POLITICAL QUESTION VS.

JUSTICIABLE QUESTION

COMELEC vs CONRADO CRUZ G.R. No. 186616 November 20, 2009

FACTS:

When RA 9164 entitled “An Act Providing for Synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang
Kabataan Elections” was passed, questions of the constitutionality were raised against
Section 2 which states that “No barangay elective official shall serve for more than 3
consecutive terms in the same position: Provided however, that the term of office shall be
reckoned from the
1994 barangay elections. Voluntary renunciation of office for any length of time shall not be
considered as an interruption in the continuity of service for the full term for which the elective
official was elected. Before the 2007 Synchronized Barangay and SK Elections, some of the
then incumbent officials of several barangays of Caloocan City filed with the RTC a petition
for declaratory relief to challenge the constitutionality of the said provision as it is violative of
the
equal protection clause of the Constitution in as much as the barangay officials were singled
out thatthere consecutive limit shall be counted retroactively.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the provision in Section 2 of RA 9164 is violative of the equal protection clause
of the Constitution.

RULING:

The equal protection clause is under Sec 2 Art III of the Constitution which provides:
“Nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” This is however considering
equality under the same conditions and among persons similarly situated. The law can
treat barangay officials differently from other local elective officials because the Constitution
itself provides a significant distinction between these elective officials with respect to length o
f term and term limitation. The clear distinction, expressed in the Constitution itself, is that
while the Constitution provides for a 3-year term and 3-term limit for local elective officials, it
left the length of term and the application of the 3-term limit or any form of term limitation for
determination by Congress through legislation. Not only does this disparate treatment
recognize substantial distinctions, it recognizes as well that the Constitution itself allows a non-
uniform treatment. No equal protection violation can exist under these conditions.