Lex Talionis Fraternitas Inc.

ELECTIONS
Case Digests
ESSENCE OF ELECTIONS/DEFINITION, BASIS AND NATURE
Carlos vs Angeles (G.R. No. 14!"# Nov !, """$
Even if the candidate receiving the majority votes is ineligible or
disqualified, the candidate receiving the next highest number of votes or
the second placer, can not be declared elected.
Municipal Board of Canvassers, Valenzuela, Metro Manila
proclaimed petitioner as the duly elected mayor of
Valenzuela having obtained 102,6 votes, the highest
number of votes in the election returns! "espondent #ntonio
M! $erapio %ho obtained &&,2&0 votes, the second highest
number of votes, filed %ith the "egional 'rial Court,
Valenzuela, Metro Manila, an election protest challenging the
results! 'he trial court rendered a (udgment ruling that the
perpetuation of fraud had undoubtedly suppressed the true
%ill of the electorate of Valenzuela and substituted it %ith
the %ill of the protestee! )ot%ithstanding the plurality of
valid votes in favor of the protestee, the trial court set aside
the proclamation of protestee *ose +mmanuel Carlos by the
Municipal Board of Canvassers and declared protestant
#ntonio M! $erapio as the duly elected mayor of Valenzuela
City!
,ssue- .o) the trial court acted %ithout (urisdiction or %ith
grave abuse of discretion %hen the court set aside the
proclamation of petitioner and declared respondent $erapio
as the duly elected mayor of Valenzuela City despite its
finding that petitioner garnered /,600 valid votes %hile
respondent obtained 66,602 valid votes, or a %inning margin
of 1&,00& votes!
1eld- 2es, an election means 3the choice or selection of
candidates to public office by popular vote3 through the use
of the ballot, and the elected officials of %hich are
determined through the %ill of the electorate! 3#n election is
the embodiment of the popular %ill, the e4pression of the
sovereign po%er of the people!3 $pecifically, the term
5election5, in the conte4t of the Constitution, may refer to
the conduct of the polls, including the listing of voters, the
holding of the electoral campaign, and the casting and
counting of votes!3 'he %inner is the candidate %ho has
obtained a ma(ority or plurality of valid votes cast in the
election! 3$ound policy dictates that public elective offices
are filled by those %ho receive the highest number of votes
cast in the election for that office! 6or, in all republican
forms of government the basic idea is that no one can be
declared elected and no measure can be declared carried
unless he or it receives a ma(ority or plurality of the legal
votes cast in the election!3 ,n case of protest, a revision or
recount of the ballots cast for the candidates decides the
election protest case! 'he candidate receiving the highest
number or plurality of votes shall be proclaimed the %inner!
+ven if the candidate receiving the ma(ority votes is
ineligible or dis7ualified, the candidate receiving the ne4t
highest number of votes or the second placer, cannot be
declared elected! 3'he %reath of victory cannot be
transferred from the dis7ualified %inner to the repudiated
loser because the la% then as no% only authorizes a
declaration of election in favor of the person %ho has
obtained a plurality of votes and does not entitle a candidate
receiving the ne4t highest number of votes to be declared
elected!3 ,n other %ords, 3a defeated candidate cannot be
deemed elected to the office!3
R%llo&a vs. CO'ELEC (G.R. No. 1(41!) *an ", ""+$
The purpose of election laws which is to give effect to rather than frustrate
the will of the voters. t is a solemn duty to uphold the clear and
unmista!able mandate of the people. t is well"settled that in case of
doubt, political laws must be so construed as to give life and spirit to the
popular mandate freely expressed through the ballot.
"omeo )! "ulloda and "emegio 8! 9lacido %ere the
contending candidates for Barangay Chairman of $to! 'omas,
$an *acinto, 9angasinan! :n *une 22, 2002, "omeo suffered a
heart attac; and passed a%ay! 1is %ido%, petitioner
9etronila 3Betty3 "ulloda, %rote a letter to the Commission
on +lections see;ing permission to run as candidate for
Barangay Chairman of $to! 'omas in lieu of her late husband!
BoC proclaimed 9lacido %inner despite garnering only 200
votes %hich is lesser than "ulloda<s =16! 9etitioner later
found out that C:M+8+C denied her application to be
substitute candidate of her late husband! C:M+8+C based its
decision on its "esolution )o! >01 declaring there shall be
no substitution for barangay and $? elections! 9etitioner
filed the instant petition for certiorari, see;ing to annul
$ection 0 of "esolution )o! >01 and "esolution )o! =21&,
both of the C:M+8+C, insofar as they prohibited petitioner
from running as substitute candidate in lieu of her deceased
husband@ to nullify the proclamation of respondent@ and to
proclaim her as the duly elected Barangay Chairman of $to!
'omas, $an *acinto, 9angasinan!
,ssue- .:) "ulloda should be declared the %inner and
proclaimed as the Barangay Chairman
1eld- 2es, election means the choice or selection of
candidates to public office by popular vote through the use
of the ballot, and the elected officials %hich are determined
through the %ill of the electorate! #n election is the
embodiment of the popular %ill, the e4pression of the
sovereign po%er of the people! 'he %inner is the candidate
%ho has obtained a ma(ority or plurality of valid votes cast in
the election! $ound policy dictates that public elective
offices are filled by those %ho receive the highest number of
votes cast in the election for that office! 6or, in all
republican forms of government the basic idea is that no one
can be declared elected and no measure can be declared
carried unless he or it receives a ma(ority or plurality of the
legal votes cast in the election! 9rivate respondent argues
that inasmuch as the barangay election is nonA partisan,
there can be no substitution because there is no political
party from %hich to designate the substitute! $uch an
fallschirmjger Page 1
Lex Talionis Fraternitas Inc.
interpretation, aside from being non sequitur, ignores the
purpose of election la%s %hich is to give effect to, rather
than frustrate, the %ill of the voters! ,t is a solemn duty to
uphold the clear and unmista;able mandate of the people! ,t
is %ellAsettled that in case of doubt, political la%s must be so
construed as to give life and spirit to the popular mandate
freely e4pressed through the ballot! Contrary to respondent<s
claim, the absence of a specific provision governing
substitution of candidates in barangay elections cannot be
inferred as a prohibition against said substitution! $uch a
restrictive construction cannot be read into the la% %here
the same is not %ritten! ,ndeed, there is more reason to
allo% the substitution of candidates %here no political
parties are involved than %hen political considerations or
party affiliations reign, a fact that must have been subsumed
by la%!
