Facts: Petitioner Dumlao questions the constitutionality of Sec. 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg 52 as discriminatory and contrary to equal protection and due process guarantees of the Constitution. Sec. 4 provides that any retired elective provincial or municipal official who has received payments of retirement benefits and 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. According to Dumlao, the provision amounts to class legislation. Petitioners Igot and Salapantan Jr. also assail the validity of Sec. 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg 52, which states that any person who has committed any act of disloyalty to the State, including those amounting to subversion, insurrection, rebellion, or other similar crimes, shall not be qualified for any of the offices covered by the act, or to participate in any partisan activity therein: provided that a judgment of conviction of those crimes shall be conclusive evidence of such fact and the filing of charges for the commission of such crimes before a civil court or military tribunal after preliminary investigation shall be prima facie evidence of such fact.
Issues:
(1) Whether or Not the aforementioned statutory provisions violate the Constitution and thus, should be declared null and void
(2) Whether or not the requisites of judicial review are complied with
Held: No constitutional question will be heard and decided by the Court unless there is compliance with the requisites of a judicial inquiry, which are: 1) There must be an actual case or controversy; 2) The question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party; 3) The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and 4) The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself.
As to (1), Dumlao has not been adversely affected by the application of the provision. His question is posed merely in the abstract, and without the benefit of a detailed factual record. As to (2), neither Igot nor Salapantan has been charged with acts of loyalty to the State, nor disqualified from being candidates for local elective positions. They have no personal nor substantial interest at stake. Igot and Salapantan have institute the case as a taxpayer’s suit, but the institution of a taxpayer’s suit per se is no assurance of judicial review. As to (4), there is no cause of action in this particular case. Therefore, the necessity for resolving the issue of constitutionality is absent.
In regards to the unconstitutionality of the provisions, Sec. 4 of BP Blg 52 remains constitutional and valid. The constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws is subject to rational classification. One class can be treated differently from another class. In this case, employees 65 years of age are classified differently from younger employees. The purpose of the provision is to satisfy the “need for new blood” in the workplace. In regards to the second paragraph of Sec. 4, it should be declared null and void for being violative of the constitutional presumption of innocence guaranteed to an accused.
0 comments:
Post a Comment