DUMLAO vs.

COMELEC
95 SCRA 392, Jan. 22, 1980
FACTS:
A petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injuction and/or Restraining Order was filed to
enjoin respondent form implementing certain provisions of BP 51, 52 and 53 for being
unconstitutional.
Petitioner Dumlao questions Sec. 4 of BP 51 as discriminatory and contrary to equal
protection and due process guarantees of the Constitution. Meanwhile, Petitioners Igot
and Salapantan, Jr questions the accreditation of some political parties by respondent as
contrary to the constitution that provides that a bona fide candidate shall be free from
any form of harassment and discrimination.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the filed petition is an actual case or controversy subject to judicial
review.
Whether or not petitioners have legal standing on the case at bar.
HELD:
The Supreme Court held that the petitioners fell short of the necessity that the case be
an actual controversy. Dumlao has not been adversely affected by the application of BP
52 nor is any party seeking for his disqualification. 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 51
was 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 classification 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 BP
52 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
DUMLAO VS. COMELEC [95 SCRA 392; G.R. No.L-52245; 22 Jan 1980]
Friday, January 30, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

Facts: Petitioner Dumlao questions the constitutionality of Sec. 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg 52
as discriminatory and contrary to equal protection and due process guarantees of the
Constitution. Sec. 4 provides that any retired elective provincial or municipal official who
has received payments of retirement benefits and shall have been 65 years of age at the
commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to be elected, shall not be qualified
to run for the same elective local office from which he has retired. According to Dumlao, the
provision amounts to class legislation. Petitioners Igot and Salapantan Jr. also assail the
validity of Sec. 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg 52, which states that any person who has
committed any act of disloyalty to the State, including those amounting to subversion,
insurrection, rebellion, or other similar crimes, shall not be qualified for any of the offices
covered by the act, or to participate in any partisan activity therein: provided that a
judgment of conviction of those crimes shall be conclusive evidence of such fact and the
filing of charges for the commission of such crimes before a civil court or military tribunal
after preliminary investigation shall be prima facie evidence of such fact.

Issues:

(1) Whether or Not the aforementioned statutory provisions violate the Constitution and
thus, should be declared null and void
(2) Whether or not the requisites of judicial review are complied with

Held: No constitutional question will be heard and decided by the Court unless there is
compliance with the requisites of a judicial inquiry, which are: 1) There must be an actual
case or controversy; 2) The question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party;
3) The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and 4)
The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the
case itself.

As to (1), Dumlao has not been adversely affected by the application of the provision. His
question is posed merely in the abstract, and without the benefit of a detailed factual
record. As to (2), neither Igot nor Salapantan has been charged with acts of loyalty to the
State, nor disqualified from being candidates for local elective positions. They have no
personal nor substantial interest at stake. Igot and Salapantan have institute the case as a
taxpayer’s suit, but the institution of a taxpayer’s suit per se is no assurance of judicial
review. As to (4), there is no cause of action in this particular case. Therefore, the necessity
for resolving the issue of constitutionality is absent.

In regards to the unconstitutionality of the provisions, Sec. 4 of BP Blg 52 remains

constitutional and valid. The constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws is
subject to rational classification. One class can be treated differently from another class. In
this case, employees 65 years of age are classified differently from younger employees. The
purpose of the provision is to satisfy the “need for new blood” in the workplace. In regards
to the second paragraph of Sec. 4, it should be declared null and void for being violative of
the constitutional presumption of innocence guaranteed to an accused