Rivera v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Marino "Boking" Morales served as the Mayor of Mabalacat, Pampanga, for consecutive terms: July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1998, and July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2004. He filed a Certificate of Candidacy for the May 2004 elections for the term commencing July 1, 2004. Petitioners alleged that Morales was ineligible to run for a fourth consecutive term due to his prior service, violating the constitutional and statutory three-term limit. Procedural History: In G.R. No. 167591, Attys. Rivera and De Guzman filed a petition to cancel Morales' Certificate of Candidacy, which the COMELEC Second Division granted. However, the COMELEC En Banc reversed this, ruling that Morales' service during the July 1, 1998 to June 30, 2001 term was as a de facto officer due to a voided proclamation, thus not counting as a full term. In G.R. No. 170577, Anthony Dee filed a quo warranto petition after Morales was proclaimed mayor in 2004. The Regional Trial Court dismissed Dee's petition, and the COMELEC First Division affirmed this, also citing the voided proclamation for the 1998-2001 term. The COMELEC En Banc later affirmed the First Division's resolution. The Petition: Both petitions are for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the COMELEC En Banc Resolutions. Petitioners argue that the COMELEC erred in ruling that Morales' service from July 1, 1998, to June 30, 2001, did not constitute a full term, thereby allowing him to run for a fourth consecutive term. They contend, citing Ong v. Alegre, that service rendered under a proclaimed victory, even if later voided, counts as a full term if the term itself has expired before the voiding decision becomes final. The Supreme Court is asked to determine if Morales is disqualified from running for or holding office due to exceeding the three-term limit.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Marino "Boking" Morales is disqualified from running for Mayor of Mabalacat for the term commencing July 1, 2004, having allegedly served three consecutive terms. Whether service as a "de facto" officer or "caretaker" due to a void proclamation interrupts the continuity of service for the purpose of the three-term limit rule. Whether the votes cast for a disqualified candidate should be counted.
Ruling
The petition in G.R. No. 167591 is GRANTED. Respondent Morales' Certificate of Candidacy dated December 30, 2003 is cancelled. The vice-mayor elect of Mabalacat in the May 10, 2004 elections is declared mayor and shall serve for the remaining duration of the term July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2007. The petition in G.R. No. 170577 is DISMISSED for being moot. The Decision is immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether respondent Marino "Boking" Morales is disqualified from running for Mayor of Mabalacat for the term commencing July 1, 2004, having allegedly served three consecutive terms: The Supreme Court ruled that Morales is disqualified. The Court held that Morales had been continuously serving as Mayor of Mabalacat without any break since July 1, 1995. His service for the term July 1, 1998 to June 30, 2001, during which he assumed the position and discharged the duties of mayor until the end of the term, must be counted as a full term for the purpose of the three-term limit rule, notwithstanding the RTC's decision declaring his proclamation void. The Court emphasized that the purpose of the three-term limit is to prevent the accumulation of excessive power, and allowing service as a "de facto" officer or "caretaker" to interrupt this continuity would defeat the constitutional intent. On the issue of whether service as a "de facto" officer or "caretaker" due to a void proclamation interrupts the continuity of service for the purpose of the three-term limit rule: The Supreme Court held that such service does not interrupt the continuity. Citing Ong v. Alegre, the Court clarified that for the three-term limit to apply, an official must have been elected for three consecutive terms and fully served them. The Court distinguished the present case from Lonzanida v. COMELEC, where the official was ordered to vacate the office, resulting in an involuntary relinquishment and an interruption of service. In Morales' case, he was never unseated during the 1998-2001 term and continuously discharged his duties. Therefore, his service during that period counts as a full term, and his subsequent candidacy for a fourth term violates the rule. On the issue of whether the votes cast for a disqualified candidate should be counted: The Supreme Court ruled that votes cast for a disqualified candidate should not be counted and must be considered stray votes. Citing Sections 6 and 7 of R.A. No. 6646 and Section 211 of the Omnibus Election Code, the Court stated that a candidate declared disqualified cannot be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. Consequently, Morales was not considered a candidate in the May 2004 elections, and the votes cast for him were deemed stray. This ruling directly impacts the outcome of the election and the subsequent filling of the vacant office.
Main Doctrine
Service as a 'de facto' officer or 'caretaker' due to a void proclamation, where the official continues to discharge the duties of the office for the entire term, counts as a full term for the purpose of the three-term limit rule. An interruption in service requires an involuntary relinquishment of office or a break in continuity.