Albania v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondent Edgardo A. Tallado served as Governor of Camarines Norte. He was initially proclaimed winner after a petition for correction of manifest error following the May 14, 2007 elections, serving from March 22, 2010, to June 30, 2010. He subsequently won and served in the 2010 and 2013 elections. In an administrative case, he was found guilty of oppression and grave abuse of authority and was suspended from office for one year without pay. 2. Procedural History: Petitioner Sofronio B. Albania filed a petition to deny due course to or cancel respondent's Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for the May 9, 2016 elections. The petition was based on two grounds: violation of the three-term limit rule and the Ombudsman's suspension order. The COMELEC Second Division dismissed the petition, ruling it was filed out of time and that the grounds cited were not proper for disqualification but for denial of due course or cancellation of COC. The COMELEC En Banc affirmed this dismissal, agreeing that the grounds were not for disqualification and that the petition was filed late. It also ruled on the merits, finding no violation of the three-term limit rule as respondent did not fully serve his first term, and that suspension is not a ground for disqualification. 3. The Petition: Petitioner seeks certiorari under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, challenging the COMELEC En Banc's resolution. The petition argues that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion by (1) ruling that the grounds were not proper for disqualification, (2) ruling that the petition, even if treated as one to deny due course or cancel a COC, was filed out of time, (3) failing to disqualify respondent for violating the three-term limit rule, and (4) failing to disqualify respondent due to the Ombudsman's suspension order. The core arguments revolve around the COMELEC's interpretation of disqualification grounds, the timeliness of the petition, and the application of the three-term limit rule.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ruling that the grounds relied upon by petitioner were not proper for a petition for disqualification. Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that even if the petition for disqualification were considered a petition for denial of due course to or cancellation of respondent's COC, it was filed out of time. Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in failing to rule that respondent should be disqualified pursuant to Section 43 of RA No. 7160 (Local Government Code). Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in failing to rule that respondent should be disqualified due to the Ombudsman's Order dated October 2, 2015.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Resolution dated August 24, 2016 of the Commission on Elections En Banc is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the grounds relied upon by petitioner were proper for a petition for disqualification: The Court affirmed the COMELEC's finding that the grounds cited by petitioner – violation of the three-term limit rule and suspension from office – are not among the statutory grounds for disqualification under Sections 12 and 68 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) and Section 40 of the Local Government Code (LGC). Specifically, Section 40(b) of the LGC refers to removal from office as a result of an administrative case, not mere suspension. The Court reiterated that a violation of the three-term limit rule is a ground for ineligibility, which falls under Section 78 of the OEC (petition to deny due course to or cancel a COC), not Section 68 of the OEC (disqualification). On the issue of whether the petition was filed out of time: The Court agreed with the COMELEC that the petition, when treated as one for denial of due course to or cancellation of a COC under Section 78 of the OEC, was filed out of time. Respondent filed his COC on October 16, 2015. Section 78 mandates that such a petition must be filed not later than twenty-five (25) days from the filing of the COC. This period expired on November 10, 2015. However, petitioner filed the petition on November 13, 2015, which was beyond the reglementary period. The COMELEC's authority to determine the true nature of a case filed before it, based on its averments rather than its caption, was upheld. On the issue of whether respondent violated the three-term limit rule: The Court found no violation of the three-term limit rule. It reiterated the two conditions for its application: (1) the official must have been elected for three consecutive terms in the same local government post, and (2) the official must have fully served those three consecutive terms. In this case, while respondent was elected for three consecutive terms, he did not fully serve the first term (2007-2010). He assumed office only on March 22, 2010, and served until June 30, 2010, due to an election protest. This period of service was less than a full term and was considered an involuntary interruption, thus not counting as a full term for the purpose of the three-term threshold. The Court cited Lonzanida v. Commission on Elections and Abundo v. COMELEC in support of this interpretation. On the issue of whether respondent should be disqualified due to the Ombudsman's Order: The Court affirmed the COMELEC's ruling that the Ombudsman's order imposing suspension was not a ground for disqualification. Section 40(b) of the LGC specifically requires removal from office as a result of an administrative case for disqualification, not merely suspension. Furthermore, Section 66(b) of RA No. 7160 states that the penalty of suspension shall not be a bar to the candidacy of the respondent so suspended, provided he meets the qualifications for the office.
Main Doctrine
A violation of the three-term limit rule is a ground for a petition to deny due course to or cancel a Certificate of Candidacy under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, not a ground for disqualification under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code or Section 40 of the Local Government Code. Such a petition must be filed within twenty-five (25) days from the filing of the Certificate of Candidacy. Furthermore, for the three-term limit rule to apply, the official must have been elected for three consecutive terms AND must have fully served those three consecutive terms.