MANILA, Philippines?(UPDATE 2) Reversing its December 1, 2009 decision, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that appointed officials, including members of the judiciary and the poll body, who have filed their certificate of candidacy for the May 10 elections are ?deemed resigned.?

Supreme Court spokesman Midas Marquez said the ruling contained in the 44-page resolution is ?effective immediately? since the prevailing law is that all appointive officials running in May 10 elections are automatically considered resigned.

The decision, penned by Chief Justice Reynato Puno, will affect four Cabinet members who are seeking congressional posts: Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera, Agriculture Secretary Arthur Yap, and Presidential Management Staff chief Hermogenes Esperon.

Voting 10-5, the high court said its December 2009 decision failed to consider the threat to government ?posed by the partisan potential of a large and growing bureaucracy: the danger of systematic abuse perpetuated by a ?powerful political machine? that has amassed ?the scattered powers of government workers? so as to give itself and its incumbent workers an ?unbreakable grasp on the reins of power.??

?In the case at bar, the probable harm to society in permitting incumbent appointive officials to remain in office, even as they actively pursue elective posts, far outweighs the less likely evil of having arguably protected candidacies blocked by the possible inhibitory effect of a potentially overly broad statute,? the court said.

The Supreme Court noted the ?absurdity? of a situation where aside from high-ranking cabinet members who already filed their certificates of candidacy without relinquishing their posts, several election officers and judges have also thrown their hat into the political ring.

"We cannot allow the tilting of our electoral playing field in their favor,? said the high court.

Devanadera, who substituted for her sister for a congressional seat in Quezon province, was given special mention. The court noted that her position as justice secretary includes supervision over the city and provincial prosecutors, who, in turn, act as vice chair of the respective boards of canvassers.

?In fine, the assailed Decision would have us ?equalize the playing field? by invalidating provisions of law that seek to restrain the evils from running riot. Under the pretext of equal protection, it would favor a situation in which the evils are unconfined and vagrant, existing at the behest of both appointive and elected officials, over another in which a significant portion thereof is contained. The absurdity of that position is self-evident, to say the least,? said the Court.

The new ruling thus upheld the constitutionality of the three provisions in the election laws that deemed appointive officials automatically resigned once they filed their certificates of candidacy. It held that the said provisions do not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

The court reversed its December 2009 ruling that allowed appointive officials who are running in May 10 elections to remain in office. It set aside the ruling which declared as unconstitutional Section 4(a) of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) Resolution 8678, the second provision in the third paragraph of Section 13 of RA 9369, and Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC).

The court held as baseless its earlier decision?s claim that the right to run for public office is inextricably linked with the fundamental freedoms of expression and association.

Citing American case law, it said a fundamental right to express one?s political views through candidacy has not been recognized so as to invoke a rigorous standard of review.

High Court Senior Justice Antonio T. Carpio, in his separate concurring opinion said ?the filing of a Certificate of Candidacy for an elective position is, by the very nature of the act, an electioneering or partisan political activity.?

He said, among others, that the constitutional ban prohibiting civil servants from engaging in partisan political activities is intended ?to keep the civil service non- partisan,? ?to prevent civil servants from using their office, and the resources of their office, to promote their candidacies or the candidacies of other persons,? and ?to prevent conflict of interest.?

Aside from Carpio, concurring with the Chief Justice are Justices Conchita Carpio Morales, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose P. Perez, and Jose C. Mendoza.

Meanwhile, Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, who authored the December decision maintained that the assailed provisions are unconstitutional for being violative of the equal protection clause and for being overbroad.

?In considering persons holding appointive positions ipso facto resigned from their posts upon the filing of their CoCs, but not considering as resigned all other civil servants, specifically the elective ones, the law unduly discriminates against the first class. The fact alone that there is substantial distinction between those who hold appointive positions and those occupying elective posts, does not justify such disparate treatment,? he said.

Other Justices who dissented are Justices Renato C. Corona, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, and Lucas P. Bersamin.

Romulo Macalintal, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo?s lawyer, had questioned the automatic resignation clause for appointed officials in behalf of officials of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources who said they would run for congressional and local posts in 2010.

In a separate statement, he said he was saddened by the reversal of the decision and would file a motion of reconsideration once he receives a copy.

?The argument that appointive officials who filed COCs may use their present position is discriminatory because it immediately presumes that the elective officials can not use their present positions,? he said.

?But it is very clear that incumbent senators running for president are already out of the field campaigning even before the start of the campaign period practically leaving their jobs as lawmakers. In the case of appointive officials, while they filed their COCs, they remain in their respective offices and cannot campaign without being charged of their official leave credits or being deducted of their salaries,? Macalintal said.

He continued, ?So, who is more in a position to use their positions? Why would the law be selective only on appointive officials, as if they are dishonest and only the elective officials are honest.?