Jurisprudence on the 3-Term Rule

8/13/2019 Jurisprudence on the 3-Term Rule

1/48

CASE DIGESTS

(Of Supreme Court DecisionsOn the Three (3) Consecutive Term Rule on Local

Elective Officials)August 2!3 E"ition

Prepared by

ATTY. LARRY D. GACAYAN

Professor of Law

UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS

COLLEGE OF LAW

Baguio City

(POLITICALLAWREVIEW, CONSTITUTIONALLAWI, CONSTITUTIONALLAWII )

BAR REVIEWER

(Political Law & Constitutional Law)

C.P.R.S. BAR REVIEW CENTER

Cagayan de Oro City, Zamboanga City, Davao City, Ozamis City, Ioio City,

Baguio City,and !a"oban City,

POWERHAWS BAR REVIEW CENTER

Baguio City, #antiago City, Isabea, #an $ernando City, %a &nion, 'ania, aga

City, !a"oban City, Dioog City and !agbiaran City

COSMOPOLITAN REVIEW CENTER (CRC)

&niversity o* t+e Cordieras, Baguio City

ECELLENT BAR REVIEW CENTER

Baguio City, Cebu City and !a"oban City

HOLY TRINITY COLLE!E PRE"BAR REVIEW CENTER

enera #antos City


2/48

UNIVERSITY OF PAN!ASINAN BAR REVIEW CENTER

Daguan City

JURISPRUDENCE ON THE 3-TERM LIMIT OF LOCALGOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

(Section ! A"tic#e $! %&' Contit)tion*

NOTE: The Abundo case is very important because it summarizesand explains the differences of the seemingly conflicting decisionsof the Supreme Court insofar as the threeterm limit is concerned indifferent situations! "or a full understanding of the differentdoctrines# all the cases mentioned in Abundo are also discussedhereinbelo$!

!

MAYOR A+ELARDO A+UNDO.! SR. VS. COMELEC , ERNESTOVEGA! G.R. No. %'%/! JANUARY ! %3

In %! 0e 1on 2 M2o". In 4! 0i o55onent 12initi2## 5"oc#2i6e7 1inne" 8)t on P"otet! 0e 127ec#2"e7 M2o" in M2! / o 0e 12 28#e to e"9e% e2" o: 0i )55oe7 3-e2" te"6. In '! 0e 1on2;2in 2 M2o". M2 0e ")n :o" M2o" in t0e M2% e#ection 1it0o)t 9io#2tin; t0e 3-conec)ti9ete"6 ")#etant urispru"ence% the threeterm limit rule% as applie" to the "ifferent factualmilieus% has its complicate" si"e* e shall revisit an" anal&e the various hol"ings an" relevantpronouncements of the Court on the matter*

As is clearl& provi"e" in Sec* 8% Art* B of the Constitution as ,ell as in Sec* $3() of the L=C%voluntar& renunciation of the office & the incument elective local official for an& length of time shall7OT% in "etermining service for three consecutive terms% e consi"ere" an interruption in the continuit& ofservice for the full term for ,hich the elective official concerne" ,as electe"* +n Aldovino, Jr., ho,ever% theCourt state" the oservation that the la, "oes not textually state that voluntar& renunciation is the onlyactual interruption of service that "oes not affect Fcontinuit& of service for a full term. for purposes of thethreeterm limit rule*G

As stresse" in ocrates v. Commission on Elections%33 the principle ehin" the threeterm limitrule covers onl& consecutive terms an" that ,hat the Constitution prohiits is a consecutive fourth term*6ut a it "ifferentl&% an elective local official cannot% follo,ing his thir" consecutive term% see4 imme"iatereelection for a fourth term%3$ aleit he is allo,e" to see4 a fresh term for the same position after theelection ,here he coul" have sought his fourth term ut prevente" to "o so & reason of the prohiition*There has% in fine% to e a rea4 or interruption in the successive terms of the official after his or her thir"term* An interruption usuall& occurs ,hen the official "oes not see4 a fourth term% imme"iatel& follo,ingthe thir"* Of course% the asic la, is une5uivocal that a voluntary renunciationof t!e office for any len"t!of time s!all #OT be considered an interru$tion in t!e continuity of service for t!e full term for w!ic! t!eelective officialconcerned was elected*G This 5ualification ,as ma"e as a "eterrent against an electivelocal official inten"ing to s4irt the threeterm limit rule & merel& resigning efore his or her thir" termen"s* This is a voluntar& interruption as "istinguishe" from involuntar& interruption ,hich ma& e roughtaout & certain events or causes*

/


5/48

hile appearing to e seemingl& simple% the threeterm limit rule has engen"ere" a host of"isputes resulting from the var&ing interpretations applie" on local officials ,ho ,ere electe" an" serve"for three terms or more% ut ,hose terms or service ,as punctuate" & ,hat the& vie, as involuntar&interruptions% thus entitling them to a% ut ,hat their opponents perceive as a proscrie"% fourth term*+nvoluntar& interruption is claime" to result from an& of these events or causes; succession or assumptionof office & operation of la,% preventive suspension% "eclaration of the "efeate" can"i"ate as the ,innerin an election contest% "eclaration of the proclaime" can"i"ate as the losing part& in an election contest%proclamation of a noncan"i"ate as the ,inner in a recall election% removal of the official & operation ofla,% an" other analogous causes*

This rings us to an e>amination of situations an" urispru"ence ,herein such consecutive terms,ere consi"ere" or not consi"ere" as having een involuntarily interru$ted or bro%en.G

(%* A)65tion o: O::ice 8 O5e"2tion o: L21

+n %or&a# 'r! v! Commission on Elections and 'ose T! Capco# 'r! (%&&* 2n7 (ontebon v!Commission on Elections(28)% the Court "elve" on the effects of assum$tion to office by o$erationof lawG on the threeterm limit rule* This contemplates a situation ,herein an elective local official fills &succession a higher local government post permanentl& left vacant "ue to an& of the follo,ing

contingencies% i*e*% ,hen the suppose" incument refuses to assume office% fails to 5ualif&% "ies% isremove" from office% voluntaril& resigns or is other,ise permanentl& incapacitate" to "ischarge thefunctions of his office*

+n %or&a# 'r!!-ose T* Capco% -r* (Capco) ,as electe" vicema&or of 6ateros on -anuar& !8% !088for a term en"ing -une 3% !002* On Septemer 2% !080% Capco ecame ma&or% & operation of la,%upon the "eath of the incument ma&or% Cesar 9ora* Capco ,as then electe" an" serve" as ma&or forterms !002!00: an" !00:!008* hen Capco e>presse" his intention to run again for the ma&oralt&position "uring the !008 elections% 9enamin H* 9ora% -r*% ,ho ,as then also a can"i"ate for ma&or%sought Capco.s "is5ualification for violation of the threeterm limit rule*

#in"ing for Capco% the Court hel" that for the "is5ualification rule to appl&% it is not enough thatan in"ivi"ual has served three consecutive terms in an elective local office% he must also have een

elected to the same position for the same numer of times efore the "is5ualification can appl&*G There,as% the Court rule"% no violation of t!e t!ree&term limit, for Capco was not elected to t!e office of t!emayor in t!e first term but sim$ly found !imself t!rust into it by o$eration of lawG ,hen a permanentvacanc& occurre" in that office*

The Court arrive" at a parallel conclusion in the case of Montebon* There% /onteon ha" eenelecte" for three consecutive terms as municipal councilor of Tuuran% Ceu in !0082!% 2!2$%an" 2$2'*


6/48

pire" term of Tagarao until -une 2!* hen Talaga ran for ma&or in2!% his can"i"ac& ,as challenge" on the groun" he ha" alrea"& serve" as ma&or for three consecutiveterms for violation of the three termlimit rule* The Court hel" therein that the remain"er of Tagarao.s termafter the recall election "uring ,hich Talaga serve" as ma&or shoul" not e consi"ere" for purposes ofappl&ing the threeterm limit rule* The Court emphasie" that the continuityof Talaga)s mayorship$as disrupted by his defeat durin" t!e '(()elections*

A similar conclusion ,as reache" & the Court in ocrates* The petitioners in that case assaile"the CO/ELEC Resolution ,hich "eclare" E",ar"


7/48

In &! in t0e c2e Aldovino 'r!! the Court espouse" the "octrine that the 5e"io7 7)"in;10ic0 2 #oc2# e#ecte7 o::ici2# i )n7e" 5"e9enti9e )5enion c2nnot 8e coni7e"e7 2 2ninte"")5tion o: t0e contin)it o:0i e"9ice* The Court e>plaine" ,h& so;

Strict a"herence to the intent of the threeterm limit rule "eman"sthat preventive suspension shoul" not e consi"ere" an interruption thatallo,s an elective official.s sta& in office e&on" three terms* A5"e9enti9e )5enion c2nnot i65# 8e 2 te"6 inte"")5tion 8ec2)et0e )5en7e7 o::ici2# contin)e to t2 in o::ice 2#t0o);0 0e i 82""e7:"o6 e@e"ciin; t0e :)nction 2n7 5"e"o;2ti9e o: t0e o::ice 1it0in t0e)5enion 5e"io7* T!e best indicator of t!e sus$ended official+scontinuity in office is t!e absence of a permanent replacement andt!e lac+ of the authority to appoint one since no vacancy exists*$$

(* E#ection P"otet

ith regar" to the effects of an election protest visKvis the threeterm limit rule% urispru"encepresents a more "iffering picture* The Court.s pronouncements in Lonanida v. Commission on Elections(!000)% On" v.Ale"re(21)% /ivera 000 v. Commission on Elections(2') an" 1ion v.Commission on

Elections (20)% all protest cases% are illuminating*

+n Lonanida% Romeo Lonani"a ,as electe" an" ha" serve" as municipal ma&or of San Antonio%amales in terms !080!002% !002!00: an" !00:!008* ecution itissue"* Lonani"a.s opponent assume" office for the remain"er of the term* +n the /a& !008 elections%Lonani"a again file" his certificate of can"i"ac&* pire"* The Court further reasone";

2


8/48

6etitioner I#rancis Ong.sJ contention that he ,as onl& a presumptive,inner in the !008 ma&oralt& "er& as his proclamation ,as un"er protest didnot ma%e !im less t!an a duly elected mayor* Hiproclamation 2 t0e 7)#e#ecte7 62o" in t0e %&& 62o"2#t e#ectioncoupled by his assumption ofoffice 2n7 0i continuous exercise of the functions t0e"eo: from start tofinish of the term! should legally be ta+en as service for a full term incontemplation of the threeterm rule!The asur"it& an" the "eleterious effectof a contrar& vie, is not har" to "iscern* Such contrar& vie, ,oul" mean that