S%nga vs. CO'ELEC (G.R. No. 1(,! 'ar (, 1!!)$
t would be extremely repugnant to the basic concept of the
constitutionally guaranteed right to suffrage if a candidate who has not
acquired the majority or plurality of votes is proclaimed winner and
imposed as the representative of a constituency, the majority of whom
have positively declared through their ballots that they do not choose him.
9etitioner Manuel C! $unga %as one of the candidates for the
position of Mayor in the Municipality of ,guig, 9rovince of
Cagayan, in the May 100= elections! 9rivate respondent
6erdinand B! 'rinidad, then incumbent mayor, %as a
candidate for reAelection in the same municipality! $unga
filed %ith the C:M+8+C a letter Acomplaint for
dis7ualification against 'rinidad, accusing him of using three
B/C local government vehicles in his campaign, in violation of
$ec! 261, par! BoC, #rt! DD,,, of B9 Blg! 1 B:mnibus +lection
Code, as amendedC! :n & May 100=, $unga filed another
letterAcomplaint %ith the C:M+8+C charging 'rinidad this
time %ith violation of $ec! 261, par! BeC Breferring to threats,
intimidation, terrorism or other forms of coercionC of the
:mnibus +lection Code! +lection results sho%ed that 'rinidad
garnered the highest number of votes, %hile $unga trailed
second!
,ssue- .:) $unga as the second placer is entitled to be
proclaimed in the event 'rinidad is dis7ualified
1eld- )o, the fact that the candidate %ho obtained the
highest number of votes is later dis7ualified for the office to
%hich he %as elected does not entitle the candidate %ho
obtained the second highest number of votes to be declared
the %inner of the elective office! 'he votes cast for a
dis7ualified person may not be valid to install the %inner into
office or maintain him there! But in the absence of a statute
%hich clearly asserts a contrary political and legislative
policy on the matter, if the votes %ere cast in the sincere
belief that the candidate %as 7ualified, they should not be
treated as stray, void or meaningless! $unga totally
miscontrued the nature of our democratic electoral process
as %ell as the sociological and psychological elements behind
voters5 preferences! +lection is the process of complete
ascertainment of the e4pression of the popular %ill! ,ts
ultimate purpose is to give effect to the %ill of the
electorate by giving them direct participation in choosing the
men and %omen %ho %ill run their government! 'hus, it
%ould be e4tremely repugnant to the basic concept of the
constitutionally guaranteed right to suffrage if a candidate
%ho has not ac7uired the ma(ority or plurality of votes is
proclaimed %inner and imposed as the representative of a
constituency, the ma(ority of %hom have positively declared
through their ballots that they do not choose him! .hile
$unga may have garnered the second highest number of
votes, the fact remains that he %as not the choice of the
people of ,guig, Cagayan! 3'he %reath of victory cannot be
transferred from the dis7ualified %inner to the repudiated
loser because the la% then as no% only authorizes a
declaration of election in favor of the person %ho has
obtained a plurality of votes and does not entitle a candidate
receiving the ne4t highest number of votes to be declared
elected!3
'-./%g vs CO'ELEC (G.R. No. 1",#"0#+ Fe1 1", 1!!4$
#ll the law requires is that a winning candidate must be elected by a
plurality of valid votes, regardless of the actual number of ballots cast.
Thus, even if less than $%& of the electorate in the questioned precincts
cast their votes, the same must still be respected.
9etitioner $E8'#) M:1#M#F 8! M,'MEG and private
respondent F#'E G#MB#, F#G#8#)G,' %ere among the
candidates for the mayoralty position of 8umba ABayabao!
Voter turnout for the election %as very lo%! :nly 2,//0 out
of 0,/0 registered voters therein cast their votes!
Fagalangit %on! :ther candidates filed separate petition for
the declaration of failure of election in some or all precincts
in 8umbaABayabao!
,ssue- .:) C:M+8+C should declare a failure of election on
the ground of massive disenfranchisement of voters due to
alleged terrorism and unla%ful clustering of precincts!
1eld! )o! before C:M+8+C can act on a verified petition
see;ing to declare a failure of election, t%o B2C conditions
must concur- first, no voting has ta;en place in the precinct
or precincts on the date fi4ed by la% or, even if there %as
voting, the election nevertheless results in failure to elect@
and, second , the votes not cast %ould affect the result of
the election! ,n the case before us, it is indubitable that the
votes not cast %ill definitely affect the outcome of the
election! But, the first re7uisite is missing, i!e!, that no
actual voting too; place, or even if there is, the results
thereon %ill be tantamount to a failure to elect! $ince actual
voting and election by the registered voters in the
7uestioned precincts have ta;en place, the results thereof
cannot be disregarded and e4cluded! C:M+8+C therefore did
not commit any abuse of discretion, much less grave, in
denying the petitions outright! 'here %as no basis for the
petitions since the facts alleged therein did not constitute
sufficient grounds to %arrant the relief sought! 6or, the
language of the la% e4pressly re7uires the concurrence of
these conditions to (ustify the calling of a special election!
fallschirmjger Page 2
Lex Talionis Fraternitas Inc.
'here can be failure of election in a political unit only if the
%ill of the ma(ority has been defiled and cannot be
ascertained! But, if it can be determined, it must be
accorded respect! #fter all, there is no provision in our
election la%s %hich re7uires that a ma(ority of registered
voters must cast their votes! #ll the la% re7uires is that a
%inning candidate must be elected by a plurality of valid
votes, regardless of the actual number of ballots cast! 'hus,
even if less than 2=H of the electorate in the 7uestioned
precincts cast their votes, the same must still be respected!
