VETERAN election lawyer Romulo Macalintal yesterday asked the Supreme Court (SC) to declare as unconstitutional a resolution issued by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) allowing appointive officials to hold office while running as nominees of party-list groups.
Macalintal also asked the High Court to immediately issue a status quo ante order, temporary restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary injunction directing the Comelec to cease and desist from implementing Section 11, Rule II of Comelec Resolution No. 11045 issued on August 28 this year.
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.”
Macalintal said the implementation of the provision of the Comelec resolution will be a violation of the 1987 Constitution, specifically Section (4), Article IX-B, and existing jurisprudence which states that “no office or employee in the civil service shall engage directly or indirectly in any electioneering or partisan political activity.”
Aside from this, Macalintal warned that the Comelec resolution will also allow public appointive officials to facilitate the misuse of public funds to support partisan political activities.
The election lawyer said what is surprising behind the resolution is that the poll body has previously been consistent in its rule that “public appointive officials shall be considered ipso facto (by the fact itself) resigned from office and must vacate the same upon the filing of Certificates of Nomination and Acceptance of Nomination” in party-list elections, as shown in its previous resolutions.
“It is unbelievable that the Comelec would suddenly make a change of heart in the 2025 elections,” he said, adding that this also contradicts the 2010 ruling of the High Court which declared that any individual holding a public appointive office, including active members of the Armed Forces and employees in government-owned and controlled corporations, are considered ipso facto resigned upon filing of their certificates of candidacy.
“Section 11 of the assailed resolution departed from the clear spirit of the Constitution and its implementing laws, as interpreted in the February 2010 resolution in Quinto. Such departure is however unwarranted and may not stand in light of the prohibition under Section 2 (4), Article IX-B of the Constitution,” Macalintal said.
For these reasons, Macalintal said there is a need for the SC to invalidate the Comelec resolution.