Alegre ,oul" M un"er the threeterm rule e considered as !avin" served aterm by virtueof a veritably meanin"less electoral $rotest rulin", w!en anot!eractuallyserved suc! term pursuant to a proclamation ma"e in "ue course afteran election*

The Court "i" not appl& the ruling in Lonanida an" rule" that the case of Ong ,as different% to,it;

The "ifference et,een the case at ench an" Lonani"a is atonce apparent* #or one% in Lonanida, t!e result of t!e mayoraltyelection was declared a nullity for t!e stated reason of 6failure ofelection6% an"% as a conse5uence thereof% the proclamation of Lonani"a

as ma&orelect ,as nullifie"% follo,e" & an or"er for him to vacate theoffice of ma&or* #or another% Lonanida did not fully serve t!e '((7&'(()mayoral term, t!ere bein" an involuntary severance from office as aresult of le"al $rocesses* +n fine% there ,as an effective interruption of thecontinuit& of service*

On".s slight "eparture from Lonanida ,oul" later fin" reinforcement in the consoli"ate" cases of

/ivera 000 v. Commission on Elections:3 an" 1ee v. Morales* Therein% /orales ,as electe" ma&or of/aalacat% 6ampanga for the follo,ing consecutive terms; !00:!008% !0082! an" 2!2$* +nrelation to the 2$ elections% /orales again ran as ma&or of the same to,n% emerge" as garnering themaorit& votes an" ,as proclaime" elective ma&or for term commencing -ul& !% 2$ to -une 3% 2'* Apetition for 5uo ,arranto ,as later file" against /orales pre"icate" on the groun" that he is ineligile torun for a fourthG term% having serve" as ma&or for three consecutive terms* +n his ans,er% /orales

averre" that his suppose" !008 2! term cannot e consi"ere" against him% for% although he ,asproclaime" & the /aalacat oar" of canvassers as electe" ma&or visKvis the !008 elections an""ischarge" the "uties of ma&or until -une 3% 2!% his proclamation ,as later nullifie" & the RTC of

Angeles Cit& an" his closest rival% Anthon& Dee% proclaime" the "ul& electe" ma&or* 6ursuing his point%/orales parla&e" the i"ea that he onl& serve" as a mere careta4er*

The Court foun" /orales. posture untenale an" hel" that the case of /orales presents a factualmilieu similar ,ith On", not ,ith Lonanida. #or nease of reference% the proclamation of #rancis Ong% inOn"% ,as nullifie"% ut after he% li4e /orales% ha" serve" the three&ear term from the start to the en" ofthe term* cee"e" the threeterm limit rule% to wit;


9/48

+n a relate" 20 case of 1ion v. Commission on Elections% the Court ,oul" again fin" the same/a&or /orales as respon"ent in a "is5ualification procee"ing ,hen he ran again as a ma&oralt&can"i"ate "uring the 2' elections for a term en"ing -une 3% 2!* pire"portion of the term of the replace" official cannot e treate" as one full term as contemplate"un"er the suect constitutional an" statutor& provision that service cannot e counte" in theapplication of an& term limit (2or3a, Jr.)* +f the official runs again for the same position he hel"prior to his assumption of the higher office% then his succession to sai" position is & operation ofla, an" is consi"ere" an involuntar& severance or interruption (Montebon)*

2* An elective official% ,ho has serve" for three consecutive terms an" ,ho "i" not see4 the electiveposition for ,hat coul" e his fourth term% ut later ,on in a recall election% ha" an interruption inthe continuit& of the official.s service* #or% he ha" ecome in the interim% i*e*% from the en" of the3r" term up to the recall election% a private citien (Adormeo an" ocrates)*

3* The aolition of an elective local office "ue to the conversion of a municipalit& to a cit& "oes not%& itself% ,or4 to interrupt the incument official.s continuit& of service (Latasa)*

$* 6reventive suspension is not a terminterrupting event as the elective officer.s continue" sta& an"entitlement to the office remain unaffecte" "uring the perio" of suspension% although he is arre"from e>ercising the functions of his office "uring this perio" (Aldovino, Jr.)*

:* hen a can"i"ate is proclaime" as ,inner for an elective position an" assumes office% his term isinterrupte" ,hen he loses in an election protest an" is ouste" from office% thus "isenaling himfrom serving ,hat ,oul" other,ise e the une>pire" portion of his term of office ha" the protesteen "ismisse" (Lonanida an" 1ion)* The rea4 or interruption nee" not e for a full term ofthree &ears or for the maor part of the 3&ear term? an interruption for an& length of time% provi"e"

the cause is involuntar&% is sufficient to rea4 the continuit& of service (ocrates% citingLonanida)*

1* hen an official is "efeate" in an election protest an" sai" "ecision ecomes final after sai"official ha" serve" the full term for sai" office% then his loss in the election contest does notconstitute an interruption since he has manage" to serve the term from start to finish* piration of the term (On" an" /ivera)*

Aun"o argues that the RTC an" the CO/ELEC erre" in uniforml& ruling that he ha" alrea"&

serve" three consecutive terms an" is% thus% arre" & the constitutional threeterm limit rule to run for thecurrent 2!2!3 term* +n gist% Aun"o arguments run thusl&;

4


10/48

!* Aldovino, Jr* is not on all fours ,ith the present case as the former "ealt ,ithpreventive suspension ,hich "oes not interrupt the continuit& of service of a term?

2*Aldovino, Jr* recognies that the term of an electe" official can e interrupte" so as toremove him from the reach of the constitutional threeterm limitation?

3* The CO/ELEC misinterprete" the meaning of termG inAldovino, Jr* & its reliance ona mere portion of the Decision an" not on the unifie" logic in the "is5uisition?

$* Of appropriate governance in this case is the hol"ing in Lonanida an" /ivera 000 v.Commission on Elections.

:* The CO/ELEC misse" the point ,hen it rule" that there ,as no interruption in theservice of Aun"o since ,hat he consi"ere" as an interruptionG of his 2$2' termoccurre" efore his term starte"? an"

1* To rule that the term of the protestee (Torres) ,hose proclamation ,as a"u"ge"invali" ,as interrupte" ,hile that of the protestant (Aun"o) ,ho ,as eventuall&proclaime" ,inner ,as not sointerrupte" is at once asur" as it is illogical*

9oth respon"ents ega an" the CO/ELEC counter that the ratio decidendi ofAldovino, Jr* fin"s

application in the instant case* TheCO/ELEC rule" that Aun"o "i" not lose title to the office as hisvictor& inthe protest case confirme" his entitlement to sai" office an" he ,as onl& unale to temporaril&"ischarge the functions of the office "uring the pen"enc& of the election protest*e note that this presentcase of Aun"o "eals ,ith the effects of anelection protest% for ,hich the rulings in Lonanida% On"%/ivera an" 1ion appear to e more attune" than the case ofAldovino Jr., the interruptingneffects of theimposition of a preventive suspension eing the ver& lis mota in theAldovino, Jr. case* 9ut ust the same%e fin" thatAbundo)s casepresents a different factual bac+drop!

Hnli4e in the aovementione" election protest cases ,herein the in"ivi"uals suect of "is5ualification,ere candidates w!o lost in the election protest an" each "eclare" loser "uring the elections% Abundo$asthe $inner during the election protest and $as declared the rightful holderof the mayoralty

post! Hnli4e /a&or Lonani"a an" /a&or /orales% ,ho ,ere oth unseate" to,ar" the en" of theirrespective terms% Abundo $as the protestant $ho ousted his opponent and had assumed theremainder ofthe term.

7ot,ithstan"ing% e still fin" this Court.s pronouncements in the past as instructive% an" consi"erseveral "octrines estalishe" from the !008 case of 2or3a, Jr. up to the most recent case ofAldovino Jr.in 20% as potent ai"s in arriving at this Court.s conclusion* The intention ehin" the threeterm limit rule,as not onl& to abro"ate t!e =mono$oliation of $olitical $ower> an" $revent elected officials frombreedin" =$ro$rietary interest in t!eir $osition>1 ut also to =en!ance t!e $eo$le+s freedom of c!oice*>+nthe ,or"s of -ustice icente * /en"oa% ,hile people shoul" e protecte" from the evils that amonopol& of po,er ma& ring aout% care shoul" e ta4en that their free"om of choice is not un"ul&curtaile"*G

+n the present case% the Court fin"s Aun"o.s case meritorious an" "eclares that the t$oyearperiod during $hich his opponent# Torres# $as serving as mayor should be considered as aninterruption# $hicheffectively removed Abundo)s case from the ambit of the threeterm limitrule!

+t ears to stress at this uncture that Aun"o% for the 2$ election for the term starting -ul& !%2$ to -une 3% 2'% ,as the "ul& electe" ma&or* Other,ise ho, e>plain his victor& in his electionprotest against Torres an" his conse5uent proclamation as "ul& electe" ma&or* Accor"ingl&% the firstnre5uisite for the application of the "is5ualification rule ase" on the threeterm limit that the official haseen electe" is satisfie"*

This thus rings us to the secon" re5uisite of ,hether or not Aun"o ha" serve" for threeconsecutive terms%G as the phrase is uri"icall& un"erstoo"% as ma&or of iga% Catan"uanes imme"iatel&efore the 2! national an" local elections* Susume" to this issue is of course the 5uestion of ,hether

56


11/48

or not there ,as an effective involuntar& interruption "uring the three three&ear perio"s% resulting in the"isruption of the continuit& of Aun"o.s ma&oralt&*

The facts of the case clearl& point to an involuntar& interruption "uring the -ul& 2$-une 2'term* There can e no 5uiling that% "uring the term 2$2'% an" ,ith the enforcement of the"ecision of the election protest in his favor% Aun"o assume" the ma&oralt& post onl& on /a& 0% 21 an"serve" the term until -une 3% 2' or for a perio" of a little over one e2" 2n7 one 6ont0*Conse5uentl&% unli4e /a&or Ong in On" an" /a&or /orales in /ivera% it cannot e sai" that /a&or

Aun"o ,as ale to serve fully the entire 2$ 2' term to ,hich he ,as other,ise entitle"* A term%Gas "efine" inA$$ari v. Court of A$$eals% means% in a legal sense% a fi>e" an" "efinite perio" of time,hich the la, "escries that an officer ma& hol" an office*G +t also means the time "uring ,hich theofficer ma& claim to hol" office as a matter of right% an" fi>es the interval after ,hich the severalincuments shall succee" one another*G +t is the perio" of time "uring ,hich a "ul& electe" official has titleto an" can serve the functions of an elective office* #rom paragraph (a) of Sec* $3% RA '!1%11 the termfor local electe" officials is three (3) &ears starting from noon of -une 3 of the first &ear of sai" term*

