Scribd
Upload
402 views1 page

Constitutional Challenge to BP 52

Romeo B. Igot challenged the constitutionality of Section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52, which disqualified individuals from running for public office if they had committed acts of disloyalty to the state or if charges had been filed against them for such acts, even if they had not yet been convicted. The Supreme Court ruled that this section violated the constitutional presumption of innocence. Filing charges alone is not equivalent to guilt, and one cannot be condemned before being fully heard. The provision treated those charged and those convicted the same, which contradicts the presumption of innocence guaranteed in the Constitution.

Uploaded by

Daniela Sandra Agoot
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
402 views1 page

Constitutional Challenge to BP 52

Romeo B. Igot challenged the constitutionality of Section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52, which disqualified individuals from running for public office if they had committed acts of disloyalty to the state or if charges had been filed against them for such acts, even if they had not yet been convicted. The Supreme Court ruled that this section violated the constitutional presumption of innocence. Filing charges alone is not equivalent to guilt, and one cannot be condemned before being fully heard. The provision treated those charged and those convicted the same, which contradicts the presumption of innocence guaranteed in the Constitution.

Uploaded by

Daniela Sandra Agoot
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

DUMLAO VS.

COMELEC

G.R. No. L-52245, January 22, 1980


MELENCIO-HERRERA, J:

FACTS:

 Petitioner, Romeo B. Igot, in his capacity as a taxpayer, a qualified voter and a


member of the Bar who, as such, has taken his oath to support the Constitution
and obey the laws of the land, assails the validity of Section 4 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 52 which provides that:

"Any person who has committed any act of disloyalty to the State,
including acts amounting to subversion, insurrection, rebellion or other
similar crimes, shall not be qualified to be a candidate for any of the offices
covered by this Act, or to participate in any partisan political activity therein:

provided that a judgment of conviction for any of the aforementioned


crimes shall be conclusive evidence of such fact and

the filing of charges for the commission of such crimes before a civil court
or military tribunal after preliminary investigation shall be prima fascie evidence
of such fact.”

 Petitioner contends that it is violative of the constitutional presumption of


innocence guaranteed to an accused.

ISSUE:

WON Section 4 of BP Blg. 52 is violative of the constitutional presumption of


innocence guaranteed to an accused.

HELD:

YES. “Explicit is the constitutional provision that, in all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the
right to be heard by himself and counsel (Article IV, section 19, 1973 Constitution).
An accusation, according to the fundamental law, is not synonymous with guilt. The
challenged proviso contravenes the constitutional presumption of innocence, as a
candidate is disqualified from running for public office on the ground alone that
charges have been filed against him before a civil or military tribunal. It condemns
before one is fully heard. In ultimate effect, except as to the degree of proof, no
distinction is made between a person convicted of acts of dislotalty and one against
whom charges have been filed for such acts, as both of them would be ineligible to
run for public office. A person disqualified to run for public office on the ground that
charges have been filed against him is virtually placed in the same category as a
person already convicted of a crime with the penalty of arresto, which carries with it
the accessory penalty of suspension of the right to hold office during the term of the
sentence (Art. 44, Revised Penal Code).”

You might also like