You are on page 1of 5

Borja Jr. vs.

COMELEC
Facts:
Jose Capco Jr. was elected vice-mayor of Pateros in the 1988 election. On September 2, 1989 he became mayor, by
operation of law upon the death of the incumbent mayor. He was elected for mayor in the 1992 election and was re-
elected in the 1995 election. He filed a certificate of candidacy for mayor relative to the upcoming 1998 elections.
Petitioner who was a candidate for mayor sought the disqualification of Jose Capco Jr. on the ground of the three-
term limit rule under the constitution and local government code.
Capco got the majority of votes and was proclaimed as mayor of Pateros.

Issue:
Whether or not Capco Jr. is eligible to run for mayor.

Ruling:
Yes, the three-term limit for elective local official refers to the right to be elected as well as the right to serve in the
same elective position. In relation to this it is not enough that a person has served three consecutive terms in an
elective local office, he must also have been elected to the same position. Therefore, the succession by operation of
law by Capco does not count as a term in counting the three-term limit rule.
____________________
Case 2.
ATTY. VENANCIO Q. RIVERA III and ATTY. NORMANDICK DE GUZMAN, Petitioners,
vs.
COMELEC and MARINO "BOKING" MORALES, Respondents.
FACTS:
A petition for cancelation of the Certificate of Candidacy of Marino Morales as mayoralty candidate in Mabalacat,
Pampanga for the May 2004 mayoralty was filed on the ground the he already served three consecutive terms in the
office he seeks to run.

Morales argues that this is not so because although he really served in 1995-1998 (1
st
term) and 2004-2007 (3
rd

term), he was merely a caretaker or de facto mayor in 1998-2001(2
nd
term) because his election was declared void
by the RTC due to an election protest.

Comelec ruled that Morales already served his third term and after an MR was filed, declared it final and executory
on May 14, 2004.

ISSUE:
WON Morales had already served his 3 consecutive terms and if so, who should take his position.

HELD:
For the three-term limit for elective local government officials to apply, two conditions or requisites must concur, to
wit: (1) that the official concerned has been elected for three (3) consecutive terms in the same local government
post, and (2) that he has fully served three (3) consecutive terms.

Here, Morales was elected for the term July 1, 1998 to June 30, 2001. He assumed the position. He served as mayor
until June 30, 2001. He was mayor for the entire period notwithstanding the Decision of the RTC in the electoral
protest case filed by petitioner Dee ousting him (respondent) as mayor. Such circumstance does not constitute an
interruption in serving the full term.

Whether as "caretaker" or "de facto" officer, he exercises the powers and enjoys the prerequisites of the office which
enables him "to stay on indefinitely".

With regard to the person who will replace Morales, it is a rule that the ineligibility of a candidate receiving majority
votes does not entitle the eligible candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be declared elected. A
minority or defeated candidate cannot be deemed elected to the office.

Since his disqualification became final and executory after the elections, the candidate having the second highest
number of votes cannot assume the position. Hence, it is the petitioner, the elected Vice Mayor Anthony Dee who
should be declared as the mayor.
FACTS:

Roberto L. Dizon, a resident and taxpayer of Mabalacat, Pampanga, filed a case with the COMELEC to disqualify
Marino P. Morales, the incumbent mayor of Mabalacat on the ground that the latter was elected and had fully served
three previous consecutive terms in violation of Section 43 of the Local Government Code. Dizon alleged that
Morales was municipal mayor in 1995, 1998, 2001 and 2004. Thus, Morales should not have been allowed to have
filed his Certificate of Candidacy on March 2007 for the same position and same municipality.

Morales, on the other hand, contended that he is still eligible and qualified to run as mayor of Mabalacat because he
was not elected for the said position in the 1998 elections. He averred that the COMELEC en banc affirmed the
decision of the RTC declaring Anthony D. Dee as the duly elected Mayor of Mabalacat in the 1998 elections. Thus,
he was not elected for the said position in the 1998 elections. His term should be reckoned from 2001. He added that
his election in 2004 is only for his second term.

