MANILA, Philippines?What if a police director or Army commander in a province filed a certificate of candidacy (CoC) for governor on Dec. 1 to run in the May elections?

If he is not deemed resigned upon the filing of his CoC, he would continue to command hundreds, if not thousands, of armed men until the election period starts in late March next year, according to a justice of the Supreme Court.

?This is a disaster waiting to happen,? Associate Justice Antonio Carpio said in his dissent to the Supreme Court?s decision on Tuesday rendering unconstitutional the laws that hold appointed officials resigned when they file their CoCs.

?One can just imagine the anomaly, conflict and tension that will arise if the provincial director of the Philippine National Police, or the Philippine Army commander whose troops are stationed within the province, will file a certificate of candidacy for governor of the province,? Carpio said.

The dissenting magistrates found no violation of the Constitution?s equal protection clause in finding appointed officials resigned upon filing of their CoCs while elected officials continued to hold on to their posts until their terms expire.

Carpio joined Chief Justice Reynato Puno and four other members of the Supreme Court in disagreeing with the majority decision that found certain provisions of the Automated Election Law, the Omnibus Election Code and Commission on Elections (Comelec) Resolution No. 8678 unconstitutional.

Equal protection clause

The Supreme Court decision said the deemed-resigned provisions violated the Constitution?s equal protection clause.

It also found the classification brought by the distinction between elected and appointed officials ?not germane to the purpose of the law which is to preserve the integrity, efficiency and discipline of civil service.?

Puno, in his dissenting opinion, said the automatic resignation clause did not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

He added that it was consistent with existing laws and jurisprudence.

Puno said there was a ?rational justification? for excluding elected officials from the operation of the deemed-resigned provisions because of the mandate given by the electorate to these officials.

?Considering that elected officials are put in office by their constituents for a definite term, it may be justifiably said that they were excluded from the ambit of the deemed-resigned provisions in utmost respect for the mandate of the sovereign will of the people,? Puno said.

?In other words, complete deference is accorded to the will of the electorate that they be served by such officials until the end of the term for which they were elected. In contrast, there is no such expectation insofar as appointed officials are concerned,? he added.

US Supreme Court

Puno said the US Court of Appeals decision on Mancuso vs Taft?a 1973 ruling that struck down as unconstitutional a similar deemed-resigned provision?was overruled the same year by a US Supreme Court decision on US Civil Service Commission vs National Association of Letter Carriers.

?Thus, in the instant case, I respectfully submit that Section 13 of RA [Republic Act] 9369, which reiterates Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, is not violative of the equal protection clause,? Puno said.

The Chief Justice said it was clear that the deemed-resigned provisions ?substantially serve governmental interests.?

Free from coercion

These interests include efficient civil service faithful to the government and the people rather than to party, avoiding the danger of a powerful political machine and ensuring that employees advance on merits and that they be free from coercion and the prospect of favor from political activity, Puno said.

More than a century

?(These are) important enough to outweigh the nonfundamental right of appointive officials and employees to seek elective office,? he added.

Carpio said the automatic resignation clause had been around for already more than a century. The earliest law on the matter is Act No. 1582 or the first election law enacted by the Philippine Commission in 1907.

?The automatic resignation of appointive public officials upon the filing of certificate of candidacy has been in the statute books for more than 100 years,? Carpio said.

?Even this law allowed elective public officers who sought ?reelection? to hold on to their office, distinguishing them from appointive public officials who were not allowed to hold on to their office if they sought election,? he said.

Romulo Macalintal, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo?s lawyer, 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.

Appeal

Sen. Manuel ?Mar? Roxas II, vice presidential candidate of the Liberal Party, said the high court decision smacked of the kind of politics that Ms Arroyo and her administration allies were foisting on Filipinos since she took power more than eight years ago.

?We cannot allow this to happen. Government resources should not be used to advance one?s personal ambitions,? Roxas said.

He said he would consult with the party?s legal luminaries on the possibility of appealing the court decision.

Precursor of things to come

Nueva Ecija Rep. Edno Joson said the Supreme Court decision was proof that the tribunal had been compromised and that it was a ?precursor? of things to come after the President shall have stepped down.

The Supreme Court raised ?ethical? issues on the campaign trail, according to Comelec spokesperson James Jimenez.

Jimenez said the poll body was surprised that the court ruled in favor of appointed officials, ?considering that the law has been around for some time.? With reports from Gil C. Cabacungan Jr. and Kristine L. Alave