+n the present case% durin" t!e $eriod of one year and ten mont!s% or from -une 3% 2$ until/a& 8% 21% A8)n7o c2nnot 5#2)i8# c#2i6!e9en i: 0e 12nte7 to! t02t 0e co)#7 0o#7 o::ice o: t0e62o" 2 2 62tte"o: "i;0t. Neit0e" c2n 0e 2e"t tit#e to t0e 26e no" e"9e t0e :)nction o:t0e2i7 e#ecti9e o::ice. The reason is simple; "uring that perio"% title to hol" such office an" the

correspon"ing right to assume the functions thereof still elonge" to his opponent% as proclaime" election,inner* Accor"ingl&% Aun"o actuall& hel" the office an" e>ercise" the functions as ma&or onl& upon his"eclaration% follo,ing the resolution of the protest% as "ul& electe" can"i"ate in the /a& 2$ elections orfor onl& a little over one &ear an" one month* Conse5uentl&% since the legall& contemplate" full term forlocal electe" officials is three (3) &ears% it cannot e sai" that Aun"o full& serve" the term 2$2'*The realit& on the groun" is that Aun"o actuall& serve" less*

7ee"less to stress% the almost t,o&ear perio" "uring ,hich Aun"o.s opponent actuall& serve"as /a&or is an" ought to e consi"ere" an involuntar& interruption of Aun"o.s continuit& of service* Aninvoluntar& interrupte" term% cannot% in the conte>t of the "is5ualification rule% e consi"ere" as one te"6for purposes of counting the threeterm threshol"* The notion of :)## e"9ice o: t0"ee conec)ti9e te"6is relate" to the concepts of inte"")5tion o: e"9ice an" 9o#)nt2" "en)nci2tion o:e"9ice* The ,or"inte"")5tion means temporar& cessation% intermission or suspension* To interrupt is to ostruct% th,art or

prevent* hen the Constitution an" the L=C of !00! spea4 of inte"")5tion! the reference is to theostruction to the continuance of the service & the concerne" electe" official & effectivel& cutting shortthe service of a term or giving a hiatus in the occupation of the elective office* On the other han"% the,or" renunciationG connotes the i"ea of ,aiver or aan"onment of a 4no,n right* To renounce is to "iveu$, abandon, decline or resi"n* oluntar& renunciation of the office & an elective local official ,oul" thusmean to give up or aan"on the title to the office an" to cut short the service of the term the concerne"electe" official is entitle" to*

+t must e stresse" that involuntar& interruption of service ,hich urispru"ence "eems ane>ception to the threeterm limit rule% implies that the service of the te"6 02 8e;)n 8e:o"e it 12inte"")5te7*


12/48

Therefore ,e cannot suscrie to the argument that since respon"ent Aun"o serve" onl& a portion ofthe term% his 2$2' termG shoul" not e consi"ere" for purposes of the application of the three termlimit rule* hen the framers of theConstitution "rafte" an" incorporate" the three term limit rule% it is clear that reference is to the term% notthe actual length of the service the pulic official ma& ren"er* Therefore% one.s actual service of term nomatter ho, long or ho, short is immaterial*

+n fine% the CO/ELEC rule" against Aun"o on the theor& that the length of the actual service ofthe term is immaterial in his case as he wasonly tem$orarily unable to disc!ar"e !is functions as mayor.The CO/ELEC.s case "isposition an" its heav& reliance onAldovino,Jr. "o not commen" themselves forconcurrence* The Court cannot simpl& fin" its ,a& clear to un"erstan" the poll o"&.s "etermination t!at

Abundo was only tem$orarily unable to disc!ar"e !is functions as mayor durin" t!e $endency of t!eelection $rotest.

As previousl& state"% the "eclaration of eing the ,inner in an election protest grants the localelecte" official the right to serve the une>pire" portion of the term* eril&% ,hile he ,as "eclare" ,inner inthe protest for the ma&oralt& seat for the 2$2' term% Aun"o.s full term has een sustantiall&re"uce" & the actual service ren"ere" & his opponent (Torres)* ercise the functions of an elective office means% thus; On the other han"% temporar&inailit& or "is5ualification to e>ercise the functions of an elective post% even if involuntar&% shoul" not econsi"ere" an effective interruption of a term ecause it "oes not involve the #o o: tit#e to o::ice or 2t#e2t 2n e::ecti9e 8"e2 :"o60o#7in; o::ice? the office !older, w!ile retainin" title, is sim$ly barredfrom

exercisin" t!e functions of !is office for a reason $rovided by law. e rule that t0e 28o9e5"ono)nce6ent on 5"e9enti9e )5enion7oe not 255# to t0e int2nt c2e. eril&% it is erroneousto sa& that Aun"o merel& ,as temporaril& unale or "is5ualifie" to e>ercise the functions of an electivepost* #or one% "uring the intervening perio" of almost t,o &ears% rec4one" from the start of the 2$2'term% A8)n7oc2nnot 8e 2i7 to 029e "et2ine7 tit#e to t0e 62o"2#t o::ice 2 0e 12 2tt02t ti6enot t0e 7)# 5"oc#2i6e7 1inne" ,ho ,oul" have the legal right to assume an" serve such electiveoffice* #or another% not having een "eclare" ,inner &et% A8)n7o c2nnot 8e 2i7 to 029e #ot tit#e tot0e o::iceince one c2nnot 5#2)i8# #oe 2 tit#e 10ic0! in t0e :i"t 5#2ce! 0e 7i7 not029e. Thus% forall intents an" purposes% even if the elate" "eclaration in the election protest accor"s him title to theelective office from the start of the term% Aun"o ,as not entitle" to the elective office until the electionprotest ,as finall& resolve" in his favor*

Conse5uentl&% there $as a hiatus of almost t$o years % consisting of a rea4 an" effective

interruption of his service% until he assume" the office an" serve" arel& over a &ear of the remainingterm* At this uncture% e oserve the apparent similarities of /a&or Aun"o.s case ,ith the cases of/a&or Talaga in Adormeo an" /a&or


13/48

As aptl& state" in Latasa% to e consi"ere" as interruption of service% the la, contemplates a restperio" "uring ,hich t!e local elective official ste$s down from office and ceases to exercise $ower oraut!ority over t!e in!abitants of t!e territorial 3urisdiction of a $articular local "overnmentunit*G Appl&ingthe sai" principle in the present case% there is no 5uestion that "uring the pen"enc& of the electionprotest% A8)n7o ce2e7 :"o6 e@e"ciin; 5o1e" o" 2)t0o"it over the goo" people of iga%Catan"uanes* Conse5uentl&% the perio" "uring ,hich Aun"o ,as not serving as ma&or shoul" econsi"ere" as a rest perio" or rea4 in his service ecause% as earlier state"% prior to the u"gment in theelection protest% it ,as Aun"o.s opponent% Torres% ,ho ,as e>ercising such po,ers & virtue of the stillthen vali" proclamation*

As a final note% e reiterate that Aun"o.s case "iffers from other cases involving the effects ofan election protest ecause ,hile Aun"o ,as% in the final rec4oning% t!e winnin" candidate% 0e 12 t0eone 7e5"i9e7 o:0i "i;0t 2n7 o55o"t)nit to e"9e 0i contit)ent. To a certain e>tent% Aun"o ,asa victim of an imperfect election s&stem* hile a"mitte"l& the Court "oes not possess the man"ate toreme"& such imperfections% the Constitution has clothe" it ,ith enough authorit& to estalish a fortressagainst the inustices it ma& ring*

+n this regar"% e fin" that 2 cont"2" ")#in; 1o)#7 1o" 7262;e 2n7 c2)e ;"29e in)ticeto A8)n7oMMan electe" official ,ho ,aselate"l& "eclare" as the ,inner an" assume" office for onl& ashort perio" of the term* +f in the cases of Lonanida an" 1ion% this Court rule" in favor of a losing

can"i"ateMMor the person ,ho ,as a"u"ge" not legall& entitle" to hol" the conteste" pulic office uthel" it an&,a&MMe fin" more reasonto rule in favor of a ,inning can"i"ateprotestant ,ho% & popularvote%"eserves title to the pulic office ut ,hose opportunit& to hol" the same ,as halte" & an invali"proclamation*

Also% more than the inustice that ma& e committe" against Aun"o is the inustice that ma&li4e,ise e committe" against the people of iga% Catan"uanes & "epriving them of their right to choosetheir lea"ers* Li4e the framers of the Constitution% e ear in min" that e cannot arro"ate untoourselves t!e ri"!t to decide w!at t!e $eo$le wantG an" hence% shoul"% as much as possile% allow t!e

$eo$le to exercise t!eir own sense of $ro$ortion and rely on t!eir own stren"t! to curtail t!e $ower w!enitoverreac!es itself*G #or "emocrac& "ra,s strength from the choice the people ma4e ,hich is the samechoice e are li4e,ise oun" to protect*

6etitioner Aelar"o Aun"o% Sr* is DECLARED ELIGI+LE for the position of /a&or of iga%Catan"uanes to ,hich he ,as "ul& electe" in the /a& 2! elections an" is accor"ingl& or"ere"IMMEDIATELYREINSTATED to sai" position*

This Decision is imme"iatel& e>ecutor&*

2

RAYMUNDO M. ADORMEO vs!COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS 2n7RAMON Y. TALAGA! JR.! G.R. No. %4'&'. Fe8")2" 4!

-n the .//0 elections# Talaga $on as (ayor of

*ucena City! -n .//1# he $on again! -n the .//2elections# he lost to Tagarao but in the recallelections of (ay .0# 0333# he $on and served foralmost . year as (ayor! (ay he run for (ayor againin the 033. elections4

6etitioner an" private respon"ent ,ere the onl& can"i"ates ,ho file" their certificates ofcan"i"ac& for ma&or of Lucena Cit& in the /a& !$% 2! elections* 6rivate respon"ent ,as then theincument ma&or*

5.


14/48

6rivate respon"ent Talaga% -r* ,as electe" ma&or in /a& !002* ceptaranga& officials% ,hich shall e "etermine" & la,% shall ethree &ears an" no such official shall serve for more than threeconsecutive terms* oluntar& renunciation of the office for an&length of time shall not e consi"ere" as an interruption in thecontinuit& of his service for the full term for ,hich he ,as electe"*

6rivate respon"ent respon"e" that he ,as not electe" Cit& /a&or for three (3) consecutive termsut onl& for t,o (2) consecutive terms*


15/48

>2 5"i92te "e5on7ent 7i)2#i:ie7 to ")n :o" 62o" o: L)cen2 Cit in t0e M2 %4! %e#ection< T0i i)e 0in;e on 10et0e"! 2 5"o9i7e7 8 t0e Contit)tion! 0e 027 2#"e27e"9e7 t0"ee conec)ti9e te"6 in t02t o::ice.