COMELEC Second Division ruled in favor of Morales and denied the petition. It took judicial notice of SCs ruling
in the Rivera case promulgated on May 9, 2007 where it was held that Morales was elected as mayor of Mabalacat
in 1995, 1998 and 2001 (notwithstanding the RTC Decision in an electoral protest case that the then proclamation of
Morales was void). The SC ruled in that case that Morales violated the three-term limit under Section 43 of the
LGC. Hence, Morales was considered not a candidate in the 2004 elections, and this failure to qualify for the 2004
elections is a gap and allows him to run again for the same position in 2007 elections.

Dizon filed a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc. COMELEC En Banc: affirmed. The three-
term limit is not applicable here for: 1) Morales was not the duly-elected mayor of Mabalacat for the July 1, 2004 to
June 30, 2007 term primordially because he was not even considered a candidate thereat; and 2) Morales has failed
to serve the entire duration of the term of office because he has already relinquished the disputed office on May 16,
2007 which is more than a month prior to the end of his supposed term.


ISSUES:

1. WON the period served by Morales in the 2004-2007 term (although he was ousted from his office as Mayor on
May16, 2007) should be considered his fourth term

2. WON the 2007-2010 term of Morales is his 5th term


HELD:

1. NO. In our decision promulgated on 9 May 2007, this Court unseated Morales during his fourth term. We
cancelled his Certificate of Candidacy dated 30 December 2003. This cancellation disqualified Morales from being a
candidate in the May 2004 elections. The votes cast for Morales were considered stray votes.

Both Article X, Section 8 of the Constitution and Section 43(b) of the Local Government Code state that the term of
office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, shall be three years, and no such official shall serve for
more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be
considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected.

There should be a concurrence of two conditions for the application of the disqualification: (1) that the official
concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms in the same local government post and (2) that he has fully
served three consecutive terms.

In the Rivera case, we found that Morales was elected as mayor of Mabalacat for four consecutive terms: 1 July
1995 to 30 June 1998, 1 July 1998 to 30 June 2001, 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2004, and 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2007.
We disqualified Morales from his candidacy in the May 2004 elections because of the three-term limit. Although the
trial court previously ruled that Morales proclamation for the 1998-2001 term was void, there was no interruption
of the continuity of Morales service with respect to the 1998-2001 term because the trial courts ruling was
promulgated only on 4 July 2001, or after the expiry of the 1998-2001 term.

Our ruling in the Rivera case served as Morales involuntary severance from office with respect to the 2004-2007
term. Involuntary severance from office for any length of time short of the full term provided by law amounts to an
interruption of continuity of service. Our decision in the Rivera case was promulgated on 9 May 2007 and was
effective immediately. The next day, Morales notified the vice mayors office of our decision. The vice mayor
assumed the office of the mayor from 17 May 2007 up to 30 June 2007. The assumption by the vice mayor of the
office of the mayor, no matter how short it may seem to Dizon, interrupted Morales continuity of service. Thus,
Morales did not hold office for the full term of 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2007. (4
th
term)

2. Dizon claims that the 2007-2010 term is Morales fifth term in office. NO. Morales occupied the position of
mayor of Mabalacat for the following periods:

1 July 1995 to 30 June 1998
1 July 1998 to 30 June 2001
1 July 2001 to 30 June 2004, and
1 July 2004 to 16 May 2007.

However, because of his disqualification, Morales was not the duly elected mayor for the 2004-2007 term. Neither
did Morales hold the position of mayor of Mabalacat for the full term. Morales cannot be deemed to have served the
full term of 2004-2007 because he was ordered to vacate his post before the expiration of the term. Morales
occupancy of the position of mayor of Mabalacat from 1 July 2004 to 16 May 2007 cannot be counted as a term for
purposes of computing the three-term limit. Indeed, the period from 17 May 2007 to 30 June 2007 served as a gap
for purposes of the three-term limit rule. Thus, the present 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2010 term is effectively Morales
first term for purposes of the three-term limit rule.