'here is prima facie sho%ing that private respondent %as
elected through a plurality of valid votes of a valid
constituency!
STATUTOR2 INTER3RETATION IN ELECTION LA4S
'ar%5o/ vs CO'ELEC (G.R. No. 1+!+(# 'a6 (, """$
'ection $()* of #rticle + (C* of the Constitution gives the C,-E.EC the
broad power /to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to
the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall./
which intends to give the C,-E.EC all the necessary and incidental powers
for it to achieve the objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful
and credible elections.
Maruhom and Fimaporo %ere both candidates for Mayor in
the Municipality of Marogong, 8anao del $ur! Furing the
counting of votes, serious irregularities, anomalies and
electoral frauds %ere committed at the instance of petitioner
or his follo%ers in that votes actually casted for the private
respondent %ere not counted and credited in his favor thru
the concerted acts, conspiracy and manipulation of the Board
of +lection ,nspectors, military, +lection :fficer and the
Machine :perator %ho happens to be a nephe% of the
petitioner! Many official ballots %ere refused or re(ected by
the machine! #s a result of the foregoing irregularities,
anomalies and electoral frauds, the petitioner %as illegally
proclaimed as %inner because he appeared to have obtained
2,020 votes %hile the private respondent garnered 2,000
votes %ith a slight margin of only 20 votes! 9rivate
respondent, ;no%ing that he %as cheated and the true
%inner for Mayor, filed before this 1onorable Commission a
petition to annul the proclamation of petitioner #bdulmadid
Maruhom as the duly elected Mayor of Marogong, 8anao del
$ur! $ubse7uently, a "evision Committee %as created and its
membership %ere duly appointed in open court %hich
committee %as directed by the C:M+8+C to finish the
revision of ballots! #fter the "evision Committee %as
directed by the respondent to commence the revision of
ballots, the petitioner #bdulmadid Maruhom thru counsel
orally moved for the dismissal of the protest on the grounds
that B1C 'he ballot bo4es containing the ballots in the
protested and counterAprotested precincts have been
violated@ B2C #utomated counting of ballots does not
contemplate a manual recount of the ballots!
,ssue- .:) the C:M+8+C may order manual recount of
ballots even not mentioned in "!#! >/6
1eld- 2es! #lthough admittedly there is a lacuna leges in "!#!
)o! >/6 %hich prescribes the adoption of an automated
election system! 1o%ever, %hile conceding as much, this
Court ruled in Tupay .oong v! C,-E.EC, Error7 869erl-n:
re;eren<e no. val-&. that the Commission is nevertheless not
precluded from conducting a manual count %hen the
automated counting system fails, reasoning thus-
! ! ! ,n enacting "!#! )o! >/6,
Congress obviously failed to provide a
remedy %here the error in counting
is not machine related for human
foresight is not allAseeing! 0e hold,
however, that the vacuum in the law
cannot prevent the C,-E.EC from
levitating above the problem!
$ection 2B1C of #rticle ,D BCC of the
Constitution gives the C:M+8+C the
broad po%er 3to enforce and
administer all la%s and regulations
relative to the conduct of an
election, plebiscite, initiative,
referendum and recall!3
Endoubtedly, the te4t and intent of
this provision is to give the C:M+8+C
all the necessary and incidental po%ers
for it to achieve the ob(ective of
holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful
and credible elections! Congruent to
this intent, this Court has not been
niggardly in defining the parameters of
po%ers of C:M+8+C in the conduct of
our elections ! ! ! ,n the case at bar,
the C:M+8+C order for a manual count
%as not only reasonable! ,t %as the
only %ay to count the decisive local
votes ! ! !
'he bottom line is that by means of
the manual count, the %ill of the
voters of $ulu %as honestly
determined! 0e cannot !ic! away
the will of the people by giving a
literal interpretation to 1.#. 2345.
1.#. 2345 did not prohibit manual
counting when machine count does
not wor!! Counting is part and parcel
of the conduct of an election %hich
is under the control and supervision
of the C:M+8+C ! ! !
! ! ! :ur elections are not conducted under
laboratory conditions! ,n running for public
offices, candidates do not follo% the rules of
+mily 9ost! 'oo often, C:M+8+C has to ma;e
snap (udgments to meet unforeseen
circumstances that threaten to subvert the
%ill of our voters! ,n the process, the actions
of C:M+8+C may not be impeccable, indeed,
may even be debatable! .e cannot,
fallschirmjger Page 3
Lex Talionis Fraternitas Inc.
ho%ever, engage in a s%ivel chair criticism of
these actions often ta;en under very difficult
circumstances!
Verily, the legal compass from %hich the C:M+8+C should
ta;e its bearings in acting upon election controversies is the
principle that 3clean elections control the appropriateness of
the remedy!3 Be that as it may, the fact is the averments in
petitioner5s counterAprotest and private respondent5s protest
already (ustified the determination of the issues through a
(udicial revision and recounting of the ballots pursuant to
$ection 2== of the :mnibus +lection Code %hich provides
that I
$ec! 2==! 6udicial counting of votes in
election contest! I 0here allegations in a
protest or counter"protest so warrant or
whenever in the opinion of the court the
interests of justice so require, it shall
immediately order the boo; of voters, ballot
bo4es and their ;eys, ballots and other
documents used in the election be brought
before it and that the ballots be e4amined
and votes recounted!
3ena vs 8RET (G.R. No. 1+"+# 'ar 1, 1!!#$
0hile it is conceded that statutes providing for election contests are to be
liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of
public officers may not be defeated by mere technical questions, the rule
li!ewise stands, that in an election protest, the protestant must stand or
fall upon the issues he had raised in his original or amended pleading filed
prior to the lapse of the statutory period for filing of the protest.
9etitioner 9ena and the private respondent #bueg %ere
contenders for the said Congressional :ffice in the May ,
100= elections! :n May 12, 100=, upon canvassing the votes
cast, the 9rovincial Board of Canvassers of 9ala%an
proclaimed the private respondent as the %inner! :n May 22,
100=, the instant petition %as filed %ith the 1"+'! 'he
petition %as dismissed by the 1"+' for the failure of the
petition to state a cause of action because it is fatally
insufficient in form and substance Bfor failing to identify
specific precincts %here alleged %idespread election, fraud
and irregularities occurredC! ,n its 9etition for Certiorari,
petitioner argues that the petition %as initially defective for
failure to specify the contested precincts, said defect %as
cured %hen petitioner submitted summary of the contested
precincts!
