QUINTO versus COMELEC (G.R. No.

189698)

Facts:
Petitioners Eleazar P. Quinto and Gerino A. Tolentino, Jr. filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition
against the COMELEC for issuing a resolution declaring appointive officials who filed their certificate of
candidacy as ipso facto resigned from their government offices because at such time they are not yet
treated by the law as candidates. They should be considered resigned from their respective offices only
at the start of the campaign period when they are, by law, already considered candidates.
In this defense, the COMELEC avers that it only copied the provision from Sec. 13 of R.A. 9369.
Issue:
Whether or not the said COMELEC resolution was valid.
Held:
NO. In the Farias case, the petitioners challenged Sec. 14 of RA. 9006 repealing Sec. 66 of the
Omnibus Election Code (OEC) for giving undue benefit to elective officials in comparison with
appointive officials. Incidentally, the Court upheld the substantial distinctions between the two and
pronounced that there was no violation of the equal protection clause. However in the present case,
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. The
measure is further aimed at promoting the efficiency, integrity, and discipline of the public service by
eliminating the danger that the discharge of official duty would be motivated by political
considerations rather than the welfare of the public. The restriction is also justified by the proposition
that the entry of civil servants to the electorate arena, while still in office, could result in neglect or
inefficiency in the performance of duty because they would be attending to their campaign rather than
to their office work.
In the instant case, is there a rational justification for excluding elected officials from the operation of
the deemed resigned provisions? There is.
An election is the embodiment of the popular will, perhaps the purest expression of the sovereign
power of the people. It involves the choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular vote.
Considering that elected officials are put in office by their constituents for a definite term, it may
justifiably be said that they were excluded from the ambit of the deemed resigned provisions in utmost
respect for the mandate of the sovereign will. In other words, complete deference is accorded to the
will of the electorate that they be served by such officials until the end of the term for which they were
elected. In contrast, there is no such expectation insofar as appointed officials are concerned.
The dichotomized treatment of appointive and elective officials is therefore germane to the purposes
of the law. For the law was made not merely to preserve the integrity, efficiency, and discipline of the
public service; the Legislature, whose wisdom is outside the rubric of judicial scrutiny, also thought it

wise to balance this with the competing, yet equally compelling, interest of deferring to the sovereign
will.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court RESOLVES to GRANT the respondents and the intervenors Motions for
Reconsideration; REVERSE and SET ASIDE this Courts December 1, 2009 Decision; DISMISS the
Petition; and ISSUE this Resolution declaring as not UNCONSTITUTIONAL (1) Section 4(a) of COMELEC
Resolution No. 8678, (2) the second proviso in the third paragraph of Section 13 of Republic Act No.
9369, and (3) Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code.
==============
Note: Not applicable sa barangay office: Any elective or appointive municipal, city, provincial or
national official or employee, or those in the civil or military service, including those in governmentowned or-controlled corporations, shall be considered automatically resigned upon the filing of
certificate of candidacy for a barangay office.
Since barangay elections are governed by a separate deemed resignation rule, under the present state
of law, there would be no occasion to apply the restriction on candidacy found in Section 66 of the
Omnibus Election Code, and later reiterated in the proviso of Section 13 of RA 9369, to any election
other than a partisan one. For this reason, the overbreadth challenge raised against Section 66 of the
Omnibus Election Code and the pertinent proviso in Section 13 of RA 9369 must also fail.