I have quite good experience in submitting papers, but I have never met in journals' guidelines any statements about the possibility of indicating editors themselves as reviewers. I think the implicit rule nevertheless is that one should avoid doing so, since editors should make their objective decisions on the basis of opinions of "third parties" (reviewers unrelated to the editorial board). On the other hand, editors often choose reviewers themselves, so anyway if I choose to indicate the Editor-in-Chief, most probably he will find another reviewer. This question is particularly relevant in the case of narrowly-specialized journals, where there are simply not so many experts in the concrete topic I deal with, and the editor happens to be one of them.
In the journal where I am an associate editor, there is an unofficial policy that editors do not review. The reason for this is simple and pragmatic: if somebody is an editor, they are doing a whole bunch of work of the journal in that capacity. Asking them to review as well is double-duty, and the journal wants to spread the service load more broadly over the community.
Now, there are special cases where an editor will do a review, particularly when there is difficulty obtaining a sufficient number of qualified reviewers. In my experience, though, this is rarely due to difficulty finding people with sufficient knowledge to review, even in highly specialized fields. Instead, it is most likely to happen with a certain species of dreary borderline paper that is very badly presented but possibly salvageable---confronted with such a beast, reviewers suddenly all become "too busy at the present time" and an editor may end up having to review it themselves.
So, returning to your question: I would suggest not bothering to suggest an editor as a reviewer. If you have a choice to suggest a handling editor, that's fine, but your suggestion of editor as reviewer is likely to be simply ignored.