Topic

:
Judicial Inquiry
Title:
Dumlao vs. Comelec
Citation: 95 SCRA 392
Facts:
Petitioner Dumlao is a former Governor of Nueva Vizcaya, who
has filed his certificate of candidacy for said position of Governor
in the forthcoming elections of January 30, 1980.
He specifically questions the constitutionality of section 4 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 52 as discriminatory and contrary to the equal
protection and due process guarantees of the Constitution.
S4 -Any retired elective provincial, city of municipal official who
has received payment of the retirement benefits to which he is
entitled under the law and who shall have been 65 years of age at
the commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to be
elecOted, shall not be qualified to run for the same elective local
office from which he has retired.
He claimed that the aforecited provision was directed insidiously
against him, and that the classification provided therein is based
on "purely arbitrary grounds and, therefore, class legislation.
His colleague Igot, assailed the same law for the prohibition for
candidcay of a person who was convicted of a crime given that
there was judgment for conviction and the prima facie nature of
the filing of charges for the commission of such crimes.
He also questioned the accreditation of some political parties by
respondent COMELEC, as authorized by Batas Pambansa Blg. 53,
on the ground that it is contrary to section 9(1), Art. XII(C) of the
Constitution, which provides that a "bona fide candidate for any
public office shall be free from any form of harassment and
discrimination." Apart form this, they also attacked the term of
office and the election period. These were Sec 7 of BP 51, Sec 4;
Sec 6, and Sec 1 of BP 52.

Issue:
a. Whether or not the filed petition is an actual case or
controversy subject to judicial review.
b. Whether or not petitioners have legal standing on the case
at bar.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that the petitioners fell short of the
necessity that the case bean actual controversy. Dumlao has not
been adversely affected by the application of BP52 nor is any
party seeking for his disqualifi cation. The question he poses
is in the abstract and a hypothetical issue. Whether or not
petitioners are the proper party to submit the petition, the
Supreme Court held in the case of Igot and Salapatan, neither of
them has been called to have been adversely affected by the
operation of the statutory provisions they assail
as
unconstitutional. What they have is only generated grievance as
contrasted to a direct injury creating a substantial interest in the
case. Without a litigate interest, they cannot claim any locus
standi. However, due to the impelling public interest involved and
the proximity of the elections, the strict procedure for judicial
relaxed. The Supreme Court held that Sec. 4 of BP 51was not
discriminatory and contrary to equal protection and due process
guarantees of the Constitution. The equal protection clause of the
constitution does not forbid all legal classification. It only
proscribes arbitrary and unreasonable classification. Furthermore,
it should be emphasized the purpose of such classifi cation
was to allow emergence of younger blood in local governments.
Regarding the accreditation of Comelec in pursuance to BP 52, it
was held that charges for committing any act of disloyalty to the
state should not be a basis to disqualify a candidate. An
accusation is not synonymous with guilt. Therefore, the Supreme
Court upheld the validity of the first paragraph of Sec. 4 of BP52

while the second paragraph of Sec. 4 of BP 52 as null and void for

being violative of the constitutional presumption of innocence
guaranteed to the accused.