Dimaporo v. Mitra Case Digest

Dimaporo v. Mitra
202 SCRA 779

Digest by Kirk Yngwie Enriquez

Facts:

Petitioner was elected Representatives for the 2nd District of Lanao del Sur during the 1987 Congressional Elections. On January 15, 1990, petitioner filed with the Comelec a Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Regional Governor of the ARMM. Upon being informed of the filing, respondents Speaker and Secretary of the House of Reps excluded petitioner’s name from the Roll of Members of the House of Reps pursuant to Section 67, Article IX of the Omnibus Election Code which states that any elective official whether national or local running for any office other than the one he is holding in permanent capacity except for President and Vice-President shall be considered ipso facto resigned upon filing a certificate of candidacy. Having lost in the ARMM elections, petitioner in a letter dated June 28, 1990 addressed to respondent Speaker expressed his intention to resume performing his duties and functions as elected Member of Congress, but he failed to regain his seat in Congress since this petition was filed on January 31, 1991.

In the petition, it is alleged that petitioner was excluded from all proceedings of the House of Reps, not paid the emoluments due his office, his staff was dismissed and disbanded, and his office suites were occupied by other persons.

Petitioner admits that he filed a Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Regional Governor of ARMM, but maintains that he did not thereby lose his seat as congressman because Section 67 Article IX of BP 881 or the Omnibus Election Code is not operative under the present Constitution. He points out that the term of office of members of the House of Reps as well as the grounds by which the incumbency of said members may be shortened, are provided for in the Constitution.
Section 2 Article XVIII provides that Senators, Members of the House of Reps, and local officials first elected under this Constitution shall serve until noon of June 30 1992. Section 7 Article VI states that the Members of the House of Reps shall be elected for a term of three years which shall begin at noon on the 30th day of June next following their election.

The grounds by which such term may be shortened are:

Section 13, Article VI – Forfeiture of his seat by holding any other office or employment in government.

Section 16 – Expulsion as a disciplinary action for disorderly behavior.

Section 17 – Disqualification as determined by resolution of the Electoral Tribunal.

Section 7 par. 2 – Voluntary renunciation of office.

Petitioner asserts that under the principle expression unius est exclusion alterius, Section 67 Article IX of BP 81 is repugnant to the constitutional provisions since it provides for shortening of a congressman’s term of office on a ground not provided in the Constitution. Petitioner maintains that respondents acted without authority.

Respondents, through the OSG, contends that Section 67 Article IX of BP 881 is still operative, as the voluntary act of resignation in Section 67 falls within the term “voluntary renunciation” of office in par. 2 Section 7 of Article VI of the Constitution. The grounds provided in the Constitution is not exclusive. There are other modes such as resignation, death, and conviction of a crime which carries a penalty of disqualification to hold public office.

Issues:

Is Section 67 Article IX of BP 881 still operative under the 1987 Constitution?
Could the respondents exclude the petitioner from the rolls of the House of Reps?


Ruling:
Yes. The basis for Section 67 Article IX of BP 881 is Section 1of Article XIII (Chapter on Accountability of Public Officers) of the 1973 Constitution which states that “Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees shall serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency and shall remain accountable to the people.” The same constitutional basis remains written in the 1987 Constitution. Section 1 Article XI on Accountability of Public Officers states that “Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.” This provision seeks to ensure that such officials serve out their entire term of office by discouraging them from running for another public office and thereby cutting short their tenure by making it clear that should they fail in their candidacy, they cannot go back to their former position.

Also, that Section 67 is not mentioned in the Constitution as a mode of shortening the tenure of office does not preclude its application to present members of Congress. Section 2 Article IX provides that “All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.” Such constitutional expression clearly recognizes that the 4 grounds found in Article VI are not exclusive.

To justify the nullification of a law, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and argumentative implication.

As the mere filing of the certificate of candidacy for another office produces automatically the permanent forfeiture of the elective position presently held, it is not necessary that the other position be actually held. Section 13 Article VI of the Constitution is different from Section 67 Article IX of BP 881.

Yes. The Speaker is the administrative head of the House of Representatives and he exercises administrative powers and functions attached to his office. As administrative officers, both Speaker and House Secretary-General perform ministerial functions. It was their duty to remove petitioner’s name from the Roll considering the unequivocal tenor of Section 67. When the Comelec communicated to the House of Reps that petitioner filed his certificate of candidacy, respondents had no choice but to abide by the clear legal effect of Section 67. It was their ministerial duty.