Dimaporo v. Mitra

Doctrine:
Nature: Petition for prohibition and certiorari

Background: Mohammad Ali Dimaporo was elected as the Representative for the Second
Legislative District of Lanao del Sur. Three years into his term, he filed with the COMELEC a
Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Regional Governor of the ARMM.
Petitoner: Mohammad Ali Dimaporo
Respondents: Hon. Ramon V. Mitra, Jr., and Hon. Camilo L. Sabio
Facts:
Upon filing with the COMELEC, the latter informed the Speaker and the Secretary of the
House of Representatives who then excluded the petitioners name from the Roll of
Members of the HOR pursuant to Sec. 67, Article IX of the Omnibus Election Code.
o Any elective official whether national or local running for any office other than
the one which he is holding in permanent capacity except for the President and
Vice-President shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon filing
of his certificate.
After losing in the elections, the petitioner expressed his intentions to resume
performing [his] duties and functions as elected Member of Congress.
Petitioner was barred and excluded from performing his duties and exercising his rights
and privileges as the duly elected qualified Congressman from his district.
Petitioner claims that he did not lose his seat as Congressman because Sec 67, Article IX
of BP Blg. 881 (Ominibus Election Code) because it is not operative under the present
constitution and thus inapplicable to the present members of Congress.
o He even claims that it is contrary to the present Constitution
o Petitioner points out that the term of office of members of HOR: Article XVIII Sec
2 of the Constitution
shall serve until noon of June 30, 1992.
o Also the grounds by which it can be shortened:
Sec. 13 Article VI: Forfeiture of his seat by holding any other office or
employment in government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
thereof, including government owned and controlled corporations or
subsidiaries.
Sec. 7, par. 2: Voluntary renunciation of office.
o He asserts expression unius est explusio alterius1and that him being dropped from
the rolls constituted a shortening of a Congressmans term of office not provided
for in the Constitution
The express mention of one thing excludes all others
o The administrative act of his name being struck down, according to the petitioner,
is ineffective: FILING OF A COC IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO HOLDING
ANOTHER OFFICE OR REQUIREMENT.
OSG:
o Voluntary renunciation of office is also enunciated in Sec. 7, Article VI of the
Constitution
o Filing a COC amounts to an act of resignation
Issue/s:
WON the petitioner can resume his term of office as a member of the House of Representatives
Held/Ratio: No.
BP Blg. 881 included members of the legislature in the enumeration of elective public officials
who are to be considered resigned from office from the moment of the filing of their certificates
of candidacy for another office. The authors of this legislation stated that the rationale is to
prevent past practice of getting elected and then, upon running for another office within their
term and winningdid not assume their former office. This was considered to be trifling with
the mandate of the people. As such, a Batasan Member (or a member of the legislative body)
should not be allowed to run for any other position unless he relinquishes or abandons his office
because that clearly shows the lack of intention to service the mandate of the people and
therefore should be considered ipso facto resigned.
The mere fact therefore of filing a certificate should be considered the overt act of abandoning or
relinquishing his office. It is not the mere intent that warrants the name being dropped from the
rolls, but the execution of such intent to abandon his office. This is in line with the accountability
of public officers. Public officers must serve their principal, the people, not their own personal
ambition.2
The statutory provision (Sec. 67 of Omnibus Election Code) seeks to ensure that officials serve
out their entire term, instead of shortening it.
Orbiter/Notes:
1. Term: the length of time the Constitution prescribes an official will hold office
2. Tenure: the amount of time the official is in office
3. Tenure may be extended or shortened, a term cannot
Sec. 1 Article XI: Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to
the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice,
and lead modest lives.

Dimaporo v. Mitra

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dimaporo v. Mitra

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dimaporo v. Mitra

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doctrine:

Nature: Petition for prohibition and certiorari

The express mention of one thing excludes all others

You might also like