DUMLAO VS.

COMELEC [95 SCRA 392; L-52245; 22 JAN 1980 Facts: Dumlao was the former governor of Nueva Vizcaya. He has retired from his office and he has been receiving retirement benefits therefrom. He filed for ree lection to the same office for the 1980 elections. Dumlao then questions the con stitutionality of par.1 section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 as discriminatory a nd contrary to the equal protection and due process guarantees of the Constituti on. Section 4 provided that any retired municipal or provincial city official that a lready received retirement benefits and is 65 years of age shall not be qualifie d to run for the same local elective office from which he has retired. His petition was joined by Atty. Igot and Salapantan Jr. These two however have different issues. The suits of Igot and Salapantan are more of a taxpayer s suit ass ailing the other provisions of BP 52 regarding the term of office of the elected officials, the length of the campaign and the provision barring persons charged for crimes may not run for office and that the filing of complaints against the m and after preliminary investigation would already disqualify them from office. Issue: Whether or not both paragraphs of sec. 4 are constitutional Held: As for Par. 1: No. In the case of a 65-year old elective local official, who has retired from a provincial, city or municipal office, there is reason to disqualify him from ru nning for the same office from which he had retired, as provided for in the chal lenged provision. The need for new blood assumes relevance. The tiredness of the retiree for government work is present, and what is emphatically significant is that the retired employee has already declared himself tired and unavailable fo r the same government work, but, which, by virtue of a change of mind, he would like to assume again. It is for this very reason that inequality will neither re sult from the application of the challenged provision. Just as that provision do es not deny equal protection neither does it permit of such denial (see People v s. Vera, 65 Phil. 56 [1933]). Persons similarly situated are sinlilarly treated. As for Par. 2: Yes. That portion of the second paragraph of section 4 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 52 providing that "... the filing of charges for the commission of such crimes b efore a civil court or military tribunal after preliminary investigation shall b e prima facie evidence of such fact", is hereby declared null and void, for bein g violative of the constitutional presumption of innocence guaranteed to an accu sed.