G.R. No.

L-52245 January 22, 1980

PATRICIO DUMLAO, ROMEO B. IGOT, and ALFREDO SALAPANTAN, JR.,
petitioners,
Vs
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

Facts:
Petitioners Dumlao, et.al assailed the constitutionality of certain portions of BP
Blg. 52, specifically section 4 which provides for disqualification of any retired elective
city or municipal official upon reaching 65 years old and that filing of charges for the
commission of the crimes enumerated in the same section before a civil court or
military tribunal after preliminary investigation shall be prima facie evidence of such fact.
Dumlao specifically alleged that the classification contained in the statute was
discriminatory and contrary to equal protection and due process of the Constitution for
such classification was based on purely arbitrary grounds.

Issues:
Whether or not the impugned sections of BP Blg 52 violated due process and
equal protection.

Ruling:
The impugned sections of BP Blg 52 did not violate due process and equal
protection. Supreme Court ruled that the groupings in Section 4 of BP Blg 52 were
based on reasonable and real differentiation hence one class can be treated and
regulated differently from another class. Accordingly, there was a reason to disqualify
Dumlao from running for the same office because of the need for new blood to assume
relevance. The tiredness of the retiree for government work was present and what was
significant was that the retired employee had already declared himself tired and
unavailable for government work.

Principles:
The supremacy of the Constitution stands out as the cardinal principle. We are aware of
the presumption of validity that attaches to a challenged statute, of the well-settled
principle that all reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of constitutionality, and
that Courts will not set aside a statute as constitutionally defective except in a clear
case. (People vs. Vera, supra). We are constrained to hold that this is one such clear
case.