Facts:

The case at hand is a special civil action for mandamus filed by petitioners Vladimir Alarique T. Cabigao, Yen Makabenta, Mary Wendy A. Duran, Manolito Coronado, Socorro Maricel Namia Nepomuceno, Jef Nalus Aquino, Antonio Santos, and Cesar Evangelista against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The petition was filed on November 9, 2021, with the aim of compelling the COMELEC to enforce the term limits of elective officials as stipulated in Article VI, Sections 4 and 7 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The petitioners argue that several senators and members of the House of Representatives have circumvented these term limits by taking a hiatus after serving their maximum terms and subsequently running for reelection. They provided a list of these officials who have allegedly served more than the allowed terms. The petitioners contend that the COMELEC has failed in its duty to enforce these provisions by allowing these officials to run for office again, thereby tolerating...

Facts:

Background of the Case
Petitioners Vladimir Alarique T. Cabigao, Yen Makabenta, Mary Wendy A. Duran, Manolito Coronado, Socorro Maricel Namia Nepomuceno, Jef Nalus Aquino, Antonio Santos, and Cesar Evangelista filed a special civil action for mandamus. They sought to compel the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to enforce term limits for Senators and Members of the House of Representatives, as provided under Article VI, Sections 4 and 7 of the 1987 Constitution. Specifically, they challenged the reelection of termed-out Senators and Representatives who circumvented the term limits by taking a "hiatus" or rest period before seeking reelection.

Constitutional Provisions
Article VI, Section 4 of the Constitution states that Senators shall serve for six years and cannot serve more than two consecutive terms. Article VI, Section 7 provides that Members of the House of Representatives shall serve for three years and cannot serve more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of office does not interrupt the continuity of service.

Petitioners’ Claims
Petitioners argued that many Senators and Representatives circumvented these term limits by running for office after a hiatus. They submitted a list of officials who had served more than the allowed terms and claimed that COMELEC failed to enforce the constitutional provisions by allowing these officials to run again. They sought to declare the reelection of these officials unconstitutional and to compel COMELEC to deny due course to their certificates of candidacy in the May 2022 elections.

Legal Standing and Remedy
Petitioners claimed legal standing as citizens and invoked their right to compel a public duty. They argued that mandamus was the proper remedy because COMELEC had a ministerial duty to enforce the term limits and deny due course to the certificates of candidacy of termed-out officials. They also argued that the case raised a novel legal question of transcendental significance, warranting judicial intervention.

Respondent’s Defense
COMELEC countered that mandamus was not the proper remedy because its duty to deny due course to certificates of candidacy based on term limits was not ministerial but quasi-judicial. It argued that petitioners should have filed a petition to deny due course or cancel certificates of candidacy under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. COMELEC also contended that there was no actual case or controversy and that petitioners lacked legal standing.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Justiciability and Legal Standing

   • An actual case or controversy requires a conflict of legal rights or adverse legal interests that can be resolved based on concrete facts. The petition was speculative and amounted to an advisory opinion, which the Court does not issue.
   • Legal standing requires a personal and substantial interest manifested through direct injury. Petitioners failed to show how they were directly affected by COMELEC’s actions. Their claim as citizens did not suffice to establish standing.

2. Propriety of Mandamus

   • Mandamus lies only to compel a ministerial duty, not a discretionary or quasi-judicial function. COMELEC’s duty to deny due course to certificates of candidacy based on term limits is not ministerial.
   • Petitioners had other adequate remedies, such as filing a petition to deny due course or cancel certificates of candidacy under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code.

3. Interpretation of Term Limits

   • The Constitution prohibits only the immediate reelection after maxing out the term limits. It does not preclude reelection after a “rest period.” The use of the word “consecutive” in the constitutional provisions indicates that the term limits apply only to immediate reelection, not subsequent elections after a break.
   • The Court upheld its precedent in Socrates v. Commission on Elections, which interpreted the term limits as allowing reelection after a hiatus.