observed. The
provision [n]o person elected to any public office shall enter upon the duties of his office until he has undergone
mandatory drug test. Is not tenable as it enlarges the qualifications. COMELEC cannot, in the guise of enforcing
and administering election laws or promulgating rules and regulations to implement Sec. 36, validly impose
qualifications on candidates for senator in addition to what the Constitution prescribes. If Congress cannot require a
candidate for senator to meet such additional qualification, the COMELEC, to be sure, is also without such power.
The right of a citizen in the democratic process of election should not be defeated by unwarranted impositions of
requirement not otherwise specified in the Constitution.

Dimaporo v. Mitra
FACTS:
Dimaporo was elected as a representative for the second legislative district of Lanao del Sur during the1987
congressional elections.Dimaporo filed a certificate of candidacy for the position of governor of ARMM. Secretary
and Speaker of the House excluded the name of Dimaporo from the Roll of Members of HR Under Art IX of Sec 67
of theOmnibus Election Code. Dimaporo lost the election wrote a letter intending to resume performing his duties
andfunctions as an elected member of the Congress. Unfortunately, he was not able to regain his seat in
theCongress.Dimaporo contended that he did not lose his seat as a Congressman because Art. IX Sec. 67 of BP
881 isnot operative in the present constitution, and therefore not applicable to the members of Congress.Grounds
may be termed to be
shortened:1.Holding any officer or employment in the government or ant subdivision, agency, orinstrumentality
thereof.2.Expulsion as a disciplinary action for a disorderly behavior3.Disqualification as determined by a resolution
of the electoral tribunal in an election contest4.Voluntary renunciation of office
ISSUE:
W/N Dimaporo can still be considered as a member of Congress even after he has filed for anothergovernment
position
HELD:
No.In the constitution there is a new chapter on the accountability of public officers. In the 1935Constitution, it was
provided that public office is a public trust. Public officers should serve with the highestdegree of responsibility and
integrity.If you allow a Batasan or a governor or a mayor who has mandated to serve for 6 years to file for anoffice
other than the one he was elected to, then that clearly shows that he did not intend to serve the mandateof the
people which was placed upon him and therefore he should be considered ipso facto resigned. The filling of
a certificate shall be considered as an overt act or abandoning or relinquishing his mandateto the people and he
should therefore resign if he want to seek another position which he feels he could be of better service.

FARINAS V EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

FACTS:
SEC. 67 of the Omnibus Election Code reads: Candidates holding elective office. Any elective official, whether
national or local, running for any office other than the one which he is holding in a permanent capacity, except for
President and Vice-President, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate
of candidacy.
Petitioners alleged that Section 14 of RA 9006 entitled "An Act to Enhance the Holding of Free, Orderly, Honest,
Peaceful and Credible Elections through Fair Elections Practices, insofar as it repeals Section 67 of the Omnibus
Election Code, is unconstitutional for being in violation of Section 26(1) of the Article VI of the Constitution,
requiring every law to have only one subject which should be in expressed in its title.
The inclusion of Sec 14 repealing Sec 67 of the Omnibus Election Code in RA 9006 constitutes a proscribed rider.
The Sec 14 of RA 9006 primarily deals with the lifting of the ban on the use of media for election propaganda and
the elimination of unfair election practices. Sec 67 of the OEC imposes a limitation of officials who run for office
other than the one they are holding in a permanent capacity by considering them as ipso facto resigned therefrom
upon filing of the certificate of candidacy. The repeal of Sec 67 of the OEC is thus not embraced in the title, nor
germane to the subject matter of RA 9006.
ISSUE:
in view of sec 26 (1)article 6
Whether or not Section 14 of RA 9006 is a rider.
RULING:
No. The Court is convinced that the title and the objectives of RA 9006 are comprehensive enough to include the
repeal of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code within its contemplation. To require that the said repeal of
Section 67 of the Code be expressed in the title is to insist that the title be a complete index of its content. The
purported dissimilarity of Section 67 of the Code and the Section 14 of the RA 9006 does not violate "one subjectone title rule." This Court has held that an act having a single general subject, indicated in the title, may contain any
number of provisions, no matter how diverse they may be, so long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to the
general subject, and may be considered in furtherance of such subject by providing for the method and means of
carrying out the general subject.
Section 26(1) of the Constitution provides: Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which
shall be expressed in the title thereof.
The avowed purpose of the constitutional directive that the subject of a bill should be embraced in its title is to
apprise the legislators of the purposes, the nature and scope of its provisions, and prevent the enactment into law of
matters which have not received the notice, action and study of the legislators and the public. In this case, it cannot
be claimed that the legislators were not apprised of the repeal of Section 67 of the Code as the same was amply and
comprehensively deliberated upon by the members of the House. In fact, the petitioners as members of the House of
Representatives, expressed their reservations regarding its validity prior to casting their votes. Undoubtedly, the
legislators were aware of the existence of the provision repealing Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code.

Quinto V. COMELEC
COMELEC issued a resolution declaring appointive officials who filed their certificate of candidacy as ipso facto
resigned from their positions.
FACTS:
Petitioners Eleazar P. Quinto and Gerino A. Tolentino, Jr. filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition against the
COMELEC for issuing a resolution declaring appointive officials who filed their certificate of candidacy as ipso
facto resigned from their positions. In this defense, the COMELEC avers that it only copied the provision from Sec.
13 of R.A. 9369.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the said COMELEC resolution was valid.
HELD:
NO.
In the Farias case, the petitioners challenged Sec. 14 of RA. 9006 repealing Sec. 66 of the Omnibus Election Code
(OEC) for giving undue benefit to elective officials in comparison with appointive officials. Incidentally, the Court
upheld the substantial distinctions between the two and pronounced that there was no violation of the equal
protection clause.
However in the present case, the Court held that the discussion on the equal protection clause was an obiter dictum
since the issue raised therein was against the repealing clause. It didnt squarely challenge Sec. 66.
Sec. 13 of RA. 9369 unduly discriminated appointive and elective officials. Applying the 4 requisites of a valid
classification, the proviso does not comply with the second requirement that it must be germane to the purpose of
the law.
The obvious reason for the challenged provision is to prevent the use of a governmental position to promote ones
candidacy, or even to wield a dangerous or coercive influence of the electorate. The measure is further aimed at
promoting the efficiency, integrity, and discipline of the public service by eliminating the danger that the discharge
of official duty would be motivated by political considerations rather than the welfare of the public. The restriction
is also justified by the proposition that the entry of civil servants to the electorate arena, while still in office, could
result in neglect or inefficiency in the performance of duty because they would be attending to their campaign rather
than to their office work.
Sec. 13 of RA. 9369 pertains to all civil servants holding appointive posts without distinction as to whether they
occupy high positions in government or not. Certainly, a utility worker in the government will also be considered as
ipso facto resigned once he files his certificate of candidacy for the election. This scenario is absurd for, indeed, it is
unimaginable how he can use his position in the government to wield influence in the political world.
The provision s directed to the activity any and all public offices, whether they be partisan or non partisan in
character, whether they be in the national, municipal or brgy. level. Congress has not shown a compelling state
interest to restrict the fundamental right involved on such a sweeping scale.