,ssue- .:) the 1"+' acted %ith grave abuse of discretion
amounting to having acted %ithout or in e4cess of
(urisdiction in dismissing the election protest of petitioner
1eld- )o! substantial amendments to the protest may be
allo%ed only %ithin the same period for filing the election
protest, %hich, under "ule 16 of the 1"+' "ules of 9rocedure
is ten B10C days after the proclamation of the %inner! .hile
it is conceded that statutes providing for election contests
are to be liberally construed to the end that the %ill of the
people in the choice of public officers may not be defeated
by mere technical 7uestions, the rule li;e%ise stands, that in
an election protest, the protestant must stand or fall upon
the issues he had raised in his original or amended pleading
filed prior to the lapse of the statutory period for filing of
the protest! #dmittedly, the rule is %ellA established that the
po%er to annul an election should be e4ercised %ith the
greatest care as it involves the free and fair e4pression of
the popular %ill! ,t is only in e4treme cases of fraud and
under circumstances %hich demonstrate to the fullest degree
a fundamental and %anton disregard of the la% that
elections are annulled, and then only %hen it becomes
impossible to ta;e any other step! 'his is as it should be, for
the democratic system is good for the many although
abhorred by a fe%!
=-n&s o; Ele<.-on> Reg%lar an& S9e<-al
3aras vs CO'ELEC (G.R. No. 1+1,! Nov 4, 1!!,$
'7 includes the youth with ages ranging from )% to $) ('ec. 3$3, .ocal
8overnment Code of )99)*. #ccordingly, they include many who are not
qualified to vote in a regular election, vi:., those from ages )% to less than
)2. n no manner then may '7 elections be considered a regular election
(whether national or local*.
9etitioner Fanilo +! 9aras is the incumbent 9unong Barangay
of 9ula, Cabanatuan City %ho %on during the last regular
barangay election in 100>! # petition for his recall as 9unong
Barangay %as filed by the registered voters of the barangay!
#cting on the petition for recall, public respondent
Commission on +lections BC:M+8+CC resolved to approve the
petition, scheduled the petition signing on :ctober 1>, 100=,
and set the recall election on )ovember 1/, 100=! 9etitioner
opposed the proceedings Citing $ection &> BbC of the 8ocal
Government Code, %hich states that 3no recall shall ta!e
place within one ()* year from the date of the official;s
assumption to office or one ()* year immediately preceding
a regular local election3, petitioner insists that the scheduled
*anuary 1/, 1006 recall election is no% barred as the
$angguniang ?abataan B$?C election %as set by "epublic #ct
)o! &0 on the first Monday of May 1006, and every three
years thereafter! ,n support thereof, petitioner cites
#ssociated .abor <nion v! .etrondo"-ontejo, 2/& $C"# 621,
%here the Court considered the $? election as a regular local
election! 9etitioner maintains that as the $? election is a
regular local election, hence no recall election can be had
for barely four months separate the $? election from the
recall election!
,ssue- .:) the contention of 9aras is tenable
1eld- )o, it is a rule in statutory construction that every part
of the statute must be interpreted %ith reference to the
conte4t, i!e !, that every part of the statute must be
considered together %ith the other parts, and ;ept
subservient to the general intent of the %hole enactment!
fallschirmjger Page 4
Lex Talionis Fraternitas Inc.
'he evident intent of $ection &> is to sub(ect an elective
local official to recall election once during his term of office!
9aragraph BbC construed together %ith paragraph BaC merely
designates the period %hen such elective local official may
be sub(ect of a recall election, that is, during the second
year of his term of office! 'hus, subscribing to petitioner5s
interpretation of the phrase regular local election to include
the $? election %ill unduly circumscribe the novel provision
of the 8ocal Government Code on recall, a mode of removal
of public officers by initiation of the people before the end
of his term! #nd if the $? election %hich is set by "!# )o!
&0 to be held every three years from May 1006 %ere to be
deemed %ithin the purvie% of the phrase 3regular local
election3, as erroneously insisted by petitioner, then no
recall election can be conducted rendering inutile the recall
provision of the 8ocal Government Code! ,n the
interpretation of a statute, the Court should start %ith the
assumption that the legislature intended to enact an
effective la%, and the legislature is not presumed to have
done a vain thing in the enactment of a statute!
(
#n
interpretation should, if possible, be avoided under %hich a
statute or provision being construed is defeated, or as
other%ise e4pressed, nullified, destroyed, emasculated,
repealed, e4plained a%ay, or rendered insignificant,
meaningless, inoperative or nugatory! ,t is li;e%ise a basic
precept in statutory construction that a statute should be
interpreted in harmony %ith the Constitution! 'hus, the
interpretation of $ection &> of the 8ocal Government Code,
specifically paragraph BbC thereof, should not be in conflict
%ith the Constitutional mandate of $ection / of #rticle D of
the Constitution to 3enact a local government code %hich
shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local
government structure instituted through a system of
decentralization %ith effective mechanism of recall,
initiative, and referendum ! ! ! !3
Favide BconcurringC- # regular election, %hether national or local, can only
refer to an election participated in by those %ho possess the right of
suffrage, are not other%ise dis7ualified by la%, and %ho are registered
voters! :ne of the re7uirements for the e4ercise of suffrage under $ection 1,
#rticle V of the Constitution is that the person must be at least 1 years of
age, and one re7uisite before he can vote is that he be a registered voter
pursuant to the rules on registration prescribed in the :mnibus +lection
Code B$ection 11/A11C! Ender the la%, the $? includes the youth %ith ages
ranging from 1= to 21 B$ec! >2>, 8ocal Government Code of 1001C!
