Now we’re through with equal protection clause. In the constitution there are two provision respecting political equality Section 10 of article 19 with respect to the provision on elections candidates sunning for public office shall be free from any form of embarrassment and discrimination and under article 13 the same provisions respecting to social justice and economic equality the….. that protect the enhancement of the right to al the people with dignity in social, economic and political …. And remove …. By diffusing wealth and political power. These are the provisions in the constitution which somehow decreases political…. This case of dumlao vs COMELEC, speaks of disqualitfication of one of the candidates for puclic office for those persons who are charged with certain offenses. They are offenses relating to the national secutriy or crimes against the state. The provision of law in question hass been valid for equal protection considering that the persons charged are these of the same category as those persons already convicted. They argue that when a person is charged the person is supposed to be considered as at least presumed innocent. The SC in this case of dumlao stated that the case will be invalid as qualification to put those who are namely charged with the same class or category as those who are convicted. The SC however emphasized that the filing of a qualification is based on the dangerous tendency so to speak that people woud be disqualified simply because they are charged even if the charges would be false and malicious. Now if you compare this with the case of trillanes vs Pimentel…. (nagarecit si Ruhiel)

Elective offices have fixed terms and therefore they have to finish the term unlike in appointed offices, normally they don’t have fixed terms. Even the SC they do not have fixed terms. Other electoral commissioners have fixed terms but they are the exception. Does the public officer should not be made to abuse his office to seek for an elective position? For elective offices, that’s the nature of their office they are there to seek…. That’s why they are supposed to be classified differently. In fact, there is an old case before. In the case of iwamoto vs. … based on the section 66 and 67 of the omnibus election code. Section 66 and 67 provides that if you are an elective official and you file a COC for office other than your incumbent position or the vice presidency or presidency of the Philippines then you are considered to be resigned. Now iwamoto was a member of a lower house when he runs as speaker when congress was in recess iwamoto filed his COC for poisiotn of ARMM gov. when congress resumes session, his name was not called in the roll of attendance when the lower house resumes session. The speaker says that under the law, you are deemed resign even if you are in an elective position again elective officers before are covered with the … facto if you are running or filed a COC not with your incumbent position unless it is for president or vice president. During the presidency of ramos from 1992 – 1998 there was a new wave energy crisis, during the time of ramos, the tax has gone …. He tried to address that of electricity or power crisis. During his time there was this independent power producers. Where our electric poer distribution were so called privatized before you must have heard of transcom. NAPOCOR generates power then sends it to distributors – the local power distributors. Davao light, DASURECO and etc. there were no different players before the transmissions are from the government. The government regulated the power given to the distributors. When the electric power sector was liberalized then there it started … distribution now, before it was supposed to be NAPOCOR. Now we have the likes of aboitiz power. When ramos was president, the fort bonifacio was a military camp have

been sold and what is part of the ... park. When that was the situation before the offices when the elective officers when they are not able to attend the meeting in congress to pass all these important measure, there was a horse trading that they do not want ipso facto for elective official. So when the fair elections act of 2001 came about, the fair elections act liberalized the so called COMELEC… before. Before, when you run for public office there will be equal access of ….. the comelec spaces. You can only advertise your candidacy within this COMELEC spaces for what has been designated as COMELEC time. So there is 1 hour, all of you will get several seconds. Politicians would love that also. So the fair elections act of 2001 came about this was to liberalize what was limited substantially by COMELEC space before. So from the title fair elections act. There is a reasonable expectation that it has been provided there is, okay you can have this much wider time, your space so that was supposed to be the content of the fair elections act. What happens is in the repealing clause, congress included repealing the ipso facto designed for elective officials so since then under the elections act any elective official can file a COC for any office. If he runs, he lost, he still remains that was the effect of the fair elections act. That hass been tested by the SC, the SC said that it was a valid. This was brought about by how come elective officials not deemed resigned for any reason. They run for any position they are still considered incumbent. When you serve as an appointive official you do not serve based on the mandate of the electorates you serve based on the mandate of the appointee. You are supposed to have a security of tenure. Unlike for elective official who serves for fixed terms and may be removed by simply not be elected again. So there is supposed to be substantial…