Case Summary (G.R. No. 167591)
Facts of the Case
In the May 2004 elections, Morales ran for mayor of Mabalacat, Pampanga. He filed his Certificate of Candidacy on January 5, 2004. Prior to this, petitioners Rivera III and De Guzman filed a petition to cancel Morales' candidacy, asserting that he had served three consecutive terms as mayor, thus violating Section 8, Article X of the Constitution and Section 43(b) of the Local Government Code. Morales admitted to his prior terms but argued that his second term from 1998 to 2001 was void due to a court decision declaring his proclamation void. Despite this, the COMELEC Second Division ruled that Morales was disqualified to run.
COMELEC En Banc Decision
The COMELEC En Banc reversed the Second Division's decision on March 14, 2005, determining that because Morales was deemed a de facto officer during the contested second term, his three terms had been effectively severed, allowing him to run in 2004. Consequently, petitioners sought judicial review of this ruling through petitions for certiorari.
Quo Warranto Petition
Simultaneously, Anthony D. Dee filed a quo warranto petition after Morales was proclaimed elected mayor, arguing that Morales was ineligible due to having served three consecutive terms. The Regional Trial Court dismissed Dee's petition, citing that Morales did not fully serve the three-term limit due to the voiding of his second term.
Legal Issues
The critical issue revolved around whether Morales' service during the term from 1998 to 2001 qualified as a complete term under the constitutional three-term limit. Petitioner Dee contended that the proclamations were null and therefore, the three-term limit applied, preventing Morales from running again. Conversely, Morales argued that since his proclamation was void, his service did not count towards the term limit.
Jurisprudential Analysis
The ruling leaned on precedents such as Ong v. Alegre, which articulated that for the three-term limit to apply, two conditions must be present: (1) the official must have been elected for three consecutive terms, and (2) must have fully served those terms. The COMELEC’s interpretation insisted that Morales' term should be considered as having been served in full because the term was only contested post-facto, after he had already discharged his duties.
Court's Conclusion
The Supreme Court determined that Morales indeed served three consecutive terms, thereby ineligible for a fourth, as dictated by both the Constitution and the Local Government Code. His claim of being a "de facto officer" was insufficient to negat
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 167591)
Case Overview
- This case comprises two consolidated petitions for certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, involving the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and Marino "Boking" Morales.
- The petitions challenge the COMELEC En Banc's Resolutions dated March 14, 2005, and November 8, 2005.
Background of the Case
- G.R. No. 167591 involves attorneys Venancio Q. Rivera III and Normandick De Guzman, who filed a petition to cancel Morales' Certificate of Candidacy for mayor of Mabalacat, Pampanga during the May 2004 elections.
- They claimed Morales was ineligible due to having already served three consecutive terms as mayor, citing violations of Section 8, Article X of the Philippine Constitution and Section 43(b) of Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code).
- G.R. No. 170577 involves Anthony D. Dee, another candidate for mayor, who filed a quo warranto petition against Morales after he was proclaimed the elected mayor for the term from July 1, 2004, to June 30, 2007.
Legal Proceedings
- Morales admitted to being elected for three terms:
- First Term: July 1, 1995 - June 30, 1998
- Second Term: July 1, 1998 - June 30, 2001 (contested and declared void)
- Third Term: July 1, 2001 - June 30, 2004
- The petitioners argued that the second term should count against Morales, thus disqualifying him from running ag