#ccordingly, they include many %ho are not 7ualified to vote in a regular
election, vi:!, those from ages 1= to less than 1! ,n no manner then may $?
elections be considered a regular election B%hether national or localC!
3a9a vs '%n-<-9al Boar& (G.R. No. L0+)! 'ar +, 1!($
'he terminology Jthe ne4t preceding electionK refers to the last election
held regardless of %hether it is a special or general election!
'he last general elections %ere held in 1022! ,n the city of
Manila, the =artido Democrata ran first, the 9artido
)acionalista Colectivista second, and the 9artido
)acionalista third! 'he =artido .iberal also polled some
votes! # special election to fill a vacancy in the office of
$enator of the 6ourth Fistrict including the City of Manila,
%as held on :ctober 2, 102/! #t this special election, t%o
persons, *uan $umulongB=artido DemocrataC and "amon *!
6ernandezB,ndependentC, filed their certificates of
candidacy! ,n the City of Manila, *uan $umulong received
16,022 votes and "amon *! 6ernandez, 10,/0 votes! .hen
the time came for the Municipal Board of the City of Manila
to name election inspectors and poll cler;s for the general
election of 102=, it refused all participation on election
boards to the =artido >acionalista Consolidado, the political
legatee of the 9artido )acionalista Colectivista and the
9artido )acionalista! ,nstead, it provided for election boards,
as above indicated, by giving ma(ority representation to the
=artido Democrata and minority representation to the
=artido .iberal! #ct )o! /0/0 as amended by #ct )o! /210
provides that municipal council in each municipality %herein
a general election is to be held to appoint, ninety days
immediately prior to the date of such general election, three
inspectors of election and one poll cler;, %ith their
respective substitutes, for each election precinct therein,
%ho shall hold office for three years or until their successors
shall have ta;en charge of the same! $hould there be in such
municipality one or more political parties or branches or
fractions thereof, or political groups, then t%o of said
inspectors and t%o substitutes for the same shall belong to
the party %hich polled the largest number of votes in said
municipality at the ne4t preceding election and the other
inspector and his substitute shall belong to the party, branch
or fraction thereof, or political group %hich polled the ne4t
largest number of votes at said election! 9artido )acionalista
Consolidado claimed that 6ernandez run and accepted the
nomination of the party and %on because of the support of
the party, thus the party should be given the 2 slots for
inspector of election for being the party %ho %on the most
number of votes in the ne4t preceding election %ith the
victory of its claimed candidate 6ernandez!
,$$E+- a! .:) the 102/ special election should be the basis
to determine distribution of inspector of elections slots
b! .:) 9artido )acionalista Consolidado should be credited
%ith the victory of 6ernandez %hom it claimed as its
candidate c! .:) the poll cler; in each precinct should
come from the party %ith the largest vote in the ne4t
preceding election
1eld- a! 2es, if the previous terminology Jat such preceding
electionK %as not amended to Jthe ne4t preceding electionK,
then the basis %ould be the 1022 general election! 'he term
Jthe ne4t preceding electionK clearly refers to the 102/
special elections! 'he 9hilippine 8egislature, ho%ever, it
again amended section >1& by the enactment of #ct )o! /210
by changing the phrase 3at such preceding election3 to the
phrase 3at the ne4t preceding election!3 9ossibly the la% is
still susceptible to the interpretation that 3the ne4t
preceding election3 has relation %ith the 3general election3
mentioned in the beginning of the section! But obviously, the
la% %as amended for some purpose! #s the la% no% e4ists, a
special election is as much a 3preceding election3 as a
general election! 'his may be unfortunate, for a special
election is an election not regularly held to supply a vacancy
in a particular office before the e4piration of the full term
fallschirmjger Page 5
Lex Talionis Fraternitas Inc.
for %hich the incumbent %as elected, and thus does not as
%ell echo the political sentiment of the electorate as does a
general election!
b! )o, it is 7uestionable if the =artido >acionalista
Consolidado can no% claim a monopoly of the benefits arising
from an election %hen the successful candidate ran as an
independent! 'he certificate of candidacy of "amon *!
6ernandez permitted the placing of his name before the
electorate! ,t %as in the nature of a formal manifestation to
the %hole %orld of his political creed or lac; of political
creed! ,t constituted an authorized badge %hich the voter
could scrutinize before casting his ballot! 'he electors voted
for "amon *! 6ernandez, ,ndependent! 'hey did not vote for
"amon *! 6ernandez, Colectivista, >acionalista, .iberal, or
Democrata! ,t %ould be hard to say %hether of the 10,/0
votes received by $enator 6ernandez, 16,02/ thereof, or one
more than %as received by his opponent, came to him on
account of the bac;ing of the =artido Colectivista and the
9artido )acionalista, or %hether such support only accounted
for 16,021 votes, or one less than %as received by his
opponent! ,t has been the practice of this court to hold a
person %ho does not belong to any political party, but is only
an independent candidate, has no right to recommend
persons as election inspectors! 'he statute, providing that
election inspectors shall be selected from the leading
political parties, disclosed a legislative intent to preserve and
protect party organization! 'his court has li;e%ise held in at
least t%o decisions and the same has been the (udgment of a
member of this court, *ustice Villamor, in his %ellA;no%n
%or; on elections, that 3for the proper and correct %eighing
of the evidence that determines %hich of the political parties
%as victorious in the last election, and the classification of
the voters %ho cast the votes, the political filiation and color
of the candidate nominated and voted for must be ta;en into
account! :nly the votes cast in favor of the official
candidates of a party, being homogenous, can be computed
in the name and in favor of the party to %hich said
candidates voted for belonged! 'he
political filiation and color of the candidate voted for, %hich
determine those of his voters, must be (udged and
considered as of the date of the election and not after%ards!
c! )o, %hile the la% is specific in providing that election
inspectors shall belong to the t%o leading parties, it is silent
as to the political filiation of poll cler;s! ,t must, therefore,
be assumed that the appointment of poll cler;s rests entirely
%ithin the discretion of the municipal council or the
Municipal Board! 9oll cler;s may belong to any political party
or to no party at all!