6etitioner conten"s that private respon"ent ,as "is5ualifie" to run for cit& ma&or & reason of thethreeterm rule ecause the une>pire" portion of the term of office he serve" after ,inning a recall

election% covering the perio" /a& !2% 2 to -une 3% 2! is consi"ere" a full term*


16/48

electe" for three consecutive terms in the same local government postan" 2) that he has full& serve" three consecutive terms*

Accor"ingl&% CO/ELEC.s ruling that private respon"ent ,as not electe" for three (3) consecutiveterms shoul" e uphel"* #or nearl& t,o &ears he ,as a private citien* The continuit& of his ma&orship,as "isrupte" & his "efeat in the !008 elections*

6atentl& untenale is petitioner.s contention that CO/ELEC in allo,ing respon"ent Talaga% -r* torun in the /a& !008 election violates Article B% Section 8 of !08' Constitution* To olster his case%respon"ent a"verts to the comment of #r* -oa5uin 9ernas% a Constitutional Commission memer% statingthat in interpreting sai" provision that if one is electe" representative to serve the une>pire" term ofanother% that une>pire"% no matter ho, short% ,ill e consi"ere" one term for the purpose of computingthe numer of successive terms allo,e"G*

As pointe" out & the CO/ELEC en banc% #r* 9ernas. comment is pertinent onl& to memers ofthe ILFREDO ASILO! G.R. No. %43/! Dece68e" 3!

&

Asilo $as elected City Councilor of *ucena City inthe .//2# 033. and 0335 elections! %ut during histerm 'une 63# 0335 up to 'une 63# 0337# he $as

preventively suspended by the Sandiganbayan for/3 days in connection $ith a pending criminal casetherein! (ay he run again for Councilor in the (ay0337 elections4

51
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jul99/135150.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jul99/135150.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jul99/135150.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jul99/135150.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jul99/135150.htm


17/48

The respon"ent ilfre"o #* Asilo (Asilo) ,as electe" councilor of Lucena Cit& for threeconsecutive terms; for the !0082!% 2!2$% an" 2$2' terms% respectivel&* +n Septemer2: or "uring his 2$2' term of office% the San"igana&an preventivel& suspen"e" him for 0 "a&sin relation ,ith a criminal case he then face"* T!is Court, !owever, subsequently lifted t!eandi"anbayan+s sus$ension order? !ence, !e resumed $erformin" t!e functions of !is office andfinis!ed !is term.

+n the 2' election% Asilo file" his certificate of can"i"ac& for the same position* The petitionersSimon 9* Al"ovino% -r*% Danilo 9* #aller% an" #er"inan" 7* Talaong sought to "en& "ue course to

Asilo.s certificate of can"i"ac& or to cancel it on the groun" that he ha" een electe" an" ha" serve" forthree terms? his can"i"ac& for a fourth term therefore violate" the threeterm limit rule un"er Section 8%

Article B of the Constitution an" Section $3() of RA '!1*

The CO/ELEC.s Secon" Division rule" against the petitioners an" in Asilo.s favour in itsResolution of 7ovemer 28% 2'* +t reasone" out that the threeterm limit rule "i" not appl&% as Asilofaile" to ren"er complete service for the 2$2' term ecause of the suspension the San"igana&anha" or"ere"*

The CO/ELECen banc refuse" to reconsi"er the Secon" Division.s ruling in its Octoer '% 28

Resolution? hence% the 6RESE7T 6ET+T+O7raising the follo,ing +SSHES;

%. >0et0e" 5"e9enti9e )5enion o: 2n e#ecte7 #oc2# o::ici2# i 2ninte"")5tion o: t0e t0"ee-te"6 #i6it ")#e 2n7

. >0et0e" 5"e9enti9e )5enion i coni7e"e7 in9o#)nt2" "en)nci2tion2 conte65#2te7 in Section 43(8* o: RA '%/

+n short% the case raises the "irect issue of ,hether Asilo.s preventive suspension constitute" aninterruption that allo,e" him to run for a $thterm*

THE COURTBS RULING

T0e 5etition i 6e"ito"io).

The present case is not the first efore this Court on the threeterm limit provision of theConstitution% ut is the first on the effect of preventive suspension on the continuit& of an electiveofficial.s term* To e sure% preventive suspension% as an interruption in the term of an electivepulic official% has een mentione" as an e>ample in 2or3a v. Commission on Elections.1octrinally% ho,ever% 2or3a is not a controllin" rulin"? it did not deal wit! $reventive sus$ension,but wit! t!e a$$lication of t!e t!ree&term rule on t!e term t!at an elective official acquired bysuccession.

Section ! A"tic#e $ o: t0e Contit)tion t2te ;

Section 8* The term of office of elective local officials% e>cept baran"ay

officials% ,hich shall e "etermine" & la,% shall e three &ears an" no suchofficial shall serve for more than three consecutive terms* oluntar& renunciationof the office for an& length of time shall not e consi"ere" as an interruption inthe continuit& of his service for the full term for ,hich he ,as electe"*

As ,or"e"% the constitutional provision fi>es the term of a local elective office an" limits anelective official+s stay in office to no more t!an t!ree consecutive terms * This is the :i"t 8"2nc0of therule emo"ie" in Section 8% Article B*

52


18/48

Significantl&% this provision refers to a termG as a $eriod of timeM t!ree yearsM "uring ,hich anofficial has title to office an" can serve* A$$ari v. Court of A$$eals a Resolution promulgate" on7ovemer 28% 2'% succinctl& "iscusses ,hat a termG connotes% as follo,s;

T0e 1o"7 te"6K in 2 #e;2# ene 6e2n 2 :i@e7 2n7 7e:inite 5e"io7 o: ti6e 10ic0t0e #21 7ec"i8e t02t 2n o::ice" 62 0o#7 2n o::ice. Accor"ing to /echem% the term

of office is the perio" "uring ,hich an office ma& e hel"* Hpon e>piration of the officer.sterm% unless he is authorie" & la, to hol"over% his rights% "uties an" authorit& as apulic officer must i$so factocease* +n the la, of pulic officers% the most an" naturalfre5uent metho" & ,hich a pulic officer ceases to e such is & the e>piration of theterms for ,hich he ,as electe" or appointe"* IEmphasis supplie"J*

A later case% @aminde v. Commission on Audit reiterate" that ITJhe term means the time "uring,hich the officer ma& claim to hol" office as of right% an" fi>es the interval after ,hich the severalincuments shall succee" one another*G

The limitationG un"er this first ranch of the provision is e>presse" in the ne;2ti9eM no suchofficial shall serve for more than three consecutive terms*G This formulation M no more t!an t!reeconsecutive termsM is a clear comman" suggesting the e>istence of an infle>ile rule* hile it gives no

e>act in"ication of ,hat to serve* * * three consecutive termsG e>actl& connotes% the meaning is clear Mreference is to t!e term, not to t!e servicethat a pulic official ma& ren"er* +n other ,or"s% the limitationrefers to the term*

The econ7 8"2nc0relates to the provision.s e>press initiative to prevent an& circumvention ofthe limitation through voluntar& severance of ties ,ith the pulic office? it e>pressl& states that voluntaryrenunciation of officeshall not e consi"ere" as an interruption in the continuit& of his service for the fullterm for ,hich he ,as electe"*G This "eclaration complements the term limitation man"ate" & the firstranch*

A notale feature of the secon" ranch is that it "oes not textually state that voluntar&renunciation is the onlyactual interruption of service that "oes not affect continuit& of service for a fulltermG for purposes of the threeterm limit rule* +t is a pure "eclarator& statement of ,hat "oes not serve as

an interruption of service for a full term% ut the phrase voluntar& renunciation%G & itself% is not ,ithoutsignificance in "etermining constitutional intent*

The ,or" renunciationG carries the "ictionar& meaning of aan"onment* To renounce is to "iveu$, abandon, decline, or resi"n. +t is an act that emanates from its author% as contraste" to an act thatoperates from the outsi"e* Rea" ,ith the "efinition of a termG in min"% renunciation% as mentione" un"erthe secon" ranch of the constitutional provision% cannot ut mean an act t!at results in cuttin" s!ort t!eterm, i.e., t!e loss of title to office.The "escriptive ,or" voluntar&G lin4e" together ,ith renunciationGsignifies an act of surren"er ase" on the suren"eree.s o,n freel& e>ercise" ,ill? in other ,or"s% a loss oftitle to office & conscious choice* +n the conte>t of the threeterm limit rule% such loss of title is notconsi"ere" an interruption ecause it is presume" to e purposel& sought to avoi" the application of theterm limitation*

Thus% ase" on this stan"ar"% loss of office by o$eration of law% eing involuntar&% is an effectiveinterruption of service ,ithin a term% as ,e hel" in Montebon* On the other han"% temporar& inailit& or"is5ualification to e>ercise the functions of an elective post% even if involuntar&% shoul" not e consi"ere"an effective interruption of a term ecause it "oes not involve the loss of title to office or at least aneffective rea4 from hol"ing office? the office hol"er% ,hile retaining title% is simpl& arre" from e>ercisingthe functions of his office for a reason provi"e" & la,*

An interruption occurs ,hen the term is ro4en ecause the office hol"er lost the right to hol" onto his office% an" cannot e e5uate" ,ith the failure to ren"er service* The latter occurs "uring an officehol"er.s term ,hen he retains title to the office ut cannot e>ercise his functions for reasons estalishe"& la,* Of course% the term failure to serveG cannot e use" once the right to office is lost? ,ithout theright to hol" office or to serve% then no service can e ren"ere" so that none is reall& lost*

53


19/48

To put it "ifferentl& although at the ris4 of repetition% Section 8% Article B M oth & structure an"sustance M fi>es an elective official.s term of office an" limits his sta& in office to three consecutive termsas an infle>ile rule that is stresse"% no less% & citing voluntar& renunciation as an e>ample of acircumvention* The provision shoul" e rea" in the conte>t of interru$tion of term% not in the conte>t ofinterrupting the full continuity of t!e exercise of t!e $owers of the elective position* The voluntar&renunciationG it spea4s of refers onl& to the elective official.s voluntar& relin5uishment of office an" loss oftitle to this office* +t "oes not spea4 of the temporar& cessation of the e>ercise of po,er or authorit&G thatma& occur for various reasons% ,ith preventive suspension eing onl& one of them* To 5uote Latasa v.Comelec

+n"ee"% ITJhelaw contem$lates a rest $eriod durin" w!ic! t!e local elective official ste$sdown from office and ceases to exercise $ower or aut!ority over the inhaitants of theterritorial uris"iction of a particular local government unit* IEmphasis supplie"J*

P"e9enti9e S)5enion 2n7 t0e T0"ee-Te"6 Li6it R)#e

a! Nature of 8reventive Suspension

6reventive suspension M ,hether un"er the Local =overnment Co"e the Anti=raft an" Corrupt6ractices Act or the Omu"sman Act M is an interim remedial measure to address t!e situation of anofficial w!o !ave been c!ar"ed administratively or criminally, w!ere t!e evidence $reliminarily indicatest!e li%eli!ood of or $otential for eventual "uilt or liability.

