Borja, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

G.R. No. 133495
A vice-mayor succeeding as mayor by operation of law does not count toward the three-term limit; Capco was eligible to run again.
mayor operation of law local officials

Case Summary (G.R. No. 133495)

Factual Background

The dispute arose from the sequence by which Jose T. Capco, Jr. assumed and thereafter held the office of mayor of Pateros. Capco first held elective office as vice-mayor after the January 18, 1988 elections. He succeeded to the mayorship by operation of law on September 2, 1989 upon the death of Mayor Cesar Borja and served the unexpired portion of that term. He was subsequently elected mayor in 1992 and reelected in 1995.

Procedural History

After Capco filed his certificate of candidacy for mayor in the 1998 elections, Benjamin U. Borja, Jr. sought his disqualification on the ground that Capco would have served three consecutive terms by June 30, 1998 and was therefore ineligible under the Constitution and the Local Government Code. The COMELEC Second Division declared Capco disqualified on April 30, 1998. On motion, the COMELEC en banc reversed that decision on May 7, 1998, declaring Capco eligible to run. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court to set aside the COMELEC resolution and to obtain a declaration of Capco’s disqualification.

Issue Presented

The principal legal question was whether a vice-mayor who succeeds to the office of mayor by operation of law and serves the unexpired portion of a predecessor’s term is to be counted as having served a term in that office for purposes of the three-consecutive-term limitation embodied in Art. X, Sec. 8, 1987 Constitution and Sec. 43(b), R.A. No. 7160.

The Parties' Contentions

Petitioner argued that Capco’s service as mayor from September 2, 1989 to June 30, 1992 constituted service of a full term for purposes of the constitutional term limit, and that his subsequent elections in 1992 and 1995 therefore completed three consecutive terms, rendering him ineligible. Petitioner urged that the constitutional purpose to prevent monopolization of political power justified treating any period of service as mayor as a term irrespective of the mode of accession. Respondent Capco and the COMELEC majority contended that the constitutional and statutory term limitation refers to terms “for which the local official was elected,” and that succession by operation of law to the mayoralty is not service in a term for which the successor was elected and therefore is not counted.

The Commission on Elections' Rulings

The COMELEC Second Division found in favor of petitioner and disqualified Capco. On reconsideration, the COMELEC en banc reversed by a 5-2 vote, holding that the three-term limitation in both the Constitution and the Local Government Code refers to terms to which the local official was elected and does not count succession to an office to which the official was not elected.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari and upheld the COMELEC en banc resolution declaring Jose T. Capco, Jr. eligible to run for mayor in the May 11, 1998 elections. The dismissal followed the Court’s determination that service by succession to an office by operation of law does not count as a term “for which he was elected” under Art. X, Sec. 8, 1987 Constitution or Sec. 43(b), R.A. No. 7160. The opinion was concurred in by Narvasa, C.J., and Justices Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Panganiban, Martinez, Quisumbing and Purisima; Justice Regalado was on official leave.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court grounded its decision on textual analysis, constitutional history, and structural distinctions between elective offices filled by succession and those filled by special election. Textually, the Court observed that the second sentence of Art. X, Sec. 8 speaks of interruption of service “for the full term for which he was elected,” which, the Court held, necessarily confines the three-term limitation to terms resulting from election. The Court emphasized that the constitutional provision was designed both to prevent accumulation of power and to preserve the people’s freedom of choice, and that the drafters consciously rejected perpetual disqualification in favor of a temporary bar consequent upon election to consecutive terms.

Distinctions with Other Succession Contexts

The Court contrasted the case of a vice-mayor succeeding to the mayoralty by operation of law with situations where a representative is elected in a special election to serve an unexpired term. The Court noted that a Representative elected in a special election serves a term “for which he was elected” and that Commissioner Davide’s explanation in the Constitutional Commission supports counting such service as a term for purposes of congressional term limits. By contrast, the vice-mayor’s assumption of the mayorship under the Local Government Code is automatic and not the result of an election to that office; the vice-mayor holds a distinct office with separate functions and only incidentally succeeds to the mayoralty in case of vacancy.

Policy Considerations and Commission Debates

The Court relied on the records of the Constitutional Commission to demonstrate that the d

...continue reading