In-.-a.-ve an& Re;eren&%/
SB'A vs CO'ELEC (G.R. No. 1(41, Se9 ,, 1!!,$
nitiative is the power of the people to propose bills and laws, and to enact
or reject them at the polls independent of the legislative assembly. ,n the
other hand, referendum is the right reserved to the people to adopt or
reject any act or measure which has been passed by a legislative body and
which in most cases would without action on the part of electors become a
law
,n #pril 100/, the $angguniang Bayan of Morong, Bataan
passed 9ambayang ?apasyahan Bilang 10, $erye 100/,
e4pressing therein its absolute concurrence, as re7uired by
said $ec! 12 of "# &22&, to (oin the $ubic $pecial +conomic
Lone! :n $eptember =, 100/, the $angguniang Bayan of
Morong submitted 9ambayang ?apasyahan Bilang 10, $erye
100/ to the :ffice of the 9resident! :n May 2>, 100/,
respondents Garcia, Calimbas and their companions filed a
petition %ith the $angguniang Bayan of Morong to annul
9ambayang ?apasyahan Blg! 10, $erye 100/! 'he $angguniang
Bayan ng Morong acted upon the petition of respondents
Garcia, Calimbas, et al! by promulgating 9ambayang
?apasyahan Blg! 1, $erye 100/, re7uesting Congress of the
9hilippines so amend certain provisions of "# &22&,
particularly those concerning the matters cited in items B#C,
BBC, B?C, B+C, and BGC of private respondent5s petition! 'he
$angguniang Bayan of Morong also informed respondents that
items BFC and B1C had already been referred to and favorably
acted upon by the government agencies concerned, such as
the Bases Conversion Fevelopment #uthority and the :ffice
of the 9resident! )ot satisfied, and %ithin /0 days from
submission of their petition, herein respondents resorted to
their po%er initiative under the 8ocal Government Code of
1001! :n *une 1, 100=6, respondent Comelec issued
"esolution )o! 2>=, adopting therein a 3Calendar of
#ctivities for local referendum on certain municipal
ordinance passed by the $angguniang Bayan of Morong,
Bataan3, and %hich indicated, among others, the scheduled
"eferendum Fay B*uly 2&, 1006, $aturdayC! :n *une 2&, 1006,
the Comelec promulgated the assailed "esolution )o! 2>
providing for 3the rules and guidelines to govern the conduct
of the referendum proposing to annul or repeal ?apasyahan
Blg! 10, $erye 100/ of the $angguniang Bayan of Morong,
Bataan! $BM# instituted the present petition for certiorari
and prohibition contesting the validity of "esolution )o! 2>
and alleging, inter alia, that public respondent 3is intent on
proceeding %ith a local initiative that proposes an
amendment of a national la%!
,ssue- .hether or not respondent Comelec commit grave
abuse of discretion in promulgating and implementing
"esolution )o! 2>
1eld- 2es, the process started by private respondents %as an
,),',#',V+ but respondent Comelec made preparations for a
"+6+"+)FEM only! ,n fact, in the body of the "esolution as
reproduced in the footnote belo%, the %ord 3referendum3 is
repeated at least 2& times, but 3initiative3 is not mentioned
at all! 'he Comelec labeled the e4ercise as a 3"eferendum3@
the counting of votes %as entrusted to a 3"eferendum
Committee3@ the documents %ere called 3referendum
fallschirmjger Page 6
Lex Talionis Fraternitas Inc.
returns3@ the canvassers, 3"eferendum Board of Canvassers3
and the ballots themselves bore the description
3referendum3! 'o repeat, not once %as the %ord 3initiative3
used in said body of "esolution )o! 2>! #nd yet, this
e4ercise is un7uestionably an ,),',#',V+! 'here are statutory
and conceptual demarcations bet%een a referendum and an
initiative! ,n enacting the 3,nitiative and "eferendum #ct,
Congress differentiated one term from the other, thus- BaC
3,nitiative3 is the po%er of the people to propose
amendments to the Constitution or to propose and enact
legislations through an election called for the purpose! 'here
are three B/C systems of initiative, namely- a!1! ,nitiative on
the Constitution %hich refers to a petition proposing
amendments to the Constitution@ a!2! ,nitiative on statutes
%hich refers to a petition proposing to enact a national
legislation@ and a!/! ,nitiative on local legislation %hich
refers to a petition proposing to enact a regional, provincial,
city, municipal, or barangay la%, resolution or ordinance! BbC
3,ndirect initiative3 is e4ercise of initiative by the people
through a proposition sent to Congress or the local legislative
body for action! BcC 3"eferendum3 is the po%er of the
electorate to approve or re(ect a legislation through an
election called for the purpose! ,t may be of t%o classes,
namely- c!1! "eferendum on statutes %hich refers to a
petition to approve or re(ect an act or la%, or part thereof,
passed by Congress@ and c!2 "eferendum on local la% %hich
refers to a petition to approve or re(ect a la%, resolution or
ordinance enacted by regional assemblies and local
legislative bodies! #long these statutory definitions, *ustice
,sagani #! Cruz defines initiative as the 3po%er of the people
to propose bills and la%s, and to enact or re(ect them at the
polls independent of the legislative assembly!3 :n the other
hand, he e4plains that referendum 3is the right reserved to
the people to adopt or re(ect any act or measure %hich has
been passed by a legislative body and %hich in most cases
%ould %ithout action on the part of electors become a la%!3
there is need for the Comelec to supervise an initiative more
closely, its authority thereon e4tending not only to the
counting and canvassing of votes but also to seeing to it that
the matter or act submitted to the people is in the proper
form and language so it may be easily understood and voted
upon by the electorate! 'his is especially true %here the
proposed legislation is lengthy and complicated, and should
thus be bro;en do%n into several autonomous parts, each
such part to be voted upon separately! Care must also be
e4ercised that 3BnCo petition embracing more than one
sub(ect shall be submitted to the electorate,3 although 3t%o
or more propositions may be submitted in an initiative3!
San.-ago vs CO'ELEC (G.R. No. 1#+( 'ar 1!, 1!!#$
#lthough 1.#. 5?4% intended to include the system of initiative on
amendments to the constitution, but it is unfortunately inadequate to
cover that system.
