Dimaporo v. Mitra
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Mohamad Ali Dimaporo was elected Representative for the Second Legislative District of Lanao del Sur in 1987. On January 15, 1990, he filed a Certificate of Candidacy for Regional Governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. Upon being informed by the Commission on Elections, respondents Speaker and Secretary of the House of Representatives excluded petitioner's name from the Roll of Members pursuant to Section 67, Article IX of the Omnibus Election Code, considering him ipso facto resigned. Procedural History: Petitioner, after losing the regional elections, sought to resume his duties as Congressman. When this was not apparently acted upon, he filed a petition with the Supreme Court on January 31, 1991, praying for recognition of his rights as a Member of the House of Representatives. He alleged exclusion from proceedings, non-payment of emoluments, dismissal of staff, and occupation of his office suites. The Petition: Petitioner contended that Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881 is not operative under the present Constitution as it is contrary thereto and provides grounds for shortening a congressman's term not found in the Constitution. He argued that respondents acted without authority and their administrative act was ineffective. He also asserted that filing a certificate of candidacy is not equivalent to holding another office or employment, thus not a ground for forfeiture under Article VI, Section 13 of the Constitution.
Issue(s)
Whether Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881 is operative under the present Constitution. Whether the Speaker and Secretary of the House of Representatives could, by administrative act, exclude the petitioner from the Rolls of the House.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Court held that Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881 is operative and that the respondents acted within their ministerial duty in excluding the petitioner from the Roll of Members.
Ratio Decidendi
On the operability of Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881: The Court ruled that Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881 remains operative under the present Constitution. The provision's rationale, rooted in the principle of public accountability and the need for elective officials to honor the mandate of the people, is consistent with Article XI, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, which states that "Public office is a public trust." The Court clarified that the provision does not shorten the "term" of office but rather affects the "tenure" by deeming the filing of a certificate of candidacy for another office as a voluntary act of cutting short one's tenure. This is consonant with the constitutional edict that public officials must serve with utmost loyalty and not trifle with the mandate received from their constituents. The Court also noted that the grounds for shortening a congressman's tenure are not exclusive and that the legislature can prescribe other grounds, as recognized in Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution. On the authority of the Speaker and Secretary to exclude the petitioner: The Court affirmed that the respondents acted within their ministerial duty. The Speaker, as the administrative head of the House, and the Secretary-General, perform administrative functions. Upon receiving communication from the Commission on Elections that the petitioner had filed a certificate of candidacy for regional governor, respondents had no choice but to abide by the clear legal effect of Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881. They cannot refuse to perform their duty based on an alleged invalidity of the statute, especially when it has not been judicially declared unconstitutional. The act of excluding the petitioner's name from the Roll was a ministerial act, not an encroachment on judicial powers, as it merely gave effect to the statutory provision.
Main Doctrine
Filing a certificate of candidacy for an office other than the one held by an elective official, pursuant to Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code), constitutes an ipso facto resignation from the office held, and this provision remains operative under the present Constitution as it aligns with the principle of public accountability and the concept of voluntary renunciation of office.