Dizon alleges that Morales "was able to serve his fourth term as mayor through lengthy litigations. In other words,
he was violating the rule on three-term limit with impunity by the sheer length of litigation and profit from it even
more by raising the technicalities arising therefrom." To this, we quote our ruling in Lonzanida v. COMELEC:

The respondents harp on the delay in resolving the election protest between petitioner and his then opponent Alvez
which took roughly about three years and resultantly extended the petitioners incumbency in an office to which he
was not lawfully elected. We note that such delay cannot be imputed to the petitioner. There is neither specific
allegation nor proof that the delay was due to any political maneuvering on his part to prolong his stay in office.
Moreover, protestant Alvez, was not without legal recourse to move for the early resolution of the election protest
while it was pending before the regional trial court or to file a motion for the execution of the regional trial courts
decision declaring the position of mayor vacant and ordering the vice-mayor to assume office while the appeal was
pending with the COMELEC. Such delay which is not here shown to have been intentionally sought by the
petitioner to prolong his stay in office cannot serve as basis to bar his right to be elected and to serve his chosen
local government post in the succeeding mayoral election. (Dizon v. Comelec, G.R. No. 182088, J anuary 30,
2009)


MARCOS versus COMELEC (208 SCRA 300)

Facts:
Petitioner Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Representative of the
First District of Leyte. Private respondent Cirilo Roy Montejo, a candidate for the same position, filed a petition for
cancellation and disqualification with the COMELEC alleging that petitioner did not meet the constitutional
requirement for residency. Private respondent contended that petitioner lacked the Constitutions one-year residency
requirement for candidates for the House of Representatives.
Issue:
Whether or not the statement in the COC determines whether an individual satisfied the constitutions residency
qualification requirement, to warrant herein petitioners disqualification.

Ruling:
NO. Having determined that petitioner possesses the necessary residence qualifications to run for a seat in the House
of Representatives in the First District of Leyte, the COMELEC's questioned Resolutions dated April 24, May 7,
May 11, and May 25, 1995 are hereby SET ASIDE. Respondent COMELEC is hereby directed to order the
Provincial Board of Canvassers to proclaim petitioner as the duly elected Representative of the First District of
Leyte.

QUINTO versus COMELEC (G.R. No. 189698)
Facts:
Petitioners Eleazar P. Quinto and Gerino A. Tolentino, Jr. filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition against the
COMELEC for issuing a resolution declaring appointive officials who filed their certificate of candidacy as ipso
facto resigned from their government offices because at such time they are not yet treated by the law as candidates.
They should be considered resigned from their respective offices only at the start of the campaign period when they
are, by law, already considered candidates.
In this defense, the COMELEC avers that it only copied the provision from Sec. 13 of R.A. 9369.
Issue:
Whether or not the said COMELEC resolution was valid.

Held:
NO. In the Farias case, the petitioners challenged Sec. 14 of RA. 9006 repealing Sec. 66 of the Omnibus Election
Code (OEC) for giving undue benefit to elective officials in comparison with appointive officials. Incidentally, the
Court upheld the substantial distinctions between the two and pronounced that there was no violation of the equal
protection clause. However in the present case, the Court held that the discussion on the equal protection clause was
an obiter dictum since the issue raised therein was against the repealing clause. It didnt squarely challenge Sec. 66.

Sec. 13 of RA. 9369 unduly discriminated appointive and elective officials. Applying the 4 requisites of a valid
classification, the proviso does not comply with the second requirement that it must be germane to the purpose of
the law.
The obvious reason for the challenged provision is to prevent the use of a governmental position to promote ones
candidacy, or even to wield a dangerous or coercive influence of the electorate. The measure is further aimed at
promoting the efficiency, integrity, and discipline of the public service by eliminating the danger that the discharge
of official duty would be motivated by political considerations rather than the welfare of the public. The restriction
is also justified by the proposition that the entry of civil servants to the electorate arena, while still in office, could
result in neglect or inefficiency in the performance of duty because they would be attending to their campaign rather
than to their office work.

You might also like