Case Digest (G.R. No. 246679) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Governor Edgardo A. Tallado vs. Commission on Elections, Norberto B. Villamin, and Senandro M. Jalgalado (G.R. No. 246679, March 2, 2021), Tallado filed a Certificate of Candidacy for a fourth term as Provincial Governor of Camarines Norte in the 2019 local elections. Respondents Villamin and Jalgalado petitioned the COMELEC First Division (SPA No. 18-041) and COMELEC En Banc (SPA No. 18-137) to cancel his candidacy on the ground that he already served three consecutive terms. On March 29 and May 9, 2019, respectively, the COMELEC First Division and En Banc granted the cancellation. Tallado then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which on September 10, 2019 annulled both COMELEC resolutions, dismissed the cancellation petitions, declared its decision immediately executory, and ordered respondents to pay costs. The COMELEC and private respondents moved for reconsideration, arguing that Tallado’s prior administrative dismissals by the Office of the Ombudsma Case Digest (G.R. No. 246679) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and background
- Petitioner Edgardo A. Tallado served as Governor of Camarines Norte and sought certiorari relief before the Supreme Court to annul COMELEC resolutions cancelling his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for violating the three-term limit rule.
- Respondents included the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and private petitioners Norberto B. Villamin and Senandro M. Jalgalado, who had filed petitions with the COMELEC to cancel Tallado’s COC for the 2019 Local Elections.
- Proceedings and Supreme Court decision
- The COMELEC First Division (March 29, 2019) and COMELEC En Banc (May 9, 2019) issued resolutions cancelling Tallado’s COC in SPA No. 18-041 (DC) and SPA No. 18-137 (DC).
- On September 10, 2019, the Supreme Court en banc (per Bersamin, C.J.) GRANTED the petition for certiorari, ANNULLED and SET ASIDE the COMELEC resolutions, DISMISSED the cancellation petitions, declared its decision immediately executory, and ordered respondents Villamin and Jalgalado to pay costs.
- Motions for reconsideration
- The COMELEC filed a motion for reconsideration (MR) arguing that Tallado never lost title to office, that the Ombudsman’s non-final dismissal orders were akin to preventive suspension under its Rules, and that term limits must be strictly construed.
- Private respondent Villamin questioned the Court’s findings that Tallado’s Ombudsman dismissals caused involuntary loss of title, permanent vacancy, and interruption of service despite appellate developments.
- Private respondent Jalgalado joined the COMELEC in assailing the Court’s conclusions on term interruption.
- All respondents contended that recognizing non-final dismissals as term-interrupting would reward corrupt politicians; Tallado maintained the denial of all MRs.
Issues:
- Interruption of term by loss of office
- Does the execution of Ombudsman’s dismissal orders, though pending appeal, involuntarily divest Tallado of his title and interrupt his gubernatorial term to exempt him from the three-term limit?
- Does temporary inability or preventive suspension under Ombudsman Rules qualify as a term interruption?
- Nature of vacancy and proper succession
- Is the vacancy created by Tallado’s executed dismissals “permanent” under Section 44 of the Local Government Code (LGC) or merely “temporary” under Section 46?
- Did the DILG correctly invoke Section 44 by installing the Vice Governor as Governor?
- Applicability of Ombudsman Rules versus constitutional term limits
- Can the Ombudsman Rules’ fiction treating dismissal as preventive suspension upon successful appeal override the constitutional effect of title loss for elective officials?
- Should term-limit provisions be strictly construed against interruptions not amounting to title loss?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)