The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Cabinet members and other appointed public officials running in May 10, 2010 automated elections are considered resigned upon filing of their respective certificates of candidacy (CoCs) last November, reversing an earlier decision.

Voting 10-5, the High Court upheld the constitutionality of the three provisions in elections laws that deemed appointive officials automatically resigned once they filed their CoCs.

The ruling is a reversal of its December 1, 2009 decision allowing appointed government officials seeking election to stay in office even after the filing of CoCs and even during the campaign period. The voting then was 8-6.

Court Administrator and SC Spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said the SC en banc noted that “there was a valid distinction between appointive officials and elective officials and therefore the provisions in the law provides that appointive officials shall be deemed resigned.”

“Therefore, in the resolution of the court, appointive officials are now considered resigned from their appointive posts upon filing of their certificates of candidacy,” Marquez told a press conference.

Among the top appointive officials seeking positions in the May elections are Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera, Budget Secretary Rolando Andaya Jr., Agriculture Secretary Arthur Yap, and Presidential Management Staff Chief Hermogenes Esperon Jr., who are all running for Congress representing their respective districts in Batangas, Quezon province, Camarines Sur, Bohol, and Pangasinan, respectively.

Other Cabinet officials also seeking elective posts in this year’s elections are Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Raul Gonzalez and Secretary for External Affairs Eduardo Pamintuan, who are both running for mayor of Iloilo City and Angeles City, respectively.

Marquez said the reversal of SC ruling was “a result of the changes in the composition of the Court.”

He noted that former Associate Justice Minita Chico Nazario, one of the justices who voted in favor of the original decision, has retired while two new members have been appointed –Associate Justices Jose P. Perez and Jose C. Mendoza.

"It goes to show that justices themselves flip-flop and that is part of the judicial processes. Some members can change their minds on a motion for reconsideration,” Marquez told a press conference.

In a 44-page resolution penned by Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, the SC granted the motion for reconsideration filed by the Commission on Elections as well as the motion to intervene filed by Sen. Mar Roxas, former Senate President Franklin Drilon, and congressional candidate Tom Apacible.

The court ruled as constitutional Section 4(a) of the Comelec Resolution 8678, the second provision in the third paragraph of Section 13 of Republic Act 9369 or the Poll Automation Law and Section 66 of the Omnibus election Code.

It held that the subject provisions, which all deemed appointive officials automatically resigned once they filed their CoCs do not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

The court said the assailed original decision failed to consider a different threat to the government posed by the partisan potential of a large and growing bureaucracy: the danger of systematic abuse perpetuated by a “powerful political machine” that has amassed “the scattered powers of government workers’ so as to give itself and its incumbent workers an “unbreakable grasp on the reins of power.”

“In the case at bar, the probable harm to society in permitting incumbent appointive officials to remain in office, even as they actively pursue elective posts, far outweighs the less likely evil of having arguably protected candidacies blocked by the possible inhibitory effect of a potentially overly broad stature,” the court said.

Concurring with the Chief Justice are Associate Justices Conchita Carpio Morales, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad, Martin S. Villarama Jr., Perez and Mendoza. Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio wrote a separate concurring opinion. Associate Justices Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, who penned the assailed decision, wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by Associate Justices Renato C. Corona, Presbitero J. Velasco Jr., Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin.