Case Summary (G.R. No. 246679)
COMELEC’s Motion for Reconsideration Grounds
COMELEC contended that Tallado never lost his title to the governorship: (a) reliance on Aldovino Jr. v. COMELEC and Asilo, holding that temporary inability does not interrupt a term; (b) the non-final but executory nature of Ombudsman dismissal equates to preventive suspension; (c) no permanent vacancy arose; and (d) term-limit provisions should be strictly construed against interruption.
Villamin’s Motion for Reconsideration Grounds
Villamin challenged the finding that (a) Tallado lost title to office upon dismissal; (b) dismissals produced permanent vacancy; and (c) subsequent developments in appeal did not alter the fact of dismissal sufficient to interrupt his term.
Jalgalado’s Opposition to the Decision
Jalgalado adopted COMELEC’s arguments, insisting that Tallado’s appeal and the eventual modification of penalty to suspension demonstrate lack of permanence in removal and cannot constitute an interruption of continuous service under the three-term rule.
Court’s Reaffirmation of September 10, 2019 Decision
The Court denied all motions for reconsideration, reiterating that “interruption” of a term requires involuntary loss of title to office, even if brief. It distinguished between “interruption” (loss of title) and mere “failure to render service” (retention of title but inability to perform functions).
Doctrine on Interruption vs. Failure to Serve
Under Section 8, Article X of the Constitution and prevailing jurisprudence (Aldovino Jr.; Montebon), involuntary loss of title—by operation of law or executed dismissal—constitutes an effective interruption of an elective term. A temporary bar on function without loss of title (e.g., suspension) does not interrupt the term.
Execution of Ombudsman Decisions and Loss of Title
Ombudsman Rules (AO 07, Rule III, Sec. 7) make dismissal decisions immediately executory despite pending appeal. In Tallado’s case, the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) enforced two separate Ombudsman dismissal orders by transferring gubernatorial functions to the Vice Governor, who took oath as Governor, demonstrating Tallado’s divestment of title.
Application of Local Government Code on Permanent Vacancy
Section 44 of the Local Government Code classifies removal from office as causing a permanent vacancy. Section 46, referring to temporary incapacity (e.g., suspension, leave), does not apply when the officer is divested of title. The DILG correctly implemented the first dismissal under Sec. 44; conflating actions under separate cases was unwarranted.
Preventive Suspension Rule and Constitutional Implications
While appointive officials reinstated on appeal are treated as under preventive suspension with backwages, applying that fiction to local elective officials would negate constitutional term-limit safeguards. Dismissal of an elective local official interrupts his term with constitutional consequences; the preventive suspension proviso cannot be extended to such officials without violating the Constitution’s intent.
Court’s Response to “Rewarding Corruption” Argument
Concerns that the ruling benefits corrupt politicians were deemed unfounded. The decision applies established law impa
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 246679)
Procedural Background
- On September 10, 2019, the Supreme Court en banc promulgated a Decision granting Tallado’s petition for certiorari, annulling and setting aside two COMELEC resolutions (March 29, 2019 First Division; May 9, 2019 En Banc) in SPA Nos. 18-041 (DC) and 18-137 (DC).
- The consolidated petitions sought cancellation of petitioner Tallado’s Certificate of Candidacy for Provincial Governor of Camarines Norte in the 2019 local elections.
- The Court ordered the petitions dismissed, declared its decision immediately executory, and taxed costs against respondents Villamin and Jalgalado.
- COMELEC, Villamin, and Jalgalado filed separate motions for reconsideration, challenging the Court’s conclusions on term interruption, vacancy nature, and term‐limit application.
Facts
- Edgardo A. Tallado served three consecutive terms as Governor of Camarines Norte (2010–2019).
- The Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) rendered two dismissals against him in separate administrative cases, both immediately executory but appealable to the Court of Appeals.
• First dismissal enforced November 8 – December 30, 2016; Vice Governor Pimentel sworn as Governor.
• Second dismissal enforced March 14 – September 26, 2018; Pimentel again assumed full gubernatorial title. - Tallado appealed both OMB decisions; the Court of Appeals later modified his penalty to suspension in the second case, awarding back wages.
- COMELEC treated the periods of enforced dismissals as temporary vacancies and denied Tallado’s COC.
Issues
- Whether Tallado’s OMB‐ordered dismissals constituted involuntary loss of title sufficient to interrupt his term and reset the three‐term limit.
- Whether the vacancies in the governor’s office were permanent (Section 44, LGC) or temporary (Section 46, LGC).
- Proper interpretation and application of OMB Rules on finality, execution, and preventive suspension.
- Impact of the dismissals on Tallado’s eligibility to run for a fourth consecutive term.
Ruling
- The Court denied all motions for reconsideration for lack of