FACTS:
Respondent Leonardo B. Roman held the post of
Governor of Bataan province a number of times:
a) 1986 – 1988 Appointed OIC Governor of Bataan by former Pres.
Aquino
and served up to 1988
b) 1988 – 1992 Elected Governor and served up to 1992
c) 1994 – 1995 Elected Governor during the recall election in
1993, assumed
office on 28 June 1994 and served
up to 1995
d) 1995 – 1998 Elected Governor and served up to1998
e) 1998 – 2001 Elected Governor and served up to 2001.
In 2001, private respondent Roman again filed
a certificate of candidacy for the same post in the 14 May 2001 regular
elections. On 16 May 2001,
Leonardo Roman was proclaimed by the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Bataan.
Petitioners Melanio L. Mendoza and Mario E.
Ibarra seek to declare respondent Roman’s election as governor of Bataan as
null and void for allegedly being contrary to Art. X, §8 of the Constitution
ISSUE:
WON Private Respondent's incumbency to the
post of Governor following the recall elections be included in determining the three-consecutive
term limit fixed by law
HELD:
No. A winner who dislodges in a recall
election an incumbent elective local official merely serves the balance of the
latter's term of office; it is not a full three-year term.
The law contemplates a continuous full three-year
term before the proscription can apply, providing for only one exception, i.e.,
when an incumbent voluntarily gives up the office. If involuntary severance
from the service which results in the incumbent’s being unable to finish his
term of office because of his ouster through valid recall proceedings negates “one term” for purposes of
applying the three-‐term limit, it stands to reason that the balance of the term
assumed by the newly elected local official in a recall election should not
also be held to be one term in reckoning the three-term limit.
In both situations, neither the elective
local official who is unable to finish his term nor the elected local official
who only assumes the balance of the term of the ousted local official following
the recall election could be considered to have served a full three-year term
set by the Constitution.
The Constitution does not prohibit elective
local officials from serving for more than three consecutive terms because, in
fact, it excludes from the three-term limit interruptions in the continuity of
service, so long as such interruptions are not due to the voluntary
renunciation of the office by an incumbent.
Hence, the period from June 28, 1994 to June 30, 1995, during which
respondent Leonardo B. Roman served as governor of Bataan by virtue of a recall
election held in 1993, should not be counted.
Since on May 14, 2001 respondent had previously served as governor of
Bataan for only two consecutive terms (1995-1998 and 1998-2001), his election
on that day was actually only his third term for the same position.
A recall term should not be considered as one
full term, because a contrary interpretation would in effect cut short the
elected official’s service to less than nine years and shortchange his
constituents. The desire to prevent
monopoly of political power should be balanced against the need to uphold the
voters’ obvious preference who, in the present case, is Roman who received 97
percent of the votes cast.
(Note: Court voted 8 to 7 to DISMISS the
petition.)
VITUG, J., joined by YNARES-‐SANTIAGO, J., voted to dismiss
the petition. MENDOZA, J., in whose opinion QUISUMBING, J.
joined, voted to dismiss the petition on the ground that a term during
which succession to a local
elective office takes place or a recall election is held should not be counted
in determining whether an elective local official has served more than three
consecutive terms. He argued that the Constitution does not prohibit elective
local officials from serving for more than three consecutive terms because, in
fact, it excludes from the three-‐term limit interruptions in the continuity of service, so long as
such interruptions are not due to the voluntary renunciation of the office by
an incumbent.
PANGANIBAN, J., joined by PUNO, J., also
voted to dismiss the petition. He argued that a recall term should not be considered
as one full term, because a contrary interpretation would in effect cut short
the elected official's service to less than nine years and shortchange his
constituents. The desire to prevent monopoly of political power should be
balanced against the need to uphold the voters' obvious preference who, in the
present case, is Roman who received 97 percent of the votes cast.
AZCUNA, J., joined by BELLOSILLO, J., also voted
to dismiss, arguing that it is clear from the constitutional provision that the
disqualification applies only if the
terms are consecutive and the service is full and continuous. Hence, service
for less than a term, except only in case of voluntary renunciation, should not
count to disqualify an elective local official from running for the same
position.
SANDOVAL-‐GUTIERREZ, J., with whom DAVIDE, C.J., and AUSTRIA-‐MARTINEZ, CORONA, and CALLEJO,
SR., JJ. concurred, holds the view that the recall term served by respondent Roman, comprising the
period June 28, 1994 to June 30, 1995, should be considered as one term.
CARPIO, J., joined by CARPIO-‐MORALES, J., also dissented and
voted to grant the petition. He held that a recall term constitutes one term
and that to totally ignore a recall term in determining the three-term limit
would allow local officials to serve for more than nine consecutive years
contrary to the manifest intent of the framers of the Constitution. He
contended that respondent Roman's election in 2001 cannot exempt him from the
three-term limit imposed by the Constitution. (
0
Comments
