FARINAS v THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
FACTS:
A petition was filed seeking the Court to declare unconstitutional Section 14 of RA 9006 or “The Act to Enhance the Holding of Free, Orderly, Honest, Peaceful and Credible Elections Through Fair Election Practices” as it repealed Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code mandating the ipso jure resignation from public office of one who filed his certificate of candidacy, except for President and Vice-President.
It is the petitioners’ contention that the repeal of Section 67 is a rider on the said law, the same embracing more than one subject, inconsistent to what the constitution mandates. Further, it violated the equal protection clause since the said law didn’t repeal provision relating to appointive officials. Appointive officials would still be considered ipso jure resigned upon filing of their respective certificates of candidacy.
HELD:
Section 14 is not a rider. The purported dissimilarity of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, which imposes a limitation on elective officials who run for an office other than the one they are holding, to the other provisions of the contested law, which deal with the lifting of the ban on the use of media for election propaganda, doesn’t violate the “one subject- one title rule”. The Court has held that an act having a single general subject, indicated in its title, may contain any number of provisions, no matter how diverse they may be, so long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject, and they may be considered in furtherance of such subject by providing for the method and means of carrying out the general subject.
The repeal of Section 67 is not violative of the equal protection clause. Equal protection is not absolute especially if the classification is reasonable. There is reasonable classification between an elective official and an appointive one. The former occupy their office by virtue of the mandate of the electorate. They are elected to an office for a definite term and may be removed therefrom only upon stringent conditions. On the other hand, appointive officials hold their office by virtue of their designation thereto by an appointing authority. Some appointive officials hold their office in a permanent capacity and are entitled to security of tenure while others serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority. Another substantial distinction is that by law, appointed officials are prohibited from engaging in partisan political activity or take part in any election except to vote.
