View full case

MOHAMMAD ALI DIMAPORO v. RAMON V. MITRA

FACTS:

In the first case, the petitioner, who was elected as the Representative for the Second Legislative District of Lanao del Sur, filed a Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Regional Governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. The respondents, Speaker and Secretary of the House of Representatives, excluded petitioner's name from the Roll of Members of the House of Representatives based on Section 67, Article IX of the Omnibus Election Code. The petitioner argues that this provision is contrary to the Constitution and should not apply to members of Congress.

In the second case, the petitioners are elected members of the Legislative District Board of Quezon City who also sought to run for the positions of Mayor and Governor. However, their certificates of candidacy were denied by the COMELEC because simultaneous holding of legislative and executive positions is prohibited by law. The petitioners argue that there is no legal basis for the COMELEC's denial and want to run for the said positions despite already being elected as members of the legislature. They filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court seeking the annulment of the COMELEC's resolution.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Section 67 of BP Blg. 881 (the Omnibus Election Code) is still valid and operative under the 1987 Constitution.

  2. Whether the provision of Section 67 violates the equal protection clause.

  3. Does the provision in Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881 cut short the term of office of a Member of Congress?

  4. Is the ground cited in Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881 for shortening the tenure of office of members of Congress valid?

  5. Whether the filing of a certificate of candidacy for another office results in automatic forfeiture of the current elective position.

  6. Whether the Speaker and Secretary of the House of Representatives have the authority to remove the petitioner's name from the Roll of Members.

RULING:

  1. Yes, Section 67 of BP Blg. 881 is still valid and operative under the 1987 Constitution. The provision is founded on the principle that public office is a public trust, and public officers must be accountable to the people. This principle is explicitly stated in Section 1 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, which emphasizes the accountability, integrity, and loyalty that public officers must uphold. Therefore, the provision of Section 67, which considers elected officials resigned upon the filing of the certificate of candidacy for another office, is in line with the constitutional mandate of accountability.

  2. No, the provision of Section 67 does not violate the equal protection clause. The classification created by the provision is reasonable and based on substantial distinctions. Elected officials who file certificates of candidacy for other positions are treated differently because they are subject to the constitutional principle of accountability and the mandate to serve the term for which they were elected. The classification is not arbitrary or discriminatory.

  3. The provision in Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881 does not cut short the term of office of a Member of Congress. It only shortens the tenure of office by deeming an elective official to have voluntarily cut short his tenure when he files a certificate of candidacy for another office.

  4. The ground cited in Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881 for shortening the tenure of office of members of Congress is valid. While it is not mentioned in the Constitution itself, the Constitution recognizes that the grounds for shortening the tenure of office of members of Congress are not exclusive, and the legislature may prescribe other grounds.

  5. The filing of a certificate of candidacy for another office does result in automatic forfeiture of the current elective position. The court referred to previous cases that clearly stated that once the certificate is filed, the seat is forever forfeited and nothing can restore the ousted official. The ground for forfeiture in the Constitution is different from the forfeiture decreed in the law, and it is not necessary for the other position to actually be held for forfeiture to occur.

  6. The Speaker and Secretary of the House of Representatives have the authority to remove the petitioner's name from the Roll of Members. They have a ministerial duty to abide by the clear and unmistakable legal effect of the law, and their duty is not affected by an alleged invalidity of the statute imposing the duty. Officers of the government are bound to obey the law.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. (Section 1, Article XI, 1987 Constitution)

  • Elected public officials should honor the mandate they have received from the people and serve the term for which they were elected. (Section 67, BP Blg. 881)

  • The provision of Section 67, BP Blg. 881, which considers elected officials resigned upon the filing of the certificate of candidacy for another office, is valid and operative under the 1987 Constitution. This provision is based on the constitutional principle of accountability and the mandate for elected officials to serve their entire term.

  • The distinction between "term" and "tenure" of office is important - the term refers to the period prescribed by the Constitution, while the tenure refers to the actual holding of the office.

  • The constitutional expression of the grounds for vacancy in office does not necessarily exclude all others, and the legislature may prescribe additional grounds.

  • The presumption of constitutionality favors legislative enactment, and to justify nullification of a law, there must be a clear breach of the Constitution.

  • The maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius is not to be applied with the same rigor in construing a constitution as a statute, and is only used as a rule of interpretation.

  • The concept of voluntary renunciation of office under the Constitution is broad enough to include situations where an elective official files a certificate of candidacy for another office, signifying an intention to relinquish their current office.

  • Forfeiture of office upon filing of certificate of candidacy for another office is automatic and permanently effective.

  • Filing a certificate of candidacy for another office is an overt act that indicates the intention to relinquish the current elective position.

  • The duty of administrative officers to perform their duties is not affected by an alleged invalidity of the statute imposing the duty.