6reventive suspension is impose" un"er the Local @overnment Code,hen the evi"ence of guiltis strong an" given the gravit& of the offense% there is a possiilit& that the continuance in office of therespon"ent coul" influence the ,itnesses or pose a threat to the safet& an" integrit& of the recor"s an"other evi"ence*G Hn"er theAnti&@raft and Corru$t Bractices Act% it is impose" after a vali" information(that re5uires a fin"ing of proale cause) has een file" in court% ,hile un"er the Ombudsman Act% it isimpose" ,hen% in the u"gment of the Omu"sman% the evi"ence of guilt is strong? an" (a) the chargeinvolves "ishonest&% oppression or grave miscon"uct or neglect in the performance of "ut&? or () thecharges ,oul" ,arrant removal from the service? or (c) the respon"ent.s continue" sta& in office ma&

preu"ice the case file" against him*

7otal& in all cases of preventive suspension% the suspen"e" official is arre" from performingthe functions of his office an" "oes not receive salar& in the mean,hile% ut "oes not vacate an" lose titleto his office? loss of office is a conse5uence that onl& results upon an eventual fin"ing of guilt or liailit&*

6reventive suspension is a reme"ial measure that operates un"er closel&controlle" con"itionsan" "ives a $remium to t!e $rotection of t!e service rat!er t!an to t!e interests of t!e individual office!older* Even then% protection of the service goes onl& as far as a tem$orary $ro!ibitionon the exerciseofthe functions of the official.s office? the official is reinstate" to the exercise of !is $ositionas soon as thepreventive suspension is lifte"* Thus% ,hile a temporar& incapacit& in the e>ercise of po,er results% noposition is vacate" ,hen a pulic official is preventivel& suspen"e"* T0i 12 102t e@2ct# 0255ene7to Ai#o.

That the imposition of preventive suspension can e ause" is a realit& that is true in the e>erciseof all po,ers an" prerogative un"er the Constitution an" the la,s* The imposition of preventivesuspension% ho,ever% is not an unlimite" po,er? there are limitations uilt into the la,s themselves thatthe courts can enforce ,hen these limitations are transgresse"% particularl& ,hen grave ause of"iscretion is present* +n light of this ,ell"efine" parameters in the imposition of preventive suspension%,e shoul" not vie, preventive suspension from the e>treme situation M that it can totall& "eprive anelective office hol"er of the prerogative to serve an" is thus an effective interruption of an electionofficial.s term*

Term limitation an" preventive suspension are t,o vastl& "ifferent aspects of an elective officials.service in office an" the& "o not overlap* As alrea"& mentione" aove% preventive suspension involves

54


20/48

protection of the service an" of the people eing serve"% an" prevents the office hol"er from temporaril&e>ercising the po,er of his office* Term limitation% on the other han"% is triggere" after an elective officialhas serve" his three terms in office ,ithout an& rea4* +ts companion concept M interruption of a term M onthe other han"% re5uires loss of title to office* +f preventive suspension an" term limitation or interruptionhave an& commonalit& at all% this common point ma& e ,ith respect to the "iscontinuit& of service thatma& occur in oth* 9ut even on this point% the& merel& run parallel to each other an" never intersect?

$reventive sus$ension, by its nature, is a tem$orary inca$acity to render service duringan unbro+enterm? in t!e context of term limitation, interru$tion of service occurs after t!ere !as been a brea+ in theterm!

b! 8reventive Suspension an the -ntent of the ThreeTerm *imit ,ule

Strict a"herence to the intent of the threeterm limit rule "eman"s that preventive suspensionshoul" not e consi"ere" an interruption that allo,s an elective official.s sta& in office e&on" three terms*

A preventive suspension cannot simpl& e a term interruption ecause the suspen"e" official continues tosta& in office although he is arre" from e>ercising the functions an" prerogatives of the office ,ithin thesuspension perio"* T!e best indicator of t!e sus$ended official+s continuity in office is t!e absence of a

permanent replacementand t!e lac+ of the authority to appoint onesince no vacancy exists*

To allo, a preventivel& suspen"e" elective official to run for a fourth an" prohiite" term is toclose our e&es to this realit& an" to allo, a constitutional violation through sophistr& & e5uating thetemporar& inailit& to "ischarge the functions of office ,ith the interruption of term that the constitutionalprovision contemplates* To e sure% man& reasons e>ist% voluntar& or involuntar& M some of thempersonal an" some of them & operation of la, M that ma& temporaril& prevent an elective office hol"erfrom e>ercising the functions of his office in the ,a& that preventive suspension "oes* A serious e>ten"e"illness% inailit& through force ma3eure% or the enforcement of a suspension as a penalt&% to cite someinvoluntar& e>amples% ma& prevent an office hol"er from e>ercising the functions of his office for a time,ithout forfeiting title to office* 6reventive suspension is no "ifferent ecause it "isrupts actual "eliver& ofservice for a time ,ithin a term* A"opting such interruption of actualservice as the stan"ar" to "etermineeffective interruption of term un"er the threeterm rule raises at least the possiilit& of confusion inimplementing this rule% given the man& mo"es an" occasions ,hen actual service ma& e interrupte" inthe course of serving a term of office* The stan"ar" ma& re"uce the enforcement of the threeterm limit

rule to a casetocase an" possil& seesa,ing "etermination of ,hat an effective interruption is*

c! 8reventive Suspension and9oluntary ,enunciation

6reventive suspension% ecause it is impose" & operation of la,% "oes not involve a voluntar&act on the part of the suspen"e" official% e>cept in the in"irect sense that he ma& have voluntaril&committe" the act that ecame the asis of the charge against him* #rom this perspective% preventivesuspension "oes not have the element of voluntariness that voluntar& renunciation emo"ies* 7either"oes it contain the element of renunciation or loss of title to office as it merel& involves the temporar&incapacit& to perform the service that an elective office "eman"s* Thus vie,e"% preventive suspension is

M & its ver& nature M the e>act opposite of voluntar& renunciation? it is involuntar& an" temporar&% an"involves onl& the actual "eliver& of service% not the title to the office* The eas& conclusion therefore is thatthe& are% & nature% "ifferent an" noncomparale*

9ut e&on" the ovious comparison of their respective natures is the more importantconsi"eration of ho, the& affect the threeterm limit rule*

oluntar& renunciation% ,hile involving loss of office an" the total incapacit& to ren"er service% is"isallo,e" & the Constitution as an effective interruption of a term* +t is therefore not allo,e" as a mo"eof circumventing the threeterm limit rule*

6reventive suspension% & its nature% "oes not involve an effective interruption of a term an"shoul" therefore not e a reason to avoi" the threeterm limitation* +t can pose as a threat% ho,ever% if ,eshall "isregar" its nature an" consi"er it an effective interruption of a term* Let it e note" that apreventive suspension is easier to un"erta4e than voluntar& renunciation% as it "oes not re5uire

-6


21/48

relin5uishment or loss of office even for the riefest time* +t merel& re5uires an easil& faricate"a"ministrative charge that can e "ismisse" soon after a preventive suspension has een impose"* +nthis sense% recogniing preventive suspension as an effective interruption of a term can serve as acircumvention more potent than the voluntar& renunciation that the Constitution e>pressl& "isallo,s as aninterruption*

To recapitulate% Asilo.s 2$2' term ,as not interrupte" & the San"igana&animpose"preventive suspension in 2:% as preventive suspension "oes not interrupt an elective official.s term*Thus% the CO/ELEC refuse" to appl& the legal comman" of Section 8% Article B of the Constitution ,henit grante" "ue course to Asilo.s certificate of can"i"ac& for a prohiite" fourth term*

The private respon"ent ilfre"o #* Asilo is "eclare" DISUALIFIED to run% an" perforce toserve% as Councilor of Lucena Cit& for a prohiite" fourth term*

$

+ENJAMIN U. +ORJA! JR. vs!COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS 2n7JOSE T. CAPCO! JR.! G. R. No. %334&! Se5te68e" 3! %&&

-n ./22# Capco run and $on as 9ice (ayor for theterm ./22.//0! %ut on September 0# ./2/# hebecame (ayor upon the death of the (ayor! -n .//0#he $on as (ayor! -n .//1# he again $on as (ayor!(ay he run again in the .//2 elections for the

position of (unicipal (ayor of 8ateros# ,izal4

This case presents for "etermination the scope of the constitutional provision arring electiveofficials% ,ith the e>ception of aranga& officials% from serving more than three consecutive terms* +nparticular% the 5uestion is ,hether a vicema&or ,ho succee"s to the office of ma&or & operation of la,an" serves the remain"er of the term is consi"ere" to have serve" a term in that office for the purpose ofthe threeterm limit*

6rivate respon"ent -ose T* Capco% -r* ,as electe" vicema&or of 6ateros on -anuar& !8% !088 fora term en"ing -une 3% !002* On Septemer 2% !080% he ecame ma&or% & operation of la,% upon the"eath of the incument% Cesar 9ora* On /a& !!% !002% he ran an" ,as electe" ma&or for a term of three&ears ,hich en"e" on -une 3% !00:* On /a& 8% !00:% he ,as reelecte" ma&or for another term of three&ears en"ing -une 3% !008*

On /arch 2'% !008% private respon"ent Capco file" a certificate of can"i"ac& for ma&or of6ateros relative to the /a& !!% !008 elections* 6etitioner 9enamin H* 9ora% -r*% ,ho ,as also acan"i"ate for ma&or% sought Capco.s "is5ualification on the theor& that the latter ,oul" have alrea"&serve" as ma&or for three consecutive terms & -une 3% !008 an" ,oul" therefore e ineligile to servefor another term after that*

On April 3% !008% the Secon" Division of theCommission on Elections rule" in favor of petitioneran" "eclare" private respon"ent Capco "is5ualifie"from running for reelection as ma&or of 6ateros*


22/48

This is a petition for certiorari rought to set asi"e the resolution% "ate" /a& '% !008% of heCO/ELEC an" to see4 a "eclaration that private respon"ent is "is5ualifie" to serve another term as/a&or of 6ateros% /etro /anila*

6etitioner conten"s that private respon"ent Capco.s service as ma&or from Septemer 2% !080 to-une 3% 002 shoul" e consi"ere" as service for full one term% an" since he thereafter serve" from !002

to !008 t,o more terms as ma&or% he shoul" e consi"ere" to have serve" three consecutive terms,ithin the contemplation of Art* B% 8 of the Constitution an" $3() of the Local =overnment Co"e*6etitioner stresses the fact that% upon the "eath of /a&or Cesar 9ora on Septemer 2% !080% privaterespon"ent ecame the ma&or an" thereafter serve" the remain"er of the term* 6etitioner argues that itis irrelevant that private respon"ent ecame ma&or & succession ecause the purpose of theconstitutional provision in limiting the numer of terms elective local officials ma& serve is to prevent amonopoliation of political po,er*

SEC* 8* The term of office of elective local officials% e>cept aranga& officials% ,hich shall e"etermine" & la,% shall e three &ears an" no such official shall serve for more than three consecutiveterms* oluntar& renunciation of the office for an& length of time shall not e consi"ere" as aninterruption in the continuit& of his service for the full term for ,hich he ,as electe"*

This provision is restate" in $3() of the Local =overnment Co"e (R*A* 7o* '!1);

Sec* $3* Term of Office & . . .

