Farinas vs Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
147387,
December 10, 2003
Posted by Pius Morados on November 10, 2011
(Public Officer, Difference between appointive officials
and elective officials)
A petition was filed seeking the Court to declare
Facts: Section 14 of Republic Act No. 9006 (The Fair
Election Act), insofar as it expressly repeals Section
67 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (The Omnibus
Election Code) which provides:
SEC. 67. Candidates holding elective office. – Any
elective official, whether national or local, running for
any office other than the one which he is holding in a
permanent capacity, except for President and Vice-
President, shall be considered ipso facto resigned
from his office upon the filing of his certificate of
candidacy.
The petitioners assert that Section 14 of Rep. Act No.
9006 violates the equal protection clause of the
Constitution because it repeals Section 67 only of the
Omnibus Election Code, leaving intact Section 66
thereof which imposes a similar limitation to
appointive officials, thus:
SEC. 66.Candidates holding appointive office or
position. – Any person holding a public appointive
office or position, including active members of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines, and officers and
employees in government-owned or controlled
corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned
from his office upon the filing of his certificate of
candidacy.
Respondents contends that there is no violation of the
equal protection clause of the Constitution. Section
67 pertains to elective officials while Section 66
pertains to appointive officials. A substantial
distinction exists between these two sets of officials;
elective officials occupy their office by virtue of their
mandate based upon the popular will, while the
appointive officials are not elected by popular will.
Equal protection simply requires that all persons or
things similarly situated are treated alike, both as to
rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.
Issue: WON the repeal of Section 67 of the Omnibus
Election Code pertaining to elective officials gives
undue benefit to such officials as against the
appointive ones.
Held: No. Substantial distinctions clearly exist
between elective officials and appointive officials. The
former occupy their office by virtue of the mandate of
the electorate. They are elected to an office for a
definite term and may be removed therefrom only
upon stringent conditions. On the other hand,
appointive officials hold their office by virtue of their
designation thereto by an appointing authority. Some
appointive officials hold their office in a permanent
capacity and are entitled to security of tenure while
others serve at the pleasure of the appointing
authority.
Another substantial distinction between the two sets
of officials is that under Section 55, Chapter 8, Title
I, Subsection A. Civil Service Commission, Book V of
the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No.
292), appointive officials, as officers and employees in
the civil service, are strictly prohibited from engaging
in any partisan political activity or take part in any
election except to vote. Under the same provision,
elective officials, or officers or employees holding
political offices, are obviously expressly allowed to
take part in political and electoral activities.
Moreover, it is not within the power of the Court to
pass upon or look into the wisdom of this
classification. Hence, equal protection is not
infringed.
La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association, Inc. Vs Ramos
Natural Resources and Environmental Laws
G.R. No. 127882; January 27, 2004
FACTS:
This petition for prohibition and mandamus challenges the constitutionality of
Republic Act No. 7942 (The Philippine Mining Act of 1995), its implementing rules
and regulations and the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) dated
March 30, 1995 by the government with Western Mining Corporation(Philippines)
Inc. (WMCP).
Accordingly, the FTAA violated the 1987 Constitution in that it is a service contract
and is antithetical to the principle of sovereignty over our natural resources, because
they allowed foreign control over the exploitation of our natural resources, to the
prejudice of the Filipino nation.
ISSUE:
What is the proper interpretation of the phrase “Agreements involving Either
Technical or Financial Assistance” contained in paragraph 4, Section 2, Article XII
of the Constitution.
HELD:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Philippine Mining Law, its
implementing rules and regulations – insofar as they relate to financial and technical
agreements as well as the subject Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement.
Full control is not anathematic to day-to-day management by the contractor,
provided that the State retains the power to direct overall strategy; and to set aside,
reverse or modify plans and actions of the contractor. The idea of full control is
similar to that which is exercised by the board of directors of a private corporation,
the performance of managerial, operational, financial, marketing and other
functions may be delegated to subordinate officers or given to contractual entities,
but the board retains full residual control of the business.
