Scribd
Upload
495 views2 pages

Farinas Vs Executive Secretary

This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of the repeal of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code by the Fair Election Act. Section 67 required elective officials running for another office to resign, while Section 66 imposed the same requirement for appointive officials. The Court held that there was no equal protection violation because (1) substantial distinctions exist between elective and appointive officials, as elective officials are elected while appointive officials are appointed, and (2) it is not the Court's role to evaluate the wisdom of classifications by Congress. The repeal of Section 67 treating elective officials differently than Section 66 treating appointive officials was upheld.

Uploaded by

Michele Laroa
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
495 views2 pages

Farinas Vs Executive Secretary

This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of the repeal of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code by the Fair Election Act. Section 67 required elective officials running for another office to resign, while Section 66 imposed the same requirement for appointive officials. The Court held that there was no equal protection violation because (1) substantial distinctions exist between elective and appointive officials, as elective officials are elected while appointive officials are appointed, and (2) it is not the Court's role to evaluate the wisdom of classifications by Congress. The repeal of Section 67 treating elective officials differently than Section 66 treating appointive officials was upheld.

Uploaded by

Michele Laroa
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2

Farinas vs Executive Secretary, G.R. No.

147387, December 10, 2003


Facts: Section 14 of Republic Act No. 9006 (The Fair Election Act), insofar as it expressly repeals Section 67 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (The Omnibus Election Code) which provides: SEC. 67. 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. The petitioners assert that Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 9006 violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution because it repeals Section 67 only of the Omnibus Election Code, leaving intact Section 66 thereof which imposes a similar limitation to appointive officials, thus: SEC. 66.Candidates holding appointive office or position. Any person holding a public appointive office or position, including active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and officers and employees in government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy. Respondents contends that there is no violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Section 67 pertains to elective officials while Section 66 pertains to appointive officials. A substantial distinction exists between these two sets of officials; elective officials occupy their office by virtue of their mandate based upon the popular will, while the appointive officials are not elected by popular will. Equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated are treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. Issue: WON the repeal of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code pertaining to elective officials gives undue benefit to such officials as against the appointive ones. Held: No. Substantial distinctions clearly exist between elective officials and appointive officials. The former occupy their office by virtue of the mandate of the electorate. They are elected to an office for a definite term and may be removed therefrom only upon stringent conditions.On the other hand, appointive officials hold their office by virtue of their designation thereto by an appointing authority. Some appointive officials hold their office in a permanent capacity and are entitled to security of tenure while others serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority. Another substantial distinction between the two sets of officials is that under Section 55, Chapter 8, Title I, Subsection A. Civil Service Commission, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292), appointive officials, as officers and employees in the civil service, are strictly prohibited from engaging in any partisan political activity or take part in any election except to vote. Under the same provision, elective officials, or officers or employees holding political offices, are obviously expressly allowed to take part in political and electoral activities.

Moreover, it is not within the power of the Court to pass upon or look into the wisdom of this classification. Hence, equal protection is not infringed.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy