G.R. No. L-52245
January 22, 1980
Facts
This case involved the constitutionality of Sec 4, BP Blg 52 which states that:
“SEC. 4. Special disqualification. — In addition to violation of Section 10 of Article XII of the Constitution and disqualifications mentioned in existing laws which are hereby declared as disqualifications for any of the elective officials enumerated in Section 1 hereof, any retired elective provincial, city or municipal official, who has received payment of the retirement benefits to which he is entitled under the law and who shall have been 65 years of age at the commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to be elected, shall not be qualified to run for the same elective local office from which he has retired.”
Briefly, the assailed section prohibits a retired public officer of 65 years of age from running for the same elective local office from which he has retired. The petitioner alleged that the provision is violates the constitutional guarantee of the equal protection of laws.
Issue
Whether or not the provision is unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause?
Held
No. The Constitution prohibits the denial to any person the equal protection of laws. However, such guarantee is subject to reasonable classification. If the groupings are based on reasonable and substantial differentiation, one class can be treated differently from other class. Reasonable classification must be:
- Based on substantial distinctions which make real differences
- Germane to the purpose of the law
- Not limited to existing conditions only
- Apply equally to each member of the same class
In this case, all the requisites for the reasonable classification which does not violate the equal protection clause is present.
First, there is substantial distinction since employees 65 years of age, have been validly classified differently from younger employees. Employees of 65 years of age are subject to compulsory retirement, while those of younger ages are not.
Second, the purpose of the law which is to allow the emergence of younger blood on local governments makes the classification germane to the purpose of the law. The classification in question being pursuant to that purpose, it cannot be considered invalid. Lastly, the third and fourth requisite was also satisfied.
Hence, Section 4 of BP Blg. 52 is constitutional and does not violate the equal protection clause.