In the case of Fariñas vs. Executive Secretary, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of Section 14 of Republic Act No. 9006, also known as the Fair Election Act, which repealed Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code. This provision previously required elective officials to resign from their posts upon filing a certificate of candidacy for another office. The Court upheld the validity of the repeal, asserting it did not violate the constitutional requirement that every law shall embrace only one subject expressed in its title, nor did it infringe on the equal protection clause.

Fairness in Elections: Did the Repeal of Resignation Rule Violate Constitutional Principles?

This case arose from challenges to Republic Act No. 9006, particularly Section 14, which removed the requirement for elective officials to resign when running for a different office. Petitioners, including Rodolfo C. Fariñas and others, argued that the repeal was a rider, not germane to the law’s title, and violated the equal protection clause by treating appointive and elective officials differently. They also contended irregularities marred the law’s enactment. The respondents, through the Solicitor General, defended the law, asserting its compliance with constitutional requirements and highlighting the differences between appointive and elective positions.

The central issue revolved around whether Section 14 of R.A. 9006 violated Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution, which mandates that every law should have only one subject, clearly expressed in its title. The petitioners argued that the repeal of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, which concerns the ipso facto resignation of elective officials, was unrelated to the Fair Election Act’s primary focus on media use in elections. Building on this, the petitioners also argued a violation of the equal protection clause, since Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, which imposes a similar restriction on appointive officials, remained in force, thus creating disparate treatment.

The Court, however, found the law constitutional, ruling that Section 14 was not a rider. The title of R.A. 9006, “An Act to Enhance the Holding of Free, Orderly, Honest, Peaceful and Credible Elections through Fair Election Practices,” was comprehensive enough to include the repeal of Section 67. This is because the Act seeks to address fairness in elections, which the legislature deemed to include the premature termination of an elective official’s term. The deliberations during the Bicameral Conference Committee showed intent to level the playing field, ensuring no undue harassment or discrimination against candidates.

Regarding equal protection, the Court acknowledged the substantial differences between elective and appointive officials. Elective officials gain their positions through popular mandate for a fixed term, while appointive officials serve by designation, sometimes at the pleasure of the appointing authority. Moreover, appointive officials are generally barred from partisan political activities, unlike their elective counterparts. The Court emphasized the concept of reasonable classification:

Equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated are treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.

Finally, the Court addressed the alleged procedural irregularities, invoking the **enrolled bill doctrine**, which posits that a law signed by the Speaker of the House and the Senate President, and certified by their respective Secretaries, is conclusive proof of its due enactment. The court declined to scrutinize internal legislative procedures, affirming that parliamentary rules are procedural and not subject to judicial intervention unless a constitutional violation or infringement of private rights is evident. While the effectivity clause stating the law takes effect immediately upon its approval was technically defective, it was deemed effective fifteen days after publication, aligning with established jurisprudence.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Section 14 of Republic Act No. 9006, which repealed Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, was constitutional.
What did Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code say?	It stated that any elective official running for an office other than the one they currently held would be considered automatically resigned upon filing their certificate of candidacy.
Why did the petitioners challenge Rep. Act No. 9006?	The petitioners argued that the repeal violated the “one subject-one title” rule and the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
What is the “one subject-one title” rule?	It is a constitutional requirement that every law must address only one subject, which must be expressed in the law’s title.
How did the Court address the equal protection argument?	The Court ruled that the equal protection clause was not violated because elective and appointive officials have substantial differences justifying their differential treatment under the law.
What is the “enrolled bill doctrine”?	This doctrine states that a bill signed by legislative leaders and certified by the secretaries of both houses is conclusive proof of its due enactment.
Did the Court find any problems with Rep. Act No. 9006?	Yes, the Court found the effectivity clause defective but held that it did not invalidate the entire law; the law became effective fifteen days after publication.
What was the practical effect of this ruling?	The ruling allows elective officials to run for other offices without having to resign from their current positions, thereby remaining in office while campaigning.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Fariñas vs. Executive Secretary underscores the legislature’s power to shape election laws within constitutional limits, affirming the validity of Section 14 of R.A. 9006 and highlighting the distinctions between elective and appointive officials. While the Court acknowledges these distinctions, legal experts might scrutinize potential loopholes where an official may prioritize his senatorial campaign, at the expense of the electorate in his local district.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Fariñas vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 147387, December 10, 2003