:n 6 Fecember 1006, private respondent #tty! *esus $! Felfin
filed %ith public respondent Commission on +lections
Bhereafter, C:M+8+CC a 39etition to #mend the Constitution,
to 8ift 'erm 8imits of +lective :fficials, by 9eople5s
,nitiative3 ! Felfin alleged in his petition that he is a founding
member of the Movement for 9eople5s ,nitiative, 6 a group of
citizens desirous to avail of the system intended to
institutionalize people po%er@ that he and the members of
the Movement and other volunteers intend to e4ercise the
po%er to directly propose amendments to the Constitution
granted under $ection 2, #rticle DV,, of the Constitution@ that
the e4ercise of that po%er shall be conducted in proceedings
under the control and supervision of the C:M+8+C@ that, as
re7uired in C:M+8+C "esolution )o! 2/00, signature stations
shall be established all over the country, %ith the assistance
of municipal election registrars, %ho shall verify the
signatures affi4ed by individual signatories@ that before the
Movement and other volunteers can gather signatures, it is
necessary that the time and dates to be designated for the
purpose be first fi4ed in an order to be issued by the
C:M+8+C@ and that to ade7uately inform the people of the
electoral process involved, it is li;e%ise necessary that the
said order, as %ell as the 9etition on %hich the signatures
shall be affi4ed, be published in ne%spapers of general and
local circulation, under the control and supervision of the
C:M+8+C! :n 1 Fecember 1006, the petitioners herein I
$enator Miriam Fefensor $antiago, #le4ander 9adilla, and
Maria ,sabel :ngpin I filed this special civil action for
prohibition contending that the constitutional provision on
people5s initiative to amend the Constitution can only be
implemented by la% to be passed by Congress and that no
such la% has been passed! ,t is true that "!#! )o! 6&/=
provides for three systems of initiative, namely, initiative on
the Constitution, on statutes, and on local legislation!
1o%ever, it failed to provide any subtitle on initiative on the
Constitution, unli;e in the other modes of initiative, %hich
are specifically provided for in $ubtitle ,, and $ubtitle ,,,!
'hey added that "epublic #ct )o! 6&/= provides for the
effectivity of the la% after publication in print media! 'his
indicates that the #ct covers only la%s and not constitutional
amendments because the latter ta;e effect only upon
ratification and not after publication!
,ssue- .o) "!#! 6&/= is sufficient to cover the system on
amendments to the constitution
1eld- )o, although "!#! 6&/= intended to include the system
of initiative on amendments to the constitution, but it is
unfortunately inade7uate to cover that system! .hile the #ct
provides subtitles for )ational ,nitiative and "eferendum
B$ubtitle ,,C and for 8ocal ,nitiative and "eferendum B$ubtitle
,,,C, no subtitle is provided for initiative on the Constitution!
'his conspicuous silence as to the latter simply means that
the main thrust of the #ct is initiative and referendum on
national and local la%s! ,f Congress intended "!#! )o! 6&/=
to fully provide for the implementation of the initiative on
amendments to the Constitution, it could have provided for a
subtitle therefor, considering that in the order of things, the
primacy of interest, or hierarchy of values, the right of the
people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution is
far more important than the initiative on national and local
la%s! .hile "!#! )o! 6&/= e4erted utmost diligence and care
in providing for the details in the implementation of
fallschirmjger Page 7
Lex Talionis Fraternitas Inc.
initiative and referendum on national and local legislation
thereby giving them special attention, it failed, rather
intentionally, to do so on the system of initiative on
amendments to the Constitution! Epon the other hand, as to
initiative on amendments to the Constitution, "!#! )o! 6&/=,
in all of its t%entyAthree sections, merely BaC mentions, the
%ord 3Constitution3 in $ection 2@ BbC defines 3initiative on the
Constitution3 and includes it in the enumeration of the three
systems of initiative in $ection /@ BcC spea;s of 3plebiscite3 as
the process by %hich the proposition in an initiative on the
Constitution may be approved or re(ected by the people@ BdC
reiterates the constitutional re7uirements as to the number
of voters %ho should sign the petition@ and BeC provides for
the date of effectivity of the approved proposition! 'here
%as, therefore, an obvious do%ngrading of the more
important or the paramount system of initiative! "#! )o!
6&/= thus delivered a humiliating blo% to the system of
initiative on amendments to the Constitution by merely
paying it a reluctant lip service! 'he foregoing brings us to
the conclusion that "!#! )o! 6&/= is incomplete, inade7uate,
or %anting in essential terms and conditions insofar as
initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned!
,ts lacunae on this substantive matter are fatal and cannot be
cured by 3empo%ering3 the C:M+8+C 3to promulgate such
rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the
purposes of MtheN #ct!
La/1-no vs CO'ELEC (G.R. No. 1#41(+ O<. (, "",$
The essence of amendments /directly proposed by the people through
initiative upon a petition/ is that the entire proposal on its face is a
petition by the people. This means two essential elements must be present.
@irst, the people must author and thus sign the entire proposal. >o agent or
representative can sign on their behalf. 'econd, as an initiative upon a
petition, the proposal must be embodied in a petition. These essential
elements are present only if the full text of the proposed amendments is
first shown to the people who express their assent by signing such complete
proposal in a petition.
:n 1= 6ebruary 2006, petitioners in G!"! )o! 1&>1=/, namely
"aul 8! 8ambino and +rico B! #umentado B38ambino Group3C,
%ith other groups and individuals, commenced gathering
signatures for an initiative petition to change the 10&
Constitution! :n 2= #ugust 2006, the 8ambino Group filed a
petition %ith the C:M+8+C to hold a plebiscite that %ill
ratify their initiative petition under $ection =BbC and BcC and
$ection & of "epublic #ct )o! 6&/= or the ,nitiative and
"eferendum #ct B3"# 6&/=3C! 'he 8ambino Group alleged that
their petition had the support of 6,/2&,0=2 individuals
constituting at least t%elve per centum B12HC of all
registered voters, %ith each legislative district represented
by at least three per centum B/HC of its registered voters!