() 7o local elective official shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms in the sameposition* oluntar& renunciation of the office for an& length of time shall not e consi"ere" as aninterruption in the continuit& of service for the full term for ,hich the elective official concerne",as electe"Q*

#irst% to prevent the estalishment of political "&nasties is not the onl& polic& emo"ie" in theconstitutional provision in 5uestion* The other polic& is that of enhancing the free"om of choice of thepeople* To consi"er% therefore% onl& sta& in office regar"less of ho, the official concerne" came to thatoffice M ,hether & election or & succession & operation of la, M ,oul" e to "isregar" one of the

purposes of the constitutional provision in 5uestion*

T,o i"eas thus emerge from a consi"eration of the procee"ings of the ConstitutionalCommission* The first is the notion of service of term% "erive" from the concern aout the accumulationof po,er as a result of a prolonge" sta& in office* The secon" is the i"ea of election% "erive" from theconcern that the right of the people to choose those ,hom the& ,ish to govern them e preserve"*

There is a "ifference% ho,ever% et,een the case of a vicema&or an" that of a memer of thepire" term is rightl& counte" as his first term*Rather than refute ,hat ,e elieve to e the inten"ment of Art* B% 8 ,ith regar" to elective local officials%the case of a Representative ,ho succee"s another confirms the theor&*

6etitioner also cites Art* ++% $ of the Constitution ,hich provi"es for succession of the ice6resi"ent to the 6resi"enc& in case of vacanc& in that office* After stating that The 6resi"ent shall not eeligile for an& reelection%G this provision sa&s that 7o person ,ho has succee"e" as 6resi"ent an" hasserve" as such for more than four &ears shall e 5ualifie" for election to the same office at an& time*G6etitioner conten"s that% & analog&% the vicema&or shoul" li4e,ise e consi"ere" to have serve" a fullterm as ma&or if he succee"s to the latter.s office an" serves for the remain"er of the term*

The framers of the Constitution inclu"e" such a provision ecause% ,ithout it% the ice6resi"ent%,ho simpl& steps into the 6resi"enc& & succession ,oul" e 5ualifie" to run for 6resi"ent even if he has

--


23/48

occupie" that office for more than four &ears* The asence of a similar provision in Art* B% 8 on electivelocal officials thro,s in ol" relief the "ifference et,een the t,o cases* +t un"erscores the constitutionalintent to cover onl& the terms of office to ,hich one ma& have een electe" for purpose of the threetermlimit on local elective officials% "isregar"ing for this purpose service & automatic succession*

There is another reason ,h& the ice6resi"ent ,ho succee"s to the 6resi"enc& an" serves in

that office for more than four &ears is ineligile for election as 6resi"ent* The ice6resi"ent is electe"primaril& to succee" the 6resi"ent in the event of the latter.s "eath% permanent "isailit&% removal orresignation* hile he ma& e appointe" to the cainet% his ecoming so is entirel& "epen"ent on thegoo" graces of the 6resi"ent* +n running for ice6resi"ent% he ma& thus e sai" to also see4 the6resi"enc&* #or their part% the electors li4e,ise choose as ice6resi"ent the can"i"ate ,ho the& thin4can fill the 6resi"enc& in the event it ecomes vacant* months efore the ne>t election% he resigns an" is t,ice electe" thereafter* Can he run

again for ma&or in the ne>t election*

es% ecause although he has alrea"& first serve" as ma&or & succession an" suse5uentl&resigne" from office efore the full term e>pire"% he has not actuall& serve" three full terms in all for thepurpose of appl&ing the term limit* Hn"er Art* B% 8% voluntar& renunciation of the office is not consi"ere"as an interruption in the continuit& of his service for the full term onl& if the term is one for ,hich he ,aselecte"*G Since A is onl& completing the service of the term for ,hich the "ecease" an" not he ,aselecte"* A cannot e consi"ere" to have complete" one term*


24/48

Case 7o* 3* The case of vicema&or C ,ho ecomes ma&or & succession involves a total failureof the t,o con"itions to concur for the purpose of appl&ing Art* B 8* Suppose he is t,ice electe" afterthat term% is he 5ualifie" to run again in the ne>t electionP

es% ecause he ,as not electe" to the office of the ma&or in the first term ut simpl& foun"himself thrust into it & operation of la,* 7either ha" he serve" the full term ecause he onl& continue"

the service% interrupte" & the "eath % of the "ecease" ma&or*

To consi"er C in the thir" case to have serve" the first term in full an" therefore ineligile to run athir" time for reelection ,oul" e not onl& to falsif& realit& ut also to un"ul& restrict the right of the peopleto choose ,hom the& ,ish to govern them* +f the vicema&or turns out to e a a" ma&or% the people canreme"& the situation & simpl& not reelecting him for another term* 9ut if% on the other han"% he proves toe a goo" ma&or% there ,ill e no ,a& the people can return him to office (even if it is ust the thir" timehe is stan"ing for reelection) if his service of the first term is counte" as one of the purpose of appl&ingthe term limit*

To consi"er C as eligile for reelection ,oul" e in accor" ,ith the un"erstan"ing of theConstitutional Commission that ,hile the people shoul" e protecte" from the evils that a monopol& ofpolitical po,er ma& ring aout% care shoul" e ta4en that their free"om of choice

:

RO+ERTO DION V. SCOMELEC , MARINO MORALES! GR No.%! J2n)2" 3! &

In t0e %&& e#ection! Mo"2#e 12 e#ecte7 M2o" o:M282#2c2t! P2652n;2. In t0e %&& e#ection! 0e 125"oc#2i6e7 2 t0e 7)# e#ecte7 M2o" 8 t0eM)nici52# +o2"7 o: C2n92e" o 0e 2)6e7

o::ice 8)t on P"otet o: 0i o55onent Dee! t0e RTCo: P2652n;2 )ne2te7 0i6 2n7 7ec#2"e7 Dee 2 t0e1inne". T0e 26e 7eciion t2tin; t02t Dee i t0e"e2# 1inne" 12 2::i"6e7 8 t0e COMELEC 8)t t0eCOMELEC Deciion 12 5"o6)#;2te7 on# 2:te"Mo"2#e HAD FULLY SERVED THE JUNE 3! %&&-JUNE 3! % TERM. In t0e % e#ection! 0e 1on2 M2o". In t0e 4 e#ection! 0e 1on 2;2in 2M2o". I 0e )2#i:ie7 to ")n :o" M2o" in t0e 'e#ection o" i it 0i t0 conec)ti9e te"6t "a&% /orales notifie" the vicema&or.s office of our "ecision* The vice ma&or assume" the office of the ma&or from !' /a& 2' up to

3 -une 2'* The assumption & the vice ma&or of the office of the ma&or% no matter ho, short it ma&seem to Dion% interrupte" /orales. continuit& of service* Thus% /orales "i" not hol" office for the fullterm of ! -ul& 2$ to 3 -une 2'*

Dion claims that the 2'2! term is /orales. fifth term in office* Dion asserts that evenafter receipt of our "ecision on ! /a& 2'% /orales ,aite" for the election to e hel" on !$ /a& 2'to ensure his victor& for a fifth termG*

e conce"e that /orales occupie" the position of ma&or of /aalacat for the follo,ing perio"s;! -ul& !00: to 3 -une !008% ! -ul& !008 to 3 -une 2!% ! -ul& 2! to 3 -une 2$% an" ! -ul& 2$to !1 /a& 2'*


27/48


28/48

On April 2'% 2!% respon"ent CO/ELECs #irst Division issue" a Resolution% the "ispositiveportion of ,hich rea"s% as follo,s;

?herefore% premises consi"ere"% the respon"ents certificate ofcan"i"ac& shoul" e cancelle" for eing a violation of the three (3)termrule proscrie" & the !08' Constitution an" the Local =overnment Co"e

of !00!*

+SSHE;

hether or not the petitioner is arre" & the threeterm limit impose" & the Constitution;

HELD=

This Court notes from the ver& eginning that petitioner himself ,as alrea"& entertaining some"out as to ,hether or not he is in"ee" eligile to run for cit& ma&or in the /a& !$% 2! elections* +n hiscertificate of can"i"ac&% after the phrase + am eligile% petitioner inserte" a footnote an" in"icate";

plicit Constitutional man"ate; ,hetheror not petitioner Latasa is eligile to run as can"i"ate for the position of ma&or of the ne,l&create" Cit& ofDigos imme"iatel& after he serve" for three consecutive terms as ma&or of the /unicipalit& of Digos*

Section * The term of office of elective local officials% e>ceptaranga& officials% ,hich shall e "etermine" & la,% shall e three &earsan" no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms*oluntar& renunciation of the office for an& length of time shall not econsi"ere" as an interruption in the continuit& of his service for the fullterm for ,hich he ,as electe"*

An elective local official% therefore% is not arre" from running again in for same local governmentpost% unless t,o con"itions concur; !*) that the official concerne" has een electe" for three consecutiveterms to the same local government post% an" 2*) that he has full& serve" three consecutive terms*

+n the present case% petitioner states that a cit& an" a municipalit& have separate an" "istinctpersonalities* Thus the& cannot e treate" as a single entit& an" must e accor"e" "ifferent treatmentconsistent ,ith specific provisions of the Local =overnment Co"e*


29/48

'

ROMEO LONANIDA vs! THE HONORA+LE COMMISSION ONELECTION 2n7 EUFEMIO MULI! @, No! .61.13# 'uly 02# .///

-n the ./22 elections# *onzanida $on as(unicipal (ayor of San Antonio# ambales! -n the.//0 elections# he $as reelected! -n the .//1elections# he $as declared $inner by the %oard ofCanvassers but $as unseated by the CO(E*ECbased on the election protest of his opponent $hoserved only three =6> months of the 'une 63# .//1'une 63# .//2 term $ith *onzanida serving 0 yearsand / months thereof! -s he


