ELEAZAR P. QUINTO and GERINO A. TOLENTINO, JR.

vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
***SPACE***
December 1, 2009
G.R. No. 189698
**** DOUBLE SPACED****

Facts:
On December 22, 1997, Congress enacted Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8436, entitled "AN
ACT AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS TO USE AN AUTOMATED
ELECTION SYSTEM IN THE MAY 11, 1998 NATIONAL OR LOCAL ELECTIONS AND IN
SUBSEQUENT NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTORAL EXERCISES, PROVIDING
FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES."  For this purpose, the Commission shall
set the deadline for the filing of certificate of candidacy/petition of registration/manifestation to
participate in the election. Any person who files his certificate of candidacy within this period
shall only be considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his
certificate of candidacy: Provided, That, unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate
shall take effect only upon the start of the aforesaid campaign period: Provided, finally, That any
person holding a public appointive office or position, including active members of the armed
forces, and officers and employees in government-owned or -controlled corporations, shall be
considered ipso facto resigned from his/her office and must vacate the same at the start of the
day of the filing of his/her certificate of candidacy.
Alarmed that they will be deemed ipso facto resigned from their offices the moment they
file their CoCs, petitioners Eleazar P. Quinto and Gerino A. Tolentino, Jr., who hold appointive
positions in the government and who intend to run in the coming elections, filed the instant
petition for prohibition and certiorari, seeking the declaration of the afore-quoted Section 4(a) of
Resolution No. 8678 as null and void. Petitioners posit that the provision considering them as
ipso facto resigned from office upon the filing of their CoCs is discriminatory and violates the
equal protection clause in the Constitution.
Issues: *** follow this format if there is more than one issue; follow for ruling as well. ***

(1) Whether or not Resolution No. 8678 and Section 13 of RA 9369 is violative of the
equal protection clause?

Held:
(1) Yes. The said proviso seems to mitigate the situation of disadvantage afflicting
appointive officials by considering persons who filed their CoCs as candidates only at the start of
the campaign period, thereby, conveying the tacit intent that persons holding appointive positions
will only be considered as resigned at the start of the campaign period when they are already
treated by law as candidates.
 In considering persons holding appointive positions as ipso facto resigned from their
posts upon the filing of their CoCs, but not considering as resigned all other civil servants,
specifically the elective ones, the law unduly discriminates against the first class. The fact alone
that there is substantial distinction between those who hold appointive positions and those
occupying elective posts, does not justify such differential treatment.
Applying the four requisites to the instant case, the Court finds that the differential
treatment of persons holding appointive offices as opposed to those holding elective ones is not
germane to the purposes of the law. There is thus no valid justification to treat appointive
officials differently from the elective ones. The classification simply fails to meet the test that it
should be germane to the purposes of the law. The measure encapsulated in the second proviso
of the third paragraph of Section 13 of R.A. No. 9369 and in Section 66 of the OEC violates the
equal protection clause.Anent the objectives of prevention of concealment of unlawful acts and
"un-neighborliness," it is obvious that providing for a parking area has no logical connection to,
and is not reasonably necessary for, the accomplishment of these goals.

FORMAT:

Times New Roman -No Bullet Points

Size 12 - PLEASE FOLLOW THIS FORMAT
Short
Margins- 1 inch
Justified
Line Spacing – 1.15