DUMLAO, ET AL. VS COMELEC

G.R. No. L-52245                                January 22, 1980

FACTS:
Dumlao was the former governor of Nueva Viscaya. He has already retired from his office and has been receiving retirement benefits. In 1980, he filed for reelection to the same office. Meanwhile, BP Blg. 52 was enacted. This law provides that retirees from public office are disqualified to run for office. Dumlao assailed the law avvering that it is class legislation hence unconstitutional. In general, he invoked equal protection of law. His petition was joined by Atty. Romeo Igot and Alfredo Salapantan, Jr. These two, however, have different issues. The suits of Igot and Salapantan are more of a taxpayer's suit assailing the other provisions of BP Blg. 52 regarding the term of office of the elected officials, the length of the campaign, and the provision which bars person charged for crimes from running for public office as well as the provision that provides that the mere filing of complaints against them after preliminary investigation would already disqualify them from office.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Dumlao, Igot, and Salapantan have a cause of action.

RULING:
NO. The Supreme Court pointed out the procedural lapses of this case for the latter should have never been merged. Dumlao's issue is different from Igot and Salapantan. They have different issues. Further, this case does not meet all requisites to be eligible for judicial review, namely: (1) the existence of an appropriate case; (2) an interest personal and substantial by the party raising the constitutional question; (3) the plea that the function be exercised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the necessity that the constitutional question be passed upon in order to decide the case.

In this case, only the 3rd requisite was met.

The SC ruled however that the provision barring persons charged for crimes may not run for public office and that the filing of complaints against them after preliminary investigation would already disqualify them from office as null and void.

The assertion that BP Blg. 52 is contrary to the safeguard of equal protection is neither well taken. The constitutional guarantee of the equal protection of the laws is subject to rational classification. If the groupings are based on reasonable and real differentiation, one class can be treated and regulated differently from another class. For purposes of public service, employees 65 years of age, have been validly classified differently from younger employees. Employees attaining that age are subject to compulsory retirement, while those of younger ages are not so compulsorily retirable.

In respect of election to provincial, city, or municipal positions, to require that candidates should not be more than 65 years of age at the time they assume office, if applicable to everyone, might or might not be a reasonable classification although, as the Solicitor General has intimated a good policy of the law should be to promote the emergence of younger blood in our local governments. On the other hand, it might be that persons more than 65 years old may also be good elective local officials.

Retirement from government service may or may not be reasonable disqualification for elective local officials. But, in the case of a 65-year old elective local official (Dumlao), who has retired from a provincial, city, or municipal office, there is reason to disqualify him from running for the same office from which he had retired, as provided for in the challenged provision.