There is an ongoing debate as to whether Senator Lito Lapid will be considered as having forfeited his Senate seat when he ran for Mayor of Makati City. Let me offer what I understood about this issue.Before the passage of Fair Election Act (Republic Act No. 9006), Sen. Lapid would have been considered as having forfeited his Senate seat. The Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881, Sec. 67) provides that :
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.
In the the landmark case of Dimaporo vs. Mitra (G.R. No. 96859, 15 October 1991), the Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of Speaker Mitras’ administrative act of erasing Ali Dimaporo name from the Roll of the House, pursuant to Sec. 67 of B.P. 881. The High Tribunal underscored the basic concept that a public office is a public trust - it is created for the interest and benefit of the people. As such, the holder thereof is subject to such regulations and conditions as the law may impose and he cannot complain of any restrictions which public policy may dictate on his office.
Sec. 67 of B.P. 881, however, was repealed by Sec. 14 of R.A. 9006, which was declared constitutional by no less than the Supreme Court in Farinas vs. Comelec (G.R. No. 152161, 10 December 2003). The SC said that Congress is not precluded from repealing Section 67 by the ruling of the Court in Dimaporo v. Mitra, upholding the validity of the provision and by its pronouncement in the same case that the provision has a laudable purpose. Over time, Congress may find it imperative to repeal the law on its belief that the election process is thereby enhanced and the paramount objective of election laws — the fair, honest and orderly election of truly deserving members of Congress — is achieved.
Incidentally, a number of legal luminaries, notable of whom is Justice Cruz, argued that the repeal of Sec. 67 of B.P. 881 by Sec. 14 of R.A. 9006 is not valid for being a mere rider in violation of Art. VI, Sec. 26 (1) of the Constitution providing that “every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.” The Fair Election Act deals only with political advertising, like TV commercials and election posters. It has nothing to do with forfeiture of original offices upon the filing of certificates of candidacy for different offices as provided for in Sec. 67.
Now, based on the discussion above, Sen. Lapid’s seat in the Senate was not forfeited when he filed his certificate of candidacy for Mayor of Makati City. Lapid, who must still be smarting from his stunning defeat, shall serve as a Senator until 2010, unless the constitutionality of Sec. 14 of Fair Election Act is challenged anew.
N.B. (Atty. Fred) The foregoing is solely the opinion of our contributor. Any other opinions, concurring or dissenting, are most welcome. When I tried to search for Justice Cruz’ argument that Sec. 14 is merely a rider, I also found an interesting article written earlier by Justice Cruz. The article reads in part:
I made a little research on Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa 881) to see if it has been amended or repealed by subsequent election laws, specifically the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987 (Republic Act 6646), the Congressional Elections Law of 1987 (Executive Order 134), the Supplemental Congressional Elections Law of 1987 (Executive Order 144), the Local Elections Law of 1988 (Republic Act 6636), the Synchronized Elections and Electoral Reforms Law of 1991 (Republic Act 7166), and the Fair Election Act of 2001 (Republic Act 9006). I included in my study the related Section 66 of the same Code.
If I was less than careful and missed some obscure laws that abrogated or amended the said sections, I suggest that the reader drop this article outright and devote his attention to something more worthwhile.
xxx
There is the amusing case of Sen. Lito Lapid, who has filed his certificate of candidacy for mayor of Makati City. Asked about his chances against the formidable Mayor Jejomar Binay, Lapid made the unpolitical but confident (if ignorant) remark that if he should lose, he could always return to the Senate. Section 67 is really good.”
The subsequent article of Justice Cruz reads in part:
If I was mistaken in supposing that Section 67 was still in force when I wrote that article the other Saturday, it has at least given me the opportunity to express regret over the demise of a praiseworthy law that deserved the support of the people. Based on the original Section 27 of the Revised Election Code that applied only to local officials, it was improved to include national officials as well. Regrettably, however, it has been repealed altogether, and surreptitiously at that.
So Lito Lapid can ride back to the Senate on his trusty horse when he loses to Mayor Jejomar Binay next month. Tuloy ang ligaya!
0 Responses to “Is Lito Lapid Still A Senator?”