G.R. No.

147387 December 10,

2003
Rodolfo C. Fariñas, et al., petitioners
vs.
The Executive Secretary, et al., respondents
X----------------------------------------------------------------
X
G.R. No. 152161
Cong. Gerry A. Salapuddin, petitioner
vs.
COMELEC, respondent
Callejo, Sr., J.:

FACTS:
The petitioners alleged that Section 14 of the Republic Act 9006 is unconstitutional on
the grounds that it violates Section 26(1) of the constitution which requires the law to have only
one subject which should be expressed in its title, and it also violates the equal protection clause
because it repeals Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code while the Section 66 remains.
Further, the petitioners also asserted that the due process was violated since the Section 16 of RA
9006 provides that the Act shall take effect upon approval.
The respondents contends that Sec.14 of RA 9006 encompasses the repealing of Sec.67
of Omnibus Election Code and that it does not violate the equal protection clause since elected
and appointed officials shall be treated differently. In the matter of effectivity, the respondents
stand that it is not in violation of the due process since it does not entail deprivation of life,
liberty and property.

ISSUES: Whether or not the RA 9006 is null and void in the matter relating to the effectivity
clause. (NO)

HELD:
The Court declared the effectivity clause defective, but it does not render the entire law
invalid. The court reiterated that in the case of Tañada vs. Tuvera, the clause “unless it is
otherwise provided” refers to the date of effectivity and not to the requirement of publication
itself, which in any event cannot be omitted.

DISPOSITION:
The court dismissed the petition.