Dimaporo Vs Mitra JR Digest
Dimaporo Vs Mitra JR Digest
Dimaporo Vs Mitra JR Digest
ISSUES:
1. Whether Section 67, Article 9, of BP Blg. 881 is operative under the present
Constitution?
2. Whether the respondent Speaker and/or Secretary CAN exclude the petitioner from the
rolls of the House of Reps, thereby preventing him from exercising his functions as
congressman, and depriving him of his rights and privileges as such?
HELD:
1. Yes. Sec. 67, Art. 9 of BP Blg 881 is still operative under the present Constitution, as the
voluntary act of resignation fall within the term “voluntary renunciation” of office enunciated
in Par. 2, Sec 7, Art 6 of the 1987 Constitution. Its constitutional basis remains written in the
1987 Constitution that once an elective official files a certificate of candidacy for another
office, he is deemed to have voluntarily cut short his tenure, not his term as expressed in Sec
7, Article 6 of the Constitution. Thus, even when the provisions concerning the shortening of
the terms of congressmen were omitted in the 1987 Constitution, the said issue is still
covered by Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution.
2. Petitoner’s filing of COC is an act of resignation and he is presumed to be aware of the
existing laws. The Speaker and/or Secretary of HR are/is authorized to exclude the petitioner
from the Roll of Members since they are the administrative heads who perform ministerial
functions including the removal of the petitioner’s name. The mere act of filing the COC for
another office produces automatically the permanent forfeiture of the elective position being
presently held and it is not necessary that the other position be actually held since the said
filing is an act of voluntary resignation.
DIMAPORO v. MITRA, JR. BP Blg. 881 – forfeiture or voluntary giving up of one’s tenure, due to the act
of filing of certificate of candidacy.
Term – legally mandated
Tenure – actual time
Forfeiture, expulsion, voluntary renunciation