Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 118 views

    012 Dumlao Vs Comelec 95 SCRA 392

    Uploaded by

    Taz Tanggol Tabao-Sumpingan
    1. Petitioners Patricio Dumlao, Romeo Igot, and Alfredo Salapantan Jr. sought to prohibit the COMELEC from implementing certain provisions of BP Blgs. 51, 52, and 53, arguing they were unconstitutional. 2. The Supreme Court ruled the petition was not eligible for judicial resolution because there was no actual case or controversy, as Dumlao had not been affected by the challenged provision, and neither Igot nor Salapantan were adversely affected either. 3. The Court also declared the first paragraph of Section 4 of BP Blg. 52 valid, finding it was a reasonable classification based on substantial distinctions that was germane to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    012 Dumlao Vs Comelec 95 SCRA 392

    Uploaded by

    Taz Tanggol Tabao-Sumpingan
    118 views2 pages
    1. Petitioners Patricio Dumlao, Romeo Igot, and Alfredo Salapantan Jr. sought to prohibit the COMELEC from implementing certain provisions of BP Blgs. 51, 52, and 53, arguing they were unconstitutional. 2. The Supreme Court ruled the petition was not eligible for judicial resolution because there was no actual case or controversy, as Dumlao had not been affected by the challenged provision, and neither Igot nor Salapantan were adversely affected either. 3. The Court also declared the first paragraph of Section 4 of BP Blg. 52 valid, finding it was a reasonable classification based on substantial distinctions that was germane to

    Original Description:

    DUmlao v Comelec case digest

    Original Title

    012 Dumlao vs Comelec 95 SCRA 392

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Petitioners Patricio Dumlao, Romeo Igot, and Alfredo Salapantan Jr. sought to prohibit the COMELEC from implementing certain provisions of BP Blgs. 51, 52, and 53, arguing they were unconstitutional. 2. The Supreme Court ruled the petition was not eligible for judicial resolution because there was no actual case or controversy, as Dumlao had not been affected by the challenged provision, and neither Igot nor Salapantan were adversely affected either. 3. The Court also declared the first paragraph of Section 4 of BP Blg. 52 valid, finding it was a reasonable classification based on substantial distinctions that was germane to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    118 views2 pages

    012 Dumlao Vs Comelec 95 SCRA 392

    Uploaded by

    Taz Tanggol Tabao-Sumpingan
    1. Petitioners Patricio Dumlao, Romeo Igot, and Alfredo Salapantan Jr. sought to prohibit the COMELEC from implementing certain provisions of BP Blgs. 51, 52, and 53, arguing they were unconstitutional. 2. The Supreme Court ruled the petition was not eligible for judicial resolution because there was no actual case or controversy, as Dumlao had not been affected by the challenged provision, and neither Igot nor Salapantan were adversely affected either. 3. The Court also declared the first paragraph of Section 4 of BP Blg. 52 valid, finding it was a reasonable classification based on substantial distinctions that was germane to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Case No.

    12
    PATRICIO DUMLAO, ROMEO B. IGOT, and ALFREDO SALAPANTAN, JR.,
    petitioners, vs.
    COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent. G.R. No. L-52245 January
    22, 1980
    95 SCRA 392
    Nature of Action: Petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction and/or
    Restraining Order seeking to enjoin respondent Commission on Elections
    (COMELEC) from implementing certain provisions of Batas Pambansa Big. 51,
    52, and 53 for being unconstitutional.
    Facts:
    Patricio Dumlao is a former Governor of Nueva Vizcaya who has filed his
    certificate of candidacy for said position of Governor in the forthcoming
    elections of January 30, 1980. Romeo B. Igot and Alfredo Salapantan, Jr. are
    both taxpayers and qualified voters.
    Petitioner Dumlao specifically questions the constitutionality of section 4 of
    Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 as discriminatory and contrary to the equal
    protection and due process guarantees of the Constitution. BP Blg. 52
    provides that, Any retired elective provincial city or municipal official who
    has received payment of the retirement benefits to which he is entitled
    under the law, and who shall have been 65 years of age at the
    commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to be elected shall
    not be qualified to run for the same elective local office from which he has
    retired.
    Petitioners Igot and Salapantan assail the validity of certain statutory
    provisions of BP Blg. 51, 52 and 53.
    Issues:
    1. Whether or not the petition is eligible for judicial resolution.
    2. Whether or not the 1st paragraph of Section 4, BP Blg. 52 is
    unconstitutional.
    Ruling:
    1. The petition is traditionally unacceptable for judicial resolution.
    2. The first paragraph of section 4 of BP Blg. 52 is hereby declared valid
    Ratio decidendi:
    1. There are standards that have to be followed in the exercise of the
    function of judicial review. It may be conceded that the third requisite
    has been complied with, which is, that the parties have raised the
    issue of constitutionality early enough in their pleadings. However, it
    has fallen far short of the other three criteria:

    a. Actual Case and Controversy. Petitioner Dumlao has not been


    adversely affected by the application of that provision of section 4
    of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 which he seeks to prohibit. No petition
    seeking Dumlao's disqualification has been filed before the
    COMELEC.
    b. Proper Party. Neither one of Igot and Salapantan has been called to
    have been adversely affected by the operation of the statutory
    provisions they assail as unconstitutional
    c. Unavoidability of Constitutional Question. They are actually without
    cause of action. It follows that the necessity for resolving the issue
    of constitutionality is absent.
    2. The equal protection clause does not forbid all legal classification.
    What is proscribed is a classification which is arbitrary and
    unreasonable. That constitutional guarantee is not violated by a
    reasonable classification based upon substantial distinctions, where
    the classification is germane to the purpose of the law and applies to
    all Chose belonging to the same class. The purpose of the law is to
    allow the emergence of younger blood in local governments.

    You might also like