G.R. No. 247806 - Cabigao vs. Commission on Elections

Petitioners filed a special civil action for mandamus seeking to compel the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to enforce term limits of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives.
They sought a declaration that reelections of termed-out officials are unconstitutional and prayed for the denial of due course to certificates of candidacy (COCs) of those intending to run in May 2022.

Article VI, Sections 4 and 7 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution limit Senators to two consecutive six-year terms and House members to three consecutive three-year terms respectively.
The provisions specify that voluntary renunciation does not interrupt continuity of service.

Several Senators and Representatives circumvented term limits by taking a “hiatus” or break before running again.
Petitioners identified numerous officials who allegedly served beyond the constitutional consecutive term limits through such interruptions.
COMELEC allegedly failed to enforce the term limits, permitting these officials to file COCs and run again.
Petitioners argue for a strict, verbatim reading ("verba legis") of the Constitution disallowing any reelection after maxing out term limits, regardless of hiatus.
They urge this Court to overturn the ruling in Socrates v. Commission on Elections, which upheld eligibility after a break in service.
Petitioners claim standing as citizens concerned with public rights and allege no other adequate legal remedy exists, asserting futility of Electoral Tribunals or petitions to deny due course.
Petitioners insist the case raises a novel question of transcendental importance warranting direct relief.

COMELEC contends mandamus is improper because eligibility determinations are quasi-judicial, not ministerial functions.
COMELEC’s ministerial duty is limited to receiving COCs and acknowledging receipt; it cannot deny COCs absent patent defects on the certificate’s face.
Petitioners’ remedy lies in filing verified petitions to deny due course or cancel certificates under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code.
COMELEC argues petitioners lack actual case or controversy and do not have legal standing, as they failed to show direct injury.
On merits, COMELEC insists the Constitution prohibits only *consecutive* terms, and that officials can run again after a rest period.
It cites framers’ debates highlighting intent to bar only immediate reelection and uphold electoral choice.
COMELEC avers that precedents interpreting term limits consistently should not be disturbed absent compelling reason.

Petitioners maintain mandamus is proper to enforce constitutional term limits, which COMELEC is neglecting.
Even if a petition under Section 78 is theoretically available, it is ineffective without COMELEC’s enforcement.
Petitioners reassert legal standing as citizens asserting public rights and argue term-limit violations are patent defects that should be clear on candidates’ COCs.
They reaffirm a strict textual interpretation of term limits rejecting “hiatus” exceptions.

The rule on judicial review, justiciability, standing, and mandamus under Philippine Constitution and Rules of Court.
Election Code Sections 74, 76, and 78 regarding contents of COC, ministerial duty to receive COC, and verified petitions to deny or cancel COC respectively.
Socrates v. Commission on Elections (2002) interpreting term limit provisions as prohibiting immediate but not subsequent reelection.

Whether there exists an actual case or controversy ripe for judicial determination.
Whether petitioners have legal standing to file the petition.

Whether petitioners lack other plain, speedy, and adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law.
Whether COMELEC’s function to deny due course to certificates of candidacy is a ministerial or discretionary/quasi-judicial duty.

Whether these provisions preclude a third term for Senators and a fourth term for House members, even after a break in service.