Appointive officials deemed resigned once they join party list race — SC
The Supreme Court has issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against a Commission on Elections (Comelec) rule that allows appointed public officials to remain in office while running as party-list candidates.
“All parties are required to observe the status quo; public appointive officials are deemed resigned upon filing their certificate of candidacy,” Supreme Court spokesperson Camille Ting said in a press briefing on Tuesday.
The Supreme Court en banc issued the TRO, effective immediately, on the first day of filing certificates of candidacy (COCs) for the upcoming May 2025 elections.
The case stemmed from a petition by election lawyer Romulo Macalintal, who sought to nullify Section 11, Rule II of Comelec Resolution No. 11045 issued on Aug. 28 for being unconstitutional.
The provision states that “public officials who accept a nomination as a party-list representative may continue to hold office even after acceptance of their nomination.”
Undue advantage
Ting said the high court directed Comelec to submit its comment on Macalintal’s petition within a nonextendible period of 10 days from notice.
In his 28-page petition filed on Sept. 16, Macalintal argued that the rule violates Section 4, Article IX-B of the Constitution and established jurisprudence that prohibits civil service officers from engaging in electioneering or partisan political activities.
He pointed out that in previous elections, Comelec consistently required public appointive officials to resign from office upon filing their certificates of nomination and acceptance of nomination for party-list elections, as provided in its August 2021 Resolution No. 10717.
Unfair advantage
“It is unbelievable that the Comelec would suddenly have a change of heart for the 2025 elections,” Macalintal pointed out.
He further warned that if “the assailed rule of the Comelec, if not stopped by the Supreme Court, will open the floodgates for a number of high-ranking government officials to seek nomination as party-list nominees, giving them an unfair advantage in the political arena to the detriment of candidates not affiliated with the government.”
Prevailing jurisprudence
Macalintal cited the case of Quinto vs. Comelec, wherein a 2009 decision by the Supreme Court allowed public appointive officials to remain in office after filing their COCs.
“Realizing the evil effect of such ruling, the SC immediately reversed (its) decision in February 2010 and ruled that public appointive officials should be deemed resigned from office upon the filing of their COCs, which is still the existing jurisprudence on this issue,” Macalintal said.
Macalintal reminded the Comelec that it has been in the statute books for more than a decade that automatic resignation awaits appointive public officials upon filing their COCs.
‘Height of hypocrisy’
“While it may be argued that the candidates in party-list are the party-list groups themselves, it will be the height of hypocrisy to say that these public appointive officials who are nominees of party-list will not engage in electioneering or partisan political activity,” the lawyer said.
The mere filing of a Certificate of Acceptance of Nomination by such public official, according to Macalintal, was akin to the filing of a Certificate of Candidacy for an elective position “and it has been ruled that the filing of such certificate is already a partisan political activity because for sure these nominees will campaign for their election in Congress.”
