G.R. No. 147387; G.R. No. 152161 – 463 Phil. 179 – 417 SCRA 503 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – The Legislative Department – How a Bill Becomes a Law – Bicameral Conference Committee – Enrolled Bill Doctrine
Equal Protection Clause – Valid Classification
Election Law – Appointive Officials vs Elective Officials
Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code states that an elective official, except the President and the Vice-President, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his or her office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.
In 2001, Republic Act No. 9006 or the Fair Election Act was signed into law. Section 14 of RA 9006 repealed Section 67 of the OEC.
Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, which provides that an appointive official shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy, was however retained by the Fair Election Act.
Rodolfo Fariñas, then a Congressman belonging to the minority group, questioned the constitutionality of Section 14 on the ground that it violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. He averred that the repeal of Section 67 gave elective officials undue advantage over appointive officials (discrimination).
The Fariñas group also questioned the validity of RA 9006 in its entirety. They contend that irregularities attended to the creation of the said law. Fariñas explained that RA 9006 originated as House Bill No. 9000 and Senate Bill No. 1741; that there were contrasting provisions between the two bills hence a Bicameral Conference Committee was created; that in fact two subsequent BCCs were convened which is irregular already in itself; that only the 1st BCC had its record and the compromise bill from said 1st BCC was never subjected to a conference with the lower house; that in the 2nd BCC, it appeared that another compromise bill was agreed upon even though there was no meeting at all and that the Report as to how said compromise bill was reached was instantly made and made to be passed around for signing – all these irregularities made the law unconstitutional for being procedurally infirm.
ISSUE: Whether or not Republic Act No. 9006 is constitutional.
HELD: Yes, RA 9006 is constitutional.
On Equal Protection
The equal protection of the law clause in the Constitution is not absolute, but is subject to reasonable classification. If the groupings are characterized by substantial distinctions that make real differences, one class may be treated and regulated differently from the other.
In this case, substantial distinctions clearly exist between elective officials and appointive officials. 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. Further, appointive officials, as officers and employees in the civil service, are strictly prohibited from engaging in any partisan political activity or take part in any election except to vote; while elective officials, or officers or employees holding political offices, are obviously expressly allowed to take part in political and electoral activities.
On the Enrolled Bill Doctrine
The contention that irregularities attended the creation of RA 9006 is overridden by the enrolled bill doctrine. Under this doctrine, the signing of a bill by the Speaker of the House and the Senate President and the certification of the Secretaries of both Houses of Congress that it was passed are conclusive of its due enactment. The Supreme Court is not the proper forum for the enforcement of the internal rules of Congress, whether House or Senate. Parliamentary rules are merely procedural and with their observance the courts have no concern. Whatever irregularities there may have been in the Bicameral Conference Committee involve internal rules which cannot be inquired into by the Court.
