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 SC’s 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 court’s 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 mayor’s
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. (4th 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 petitioner’s 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 court’s 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.” (
0
Comments