30/48

6etitioner Lonani"a challenges the vali"it& of the CO/ELEC resolutions fin"ing him "is5ualifie"to run for ma&or of San Antonio amales in the !008 elections* cept aranga& officials% ,hich shalle "etermine" & la, shall e three &ears an" no such officials shall serve for more thanthree consecutive terms* oluntar& renunciation of the office for an& length of time shallnot e consi"ere" as an interruption in the continuit& of his service for the full term for,hich he ,as electe"*G

Section $3 of the Local =overnment Co"e (R*A* 7o* '!1) restates the same rule;

Sec* $3* Term of Office*

() 7o local elective official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms in thesame position* oluntar& renunciation of the office for an& length of time shall not econsi"ere" as an interruption in the continuit& of service for the full term for ,hich theelective official concerne" ,as electe"*G

The issue is ,hether petitioner Lonani"a.s assumption of office as ma&or of San Antonioamales from /a& !00: to /arch !008 ma& e consi"ere" as service of one full term for the purpose ofappl&ing the threeterm limit for elective local government officials*

+t is not "ispute" that the petitioner ,as previousl& electe" an" serve" t,o consecutive terms asma&or of San Antonio amales prior to the /a& !00: ma&oral elections* +n the /a& !00: elections heagain ran for ma&or of San Antonio% amales an" ,as proclaime" ,inner* piration of the term* The respon"ents. contention that the

.6


31/48

petitioner shoul" e "eeme" to have serve" one full term from /a& !00:!008 ecause he serve" thegreater portion of that term has no legal asis to support it? it "isregar"s the secon" re5uisite for theapplication of the "is5ualification% i*e*% that he has full& serve" three consecutive terms* The secon"sentence of the constitutional provision un"er scrutin& states% oluntar& renunciation of office for an&length of time shall not e consi"ere" as an interruption in the continuit& of service for the full term for,hich he ,as electe"* The clear intent of the framers of the constitution to ar an& attempt to circumventthe threeterm limit & a voluntar& renunciation of office an" at the same time respect the people.s choicean" grant their electe" official full service of a term is evi"ent in this provision* oluntar& renunciation of aterm "oes not cancel the renounce" term in the computation of the three term limit? conversel&%involuntar& severance from office for an& length of time short of the full term porvi"e" & la, amounts toan interruption of continuit& of service* The petitioner vacate" his post a fe, months efore the ne>tma&oral elections% not & voluntar& renunciation ut in compliance ,ith the legal process of ,rit ofe>ecution issue" & the CO/ELEC to that effect* Such involuntar& severance from office is aninterruption of continuit& of service an" thus% the petitioner "i" not full& serve the !00:!008 ma&oral term*

+n sum% the petitioner ,as not the "ul& electe" ma&or an" that he "i" not hol" office for the fullterm? hence% his assumption of office from /a& !00: to /arch !008 cannot e counte" as a term forpurposes of computing the three term limit* The Resolution of the CO/ELEC fin"ing him "is5ualifie" onthis groun" to run in the /a& !008 ma&oral elections shoul" therefore e set asi"e*

8

FEDERICO MONTE+ON VS. COMELEC SESINANDO F.POTENCIOSO! JR.! ! GR NO. %444! APRIL !

-n .//2# 8otencioso# 'r! $on as (unicipalCouncilor of Tuburan# Cebu! ;ee $as reelected inthe 033. election for a term up to 'une 63# 0335! On'anuary .0# 0335# ho$ever# he became the 9icemayor due to the retirement of the then 9ice (ayor8etronilo (endoza! -n the 0335 elections# he $aselected as Councilor again! (ay he run for (unicipalCouncilor again in the (ay 0337 elections4

6etitioners /onteon an" On"& an" respon"ent 6otencioso% -r* ,ere can"i"ates for municipalcouncilor of the /unicipalit& of Tuuran% Ceu for the /a& !$% 2' S&nchronie" 7ational an" LocalElections* On April 3% 2'% petitioners an" other can"i"ates for municipal councilor file" a petition for"is5ualification against respon"ent ,ith the CO/ELEC alleging that respon"ent ha" een electe" an"serve" three consecutive terms as municipal councilor in !0082!% 2!2$% an" 2$2'* Thus%he is proscrie" from running for the same position in the 2' elections as it ,oul" e his fourthconsecutive term*

+n his ans,er% respon"ent a"mitte" that he ha" een electe" for three consecutive terms asmunicipal councilor*


32/48

On -une 2% 2'% the CO/ELEC #irst Division "enie" the petition for "is5ualificationruling that respon"ent.s assumption of office as vicema&or shoul" e consi"ere" an interruption in thecontinuit& of his service* > >

+n this case% a permanent vacanc& occurre" in the office of the vice ma&or "ue to the retirementof ice /a&or /en"oa* Respon"ent% eing the highest ran4ing municipal councilor% succee"e" him inaccor"ance ,ith la,* +t is clear therefore that his assumption of office as vicema&or can in no ,a& econsi"ere" a voluntar& renunciation of his office as municipal councilor*

.-


33/48

+n Lonanida v. Commission on Elections% the Court e>plaine" the concept of voluntar&renunciation as follo,s;

The secon" sentence of the constitutional provision un"er scrutin& states%Foluntar& renunciation of office for an& length of time shall not e consi"ere" as aninterruption in the continuit& of service for the full term for ,hich he ,as electe"*. The

clear intent of the framers of the constitution to ar an& attempt to circumvent the threeterm limit & a voluntar& renunciation of office an" at the same time respect the people.schoice an" grant their electe" official full service of a term is evi"ent in this provision*oluntar& renunciation of a term "oes not cancel the renounce" term in the computationof the three term limit? conversel&% in9o#)nt2" e9e"2nce :"o6 o::ice :o" 2n #en;t0 o:ti6e 0o"t o: t0e :)## te"6 5"o9i7e7 8 #21 26o)nt to 2n inte"")5tion o: contin)ito: e"9ice.

Thus% respon"ent.s assumption of office as vicema&or in -anuar& 2$ ,as an involuntar&severance from his office as municipal councilor% resulting in an interruption in the service of his 2!2$ term* +t cannot e "eeme" to have een & reason of voluntar& renunciation ecause it ,as &operation of la,* e 5uote ,ith approval the ruling of the CO/ELEC that M

The legal successor is not given an& option un"er the la, on ,hether to acceptthe vacate" post or not* Section $$ of the Local =overnment Co"e ma4es no e>ception*Onl& if the highestran4ing councilor is permanentl& unale to succee" to the post "oesthe la, spea4 of alternate succession* Hn"er no circumstances can simple refusal of theofficial concerne" e consi"ere" as permanent inailit& ,ithin the contemplation of la,*Essentiall& therefore% the successor cannot refuse to assume the office that he isman"ate" to occup& & virtue of succession* > > >

Thus% succession & la, to a vacate" government office is characteristicall& not

voluntar& since it involves the performance of a pulic "ut& & a government official% the

nonperformance of ,hich e>poses sai" official to possile a"ministrative an" criminalcharges of "ereliction of "ut& an" neglect in the performance of pulic functions* +t istherefore more compulsor& an" oligator& rather than voluntar&*

0

FRANCIS G. ONG VS. COMELEC , JOHN STANLEY ALEGRE! G.R. No.%/3& ! J2n)2" 3! /

-n the (ay# .//1 elections# Ong $on as (unicipalmayor of San 9icente# Camarines Norte! ;e $as

proclaimed $inner again in the .//2 elections

though Alegre filed a protest $here he $as declared$inner on 'uly 5# 033. $hen Ong had fully servedthe 'une 63# .//2'une 63# 033. term $hich $assupposed to be for Alegre! -n the 033. elections#Ong $on again! -s Ong


34/48

petition to "is5ualif& ,as pre"icate" on the threeconsecutive term rule% #rancis having% accor"ing toAlegre% ran in the /a& !00:% /a& !008% an" /a& 2! ma&oralt& elections an" have assume" office asma&or an" "ischarge" the "uties thereof for three (3) consecutive full terms correspon"ing to thoseelections*

The /a& !008 elections sa, oth Alegre an" #rancis opposing each other for the office of ma&or

of San icente% Camarines 7orte% ,ith the latter eing suse5uentl& proclaime" & CO/ELEC ,inner inthat contest* Alegre suse5uentl& file" an election protest% "oc4ete" as Election Case 7o* 18:eforethe Regional Trial Court (RTC) at Daet% Camarines 7orte* +n it% the RTC "eclare" Alegre as the "ul&electe" ma&or in that !008 ma&oralt& contest% aleit the "ecision came out onl& on -ul& $% 2!% ,hen#rancis ha" full& serve" the !0082! ma&oralt& term an" ,as in fact alrea"& starting to serve the2!2$ term as ma&orelect of the municipalit& of San icente*

Acting on Alegre.s petition to "is5ualif& an" to cancel #rancis. certificate of can"i"ac& for the /a& !%2$ elections% the #irst Division of the CO/ELEC ren"ere" on /arch 3!% 2$ a resolution "ismissingthe sai" petition of Alegre% rationaliing as follo,s;

e see the circumstances in the case no, efore us analogous to those otainingin the sample situations a""resse" & the >

On the asis of the ,or"s of the machine cop& of the aforecite" /a& '% 2$resolution% sen"ing him posthaste to see4 the assistance of his political part&% the 7ationalist 6eople.sCoalition% ,hich imme"iatel& nominate" his ol"er rother% Rommel Ong (Rommel)% as sustitutecan"i"ate* At aout :;: p*m* of the ver& same "a& ,hich is past the "ea"line for filing a certificate ofcan"i"ac&% Rommel file" his o,n certificate of can"i"ac& for the position of ma&or% as sustitute can"i"atefor his rother #rancis*

On /a& 0% 2$% or a "a& efore the /a& ! elections% Alegre file" a Betition to 1eny 1ueCourse to or Cancel Certificate of Rommel Ong*

./
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/163295.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/163295.htm#_ftn6


35/48

The issues for resolution of the Court are;

hether the CO/ELEC acte" ,ith grave ause of "iscretion amounting to lac4or e>cess of uris"iction in issuing its en bancresolution "ate" /a& '% 2$ "eclaringpetitioner #rancis as "is5ualifie" to run for /a&or of San icente% Camarines 7orte in the/a& !% 2$ elections an" conse5uentl& or"ering the "eletion of his name from the

official list of can"i"ates so that an& vote cast in his favor shall e consi"ere" stra&*

hether the CO/ELEC committe" grave ause of "iscretion ,hen it "enie" "ue courseto Rommel.s certificate of can"i"ac& in the same ma&oralt& election as sustitute for hisrother #rancis*

