Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 69 views

    Comelec Vs Conrado Cruz

    Uploaded by

    jci028
    This case involved the constitutionality of Section 2 of RA 9164, which imposed a three consecutive term limit on barangay elective officials. Some incumbent barangay officials claimed this violated the equal protection clause by singling them out. The Supreme Court ruled that the equal protection clause was not violated because the Constitution distinguishes between barangay officials and other local elective officials in terms of length of term and term limitations. Congress has the authority to determine these rules for barangay officials through legislation. The disparate treatment is allowed given the substantial distinctions recognized in the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Comelec Vs Conrado Cruz

    Uploaded by

    jci028
    69 views1 page
    This case involved the constitutionality of Section 2 of RA 9164, which imposed a three consecutive term limit on barangay elective officials. Some incumbent barangay officials claimed this violated the equal protection clause by singling them out. The Supreme Court ruled that the equal protection clause was not violated because the Constitution distinguishes between barangay officials and other local elective officials in terms of length of term and term limitations. Congress has the authority to determine these rules for barangay officials through legislation. The disparate treatment is allowed given the substantial distinctions recognized in the Constitution.

    Original Description:

    PUBcORP

    Original Title

    Comelec vs Conrado Cruz

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved the constitutionality of Section 2 of RA 9164, which imposed a three consecutive term limit on barangay elective officials. Some incumbent barangay officials claimed this violated the equal protection clause by singling them out. The Supreme Court ruled that the equal protection clause was not violated because the Constitution distinguishes between barangay officials and other local elective officials in terms of length of term and term limitations. Congress has the authority to determine these rules for barangay officials through legislation. The disparate treatment is allowed given the substantial distinctions recognized in the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    69 views1 page

    Comelec Vs Conrado Cruz

    Uploaded by

    jci028
    This case involved the constitutionality of Section 2 of RA 9164, which imposed a three consecutive term limit on barangay elective officials. Some incumbent barangay officials claimed this violated the equal protection clause by singling them out. The Supreme Court ruled that the equal protection clause was not violated because the Constitution distinguishes between barangay officials and other local elective officials in terms of length of term and term limitations. Congress has the authority to determine these rules for barangay officials through legislation. The disparate treatment is allowed given the substantial distinctions recognized in the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    COMELEC vs CONRADO CRUZ

    G.R. No. 186616 November 20, 2009


    FACTS:
    When RA 9164 entitled “An Act Providing for Synchronized Barangay and

    SangguniangKabataan Elections” was passed, questions of the constitutionality were raised

    against Section 2 which states that “No barangay elective official shall serve for more than 3

    consecutive terms in the same position: Provided however, that the term of office shall be

    reckoned from the 1994 barangay elections. Voluntary renunciation of office for any length of

    time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of service for the full term for

    which the elective official was elected.

    Before the 2007 SynchronizedBarangay andSK Elections, some of the then incumbent

    officials of severalbarangaysof Caloocan City filed with theRTC apetition for declaratory relief

    to challenge the constitutionality of the said provision as it is violative of the equal protection

    clause of the Constitution in as much as the barangay officials were singled out that there

    consecutive limit shall be counted retroactively.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the provision in Section 2 of RA 9164 is violative of the equal protection

    clause of the Constitution.

    RULING:
    The equal protection clause is under Sec 2 Art III of the Constitution which provides:

    “Nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” This is however considering

    equality under the same conditions and among persons similarly situated. The law can treat

    barangay officials differently from other local elective officials because the Constitution itself

    provides a significant distinction between these elective officials with respect to length of term

    and term limitation. The clear distinction, expressed in the Constitution itself, is that while the

    Constitution provides for a 3-year term and 3-term limit for local elective officials, it left the

    length of term and the application of the 3-term limit or any form of term limitation for

    determination by Congress through legislation. Not only does this disparate treatment recognize

    substantial distinctions, it recognizes as well that the Constitution itself allows a non-uniform

    treatment. No equal protection violation can exist under these conditions.

    You might also like