Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

Quinto v.

Commission on Elections
G.R. No. 189698, February 22, 2010
FACTS: The case is about a motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court
assailing the decision granted the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition filed by Eleazar
P. Quinto and Gerino A. Tolentino, Jr. and declared as unconstitutional the second
proviso in the third paragraph of Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9369, Section 66 of
the Omnibus Election Code and Section 4 (a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678,
mainly on the ground that they violate the equal protection clause of
the Constitution and suffer from overbreadth. The assailed Decision thus paved the way
for public appointive officials to continue discharging the powers, prerogatives and
functions of their office notwithstanding their entry into the political arena.
ISSUE: Whether or not third paragraph of Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9369, Section
66 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 4 (a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678
violate the equal protection clause.
RULING: The Court held that the discussion on the equal protection clause was an
obiter dictum since the issue raised therein was against the repealing clause. It didnt
squarely
challenge
Sec.
66.
Sec. 13 of RA. 9369 unduly discriminated appointive and elective officials. Applying the
4 requisites of a valid classification, the proviso does not comply with the second
requirement that it must be germane to the purpose of the law. The obvious reason for
the challenged provision is to prevent the use of a governmental position to promote
ones candidacy, or even to wield a dangerous or coercive influence of the electorate.
Sec. 13 of RA. 9369 pertains to all civil servants holding appointive posts without
distinction as to whether they occupy high positions in government or not.