A resolution of the issues thus formulate" hinges on the 5uestion of ,hether or not petitioner#rancis.s assumption of office as /a&or of San icente% Camarines 7orte for the ma&oralt& term !008 to2! shoul" e consi"ere" as full service for the purpose of the threeterm limit rule*

Respon"ent CO/ELEC resolve" the 5uestion in the affirmative* 6etitioner #rancis% on the otherhan"% "isagrees*


36/48

e hol" that such assumption of office constitutes% for #rancis% service for t!e full term>% an" shoul"e counte" as a full term serve" in contemplation of the threeterm limit prescrie" & the constitutionalan" statutor& provisions% su$ra% arring local elective officials from eing electe" an" serving for morethan three consecutive term for the same position*

+t is true that the RTCDaet% Camarines 7orte rule" in Election 6rotest Case 7o* 18:% that it ,as

#rancis. opponent (Alegre) ,ho wonG in the !008 ma&oralt& race an"% therefore% ,as the legall& electe"ma&or of San icente* pire"* 6etitioner #rancis.contention that he ,as onl& a presumptive ,inner in the !008 ma&oralt& "er& as his proclamation ,asun"er protest "i" not ma4e him less than a "ul& electe" ma&or* isting CO/ELECpolic& provi"es for the noninclusion of the name of sustitute can"i"ates in the certifie" list of can"i"atespen"ing approval of the sustitution*

7ot to e overloo4e" is the Court.s hol"ing in Miranda vs. Abaya, 8'' C/A F'9 July 4), '(('; thata can"i"ate ,hose certificate of can"i"ac& has een cancelle" or not given "ue course cannot esustitute" & another elonging to the same political part& as that of the former% thus;

hile there is no "ispute as to ,hether or not a nominee of aregistere" or accre"ite" political part& ma& sustitute for a can"i"ate of

the same part& ,ho ha" een "is5ualifie" for an& cause% this "oes notinclu"e those cases ,here the certificate of can"i"ac& of the person toe sustitute" ha" een "enie" "ue course an" cancelle" un"er Section'8 of the Co"e*

Ex$ressio unius est exclusio alterius. hile the la, enumerate"the occasions ,here a can"i"ate ma& e vali"l& sustitute"% there is nomention of the case ,here a can"i"ate is e>clu"e" not onl& &"is5ualification ut also & "enial an" cancellation of his certificate ofcan"i"ac&* Hn"er the foregoing rule% there can e no vali" sustitutionfor the latter case% much in the same ,a& that a nuisance can"i"ate,hose certificate of can"i"ac& is "enie" "ue course an"Nor cancelle"

.1


37/48

ma& not e sustitute"* +f the intent of the la,ma4ers ,ere other,ise%the& coul" have so easil& an" convenientl& inclu"e" those persons,hose certificates of can"i"ac& have een "enie" "ue course an"Norcancelle" un"er the provisions of Section '8 of the Co"e*

>>>

A person ,ithout a vali" certificate of can"i"ac& cannot e consi"ere" acan"i"ate in much the same ,a& as an& person ,ho has not file" an&certificate of can"i"ac& at all can not% & an& stretch of the imagination%e a can"i"ate at all*

>>>

After having consi"ere" the importance of a certificate of can"i"ac&% itcan e rea"il& un"erstoo" ,h& in 9autista I9autista vs* Comelec% =*R*7o* !338$% 7ovemer !3% !008J ,e rule" that a person ,ith a cancelle"certificate is no can"i"ate at all* Appl&ing this principle to the case at aran" consi"ering that Section '' of the Co"e is clear an" une5uivocal that

onl& an official can"i"ate of a registere" or accre"ite" part& ma& esustitute"% there "emonstral& cannot e an& possile sustitution of aperson ,hose certificate of can"i"ac& has een cancelle" an" "enie""ue course*

'5

ATTY. VENANCIO . RIVERA III 2n7 ATTY. NORMANDIC DEGUMAN 9. COMELEC , MARINO +OINGK MORALES! G.R. No.%/'&%! M2 &!

-n the .//1 elections# (orales $as elected(ayor of (abalacat# 8ampanga! -n the .//2elections# he $as proclaimed (ayor but on protest#his opponent $as declared the real $inner but thedecision became final only after (orales had fullyserved the 'une 63# .//2'une 63# 033. term! Alsoduring his Bsecond term# he $as suspended by theOmbudsman for an antigraft case from 'anuary .D#./// up to 'uly .1# .///! -n the 033. elections# he$on again! (ay he run for (ayor in the (ay 0335elections4

On -anuar& !% 2$% Att&s* enancio @* Rivera an" 7orman"ic4 De =uman% petitioners% file",ith the Secon" Division of the Commission on Elections (CO/ELEC) a petition to cancel respon"ent/orales. Certificate of Can"i"ac& on the groun" that he ,as electe" an" ha" serve" three previousconsecutive terms as ma&or of /aalacat* The& allege" that his can"i"ac& violate" Section 8% Article Bof the Constitution an" Section $3 () of Repulic Act (R*A*) 7o* '!1% also 4no,n as the Local=overnment Co"e*

+n his ans,er to the petition% respon"ent /orales a"mitte" that he ,as electe" ma&or of/aalacat for the term commencing -ul& !% !00: to -une 3% !008 (first term) an" -ul& !% 2! to -une3% 2$ (thir" term)% ut he serve" the secon" term from -ul& !% !008 to -une 3% 2! onl& as acareta4er of the officeG or as a de facto officerG ecause of the follo,ing reasons;

.2


38/48

a* > >

.3


39/48

A resolution of the issues thus formulate" hinges on the 5uestion of ,hether ornot petitioner #rancis. assumption of office as ma&or of San icente% Camarines 7orte forthe ma&oralt& term !008 to 2! shoul" e consi"ere" as full service for the purpose ofthe threeterm limit rule*

Respon"ent CO/ELEC resolve" the 5uestion in the affirmative* 6etitioner

#rancis% on the other han"% "isagrees* > >

#or the threeterm limit for elective local government officials to appl&% t,ocon"itions or re5uisites must concur% to ,it; (!) that the official concerne" has eenelecte" for three (3) consecutive terms in the same local government post% an" (2) thathe has full& serve" three (3) consecutive terms*

ith the vie, ,e ta4e of the case% the "is5ualif&ing re5uisites are present herein%thus effectivel& arring petitioner #rancis from running for ma&or of San icente%Camarines 7orte in the /a& !% 2$ elections* There can e no "ispute aoutpetitioner #rancis Ong having een "ul& electe" ma&or of that municipalit& in the /a&!00: an" again in the /a& 2! elections an" serving the -ul& !% !00:-une 3% !008an" the -ul& !% 2!-une 3% 2$ terms in full* The herein controvers& revolves aroun"the !0082! ma&oral term% aleit there can also e no 5uiling that #rancis ran forma&or of the same municipalit& in the /a& !008 elections an" actuall& serve" the !0082! ma&oral term & virtue of a proclamation initiall& "eclaring him ma&orelect of themunicipalit& of San icente* T!e question t!at be"s to be addressed, t!erefore, isw!et!er or not Grancis+ assum$tion of office as Mayor of an icente, Camarines #orte

from July ', '(() to June 85, 455', may be considered as one full term service in t!econtext of t!e consecutive t!ree&term limit rule*

e hol" that such assumption of office constitutes% for #rancis% service for t!efull term%G an" shoul" e counte" as a full term serve" in contemplation of the threetermlimit prescrie" & the constitutional an" statutor& provisions% su$ra% arring local electiveofficials from eing electe" an" serving for more than three consecutive terms for thesame position*

+t is true that the RTCDaet% Camarines 7orte rule" in Election 6rotest Case 7o*18:% that it ,as #rancis. opponent (Alegre) ,ho wonG in the !008 ma&oralt& race an"%therefore% ,as the legall& electe" ma&or of San icente* pire"* 6etitioner #rancis.contention that he ,as onl& a presumptive ,inner in the !008 ma&oralt& "er& as hisproclamation ,as un"er protest "i" not ma4e him less than a "ul& electe" ma&or*


40/48

6etitioner cites% ut% to our min"% cannot see4 refuge from the Court.s ruling inLonanida v. Comelec, citing 2or3av. Comelec* +n Lonanida% petitioner Lonani"a ,aselecte" an" serve" for t,o consecutive terms as ma&or of San Antonio% amales priorto the /a& 8% !00: elections*


41/48

reelection as ma&or of 6ateros* > >

This Court hel" that Capco.s assumption of the office of ma&or upon the "eath of the incumentma& not e regar"e" as a termG un"er Section 8% Article B of the Constitution an" Section $3 () of R*A*

7o* '!1 (the Local =overnment Co"e)* ception* Shoul" he e allo,e" another three consecutive term as ma&or of theCit& of Digos% petitioner ,oul" then e possil& hol"ing office as chief e>ecutive over thesame territorial uris"iction an" inhaitants for a total of eighteen consecutive&ears* Thisis the ver& scenario sought to e avoi"e" & the Constitution% if not ahorre" & it*

This is the ver& situation in the instant case* Respon"ent /orales maintains that he serve" hissecon" term (!008 to 2!) onl& as a careta4er of the officeG or as a de facto officer*G Section 8% ArticleB of the Constitution is violate" an" its purpose "efeate" ,hen an official serves in the same position forthree consecutive terms* hether as careta4erG or de factoG officer% he e>ercises the po,ers an" eno&sthe prere5uisites of the office ,hich enales him to sta& on in"efinitel&G*

Respon"ent /orales shoul" e promptl& ouste" from the position of ma&or of /aalacatan" the vicema&or elect of the sai" municipalit& in the /a& !% 2$ S&nchronie" 7ational an" LocalElections is here& "eclare" ma&or an" shall serve as such for the remaining "uration of the term -ul& !%2$ to -une 3% 2'*

!!

VICTORINO DENNIS M. SOCRATES! M2o" o: P)e"to P"ince2 Citvs! THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS! THE PREPARATORYRECALL ASSEM+LY (PRA* o: P)e"to P"ince2 Cit! et 2#.! G.R. No.%4%. No9e68e" %!

/5


42/48

MA. FLORES P. ADOVO! MERCY E. GILO 2n7 +IENVENIDOOLLAVE! SR . vs! THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS! 2n7 ED>ARDS. HAGEDORN! G.R. No. %3-4. No9e68e" %!

H2;e7o"n 1on 2 Cit M2o" o: P)e"to P"nce2 Citin t0e %&&am

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	rachelle-perez-aboy
View:	221 times
Download:	1 times

Jurisprudence on the 3-Term Rule

Documents