DUMLAO VS.

COMELEC [95 SCRA 392; L-52245; 22 JAN 1980]

Monday, February 02, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

Facts: Petitioner 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.

Section 4 provided that any retired municipal or provincial city official that already received retirement benefits and is 65 years of age shall not be qualified to run for the same local elective office from which he has retired.

Issue: Whether
contrary to the

or Not Sec. 4 of BP.52 is unconstitutional being equal protection and due process rights.

Held: No.

The guarantee of equal protection is subject to rational

classification based on reasonable and real differentiations. In the present case, employees 65 years of age have been classified differently from younger employees. The former are subject to compulsory retirement while the latter are not.

Retirement is not a reasonable disqualification for elective local officials because there can be retirees who are even younger and a 65 year old retiree could be as good as a 65 year old official who is not a retiree. But there is reason to disqualify a 65 year old elective official who is trying to run for office because there is the need for new blood to assume relevance. When an official has retired he has already declared himself tired and unavailable for the same government work.

WHEREFORE, the first paragraph of section 4 of Batas pambansa Bilang 52 is hereby declared valid.