'he 8ambino Group also claimed that C:M+8+C election
registrars had verified the signatures of the 6!/ million
individuals! 'he 8ambino Group5s initiative petition changes
the 10& Constitution by modifying $ections 1A& of #rticle V,
B8egislative FepartmentC and $ections 1A> of #rticle V,,
B+4ecutive FepartmentC and by adding #rticle DV,,, entitled
3'ransitory 9rovisions!3 'hese proposed changes %ill shift the
present BicameralA9residential system to a EnicameralA
9arliamentary form of government!
,ssue- .o) the 8ambino Group5s initiative petition complies
%ith $ection 2, #rticle DV,, of the Constitution on
amendments to the Constitution through a people5s initiative
1eld- )o, the 8ambino Group miserably failed to comply %ith
the basic re7uirements of the Constitution for conducting a
people5s initiative! he framers of the Constitution intended
that the 3draft of the proposed constitutional amendment3
should be 3ready and sho%n3 to the people 3before3 they sign
such proposal! 'he framers plainly stated that 3before they
sign there is already a draft sho%n to them!3 'he framers
also 3envisioned3 that the people should sign on the proposal
itself because the proponents must 3prepare that proposal
and pass it around for signature!3 'he essence of
amendments 3directly proposed by the people through
initiative upon a petition3 is that the entire proposal on its
face is a petition by the people! 'his means t%o essential
elements must be present! 6irst, the people must author and
thus sign the entire proposal! )o agent or representative can
sign on their behalf! $econd, as an initiative upon a petition,
the proposal must be embodied in a petition! 'hese essential
elements are present only if the full te4t of the proposed
amendments is first sho%n to the people %ho e4press their
assent by signing such complete proposal in a petition! 'hus,
an amendment is 3directly proposed by the people through
initiative upon a petition3 only if the people sign on a
petition that contains the full te4t of the proposed
amendments! 'he 8ambino Group5s signature sheets do not
contain the full te4t of the proposed changes, either on the
face of the signature sheets, or as attachment %ith an
indication in the signature sheet of such attachment!
9etitioner #tty! 8ambino admitted this during the oral
arguments, and this admission binds the 8ambino Group! 'his
fact is also obvious from a mere reading of the signature
sheet! 'his omission is fatal! 'he failure to so include the
te4t of the proposed changes in the signature sheets renders
the initiative void for nonAcompliance %ith the constitutional
re7uirement that the amendment must be 3directly proposed
by the people through initiative upon a petition!3 'he
signature sheet is not the 3petition3 envisioned in the
initiative clause of the Constitution! #lso, a people5s
initiative to change the Constitution applies only to an
amendment of the Constitution and not to its revision!
"evision broadly implies a change that alters a basic
principle in the constitution, li;e altering the principle of
separation of po%ers or the system of chec;sAandAbalances!
'here is also revision if the change alters the substantial
entirety of the constitution, as %hen the change affects
substantial provisions of the constitution! :n the other hand,
amendment broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, or
deletes %ithout altering the basic principle involved!
"evision generally affects several provisions of the
constitution, %hile amendment generally affects only the
specific provision being amended! 'he 8ambino Group5s
initiative is a revision and not merely an amendment!
Ouantitatively, the 8ambino Group5s proposed changes
overhaul t%o articles A #rticle V, on the 8egislature and
fallschirmjger Page
Lex Talionis Fraternitas Inc.
#rticle V,, on the +4ecutive A affecting a total of 10=
provisions in the entire Constitution! Oualitatively, the
proposed changes alter substantially the basic plan of
government, from presidential to parliamentary, and from a
bicameral to a unicameral legislature! # change in the
structure of government is a revision of the Constitution, as
%hen the three great coAe7ual branches of government in the
present Constitution are reduced into t%o! 'his alters the
separation of po%ers in the Constitution! # shift from the
present BicameralA9residential system to a EnicameralA
9arliamentary system is a revision of the Constitution!
Merging the legislative and e4ecutive branches is a radical
change in the structure of government! 'he abolition alone
of the :ffice of the 9resident as the locus of +4ecutive 9o%er
alters the separation of po%ers and thus constitutes a
revision of the Constitution! 8i;e%ise, the abolition alone of
one chamber of Congress alters the system of chec;sAandA
balances %ithin the legislature and constitutes a revision of
the Constitution! By any legal test and under any (urisdiction,
a shift from a BicameralA9residential to a EnicameralA
9arliamentary system, involving the abolition of the :ffice of
the 9resident and the abolition of one chamber of Congress,
is beyond doubt a revision, not a mere amendment! :n the
face alone of the 8ambino Group5s proposed changes, it is
readily apparent that the changes %ill radically alter the
frame%or; of government as set forth in the Constitution!
Re<all
A;-a&o vs CO'ELEC (G.R. No. 141#)# Se9 1, """$
0hen an elective public official was installed in a higher office through
succession, a recall against him during his previous elective post is already
rendered moot and academic.
Furing the May 11,100 elections in $antiago City, *oel
Miranda %on as Mayor %hile #melita )avarro %on as viceA
mayor! Miranda %as removed from office after it %as held
that the certificate of candidacy of his father #ntonio #baya
B%hom *oel substitutedC %as not valid thus *oel Miranda
could not be validly proclaimed as the %inner in the
mayoralty elections! By virtue of the la% on succession,
)avarro became the ne% mayor! :n the other hand %hen she
%as still a viceAmayor, )avarro %as sought to be recalled
through a preparatory recall assembly B9"#C
,ssue- .o) an elective official %ho became City Mayor by
legal succession can be the sub(ect of a recall election by
virtue of a 9reparatory "ecall #ssembly "esolution %hich %as
passed or adopted %hen the said elective official %as still
the ViceAMayor
1eld- )o, such action is already moot and academic! 'he
assumption by legal succession of the petitioner as the ne%
Mayor of $antiago City is a supervening event %hich rendered
the recall proceeding against her moot and academic! # perusal
of the said "esolution reveals that the person sub(ect of the
recall process is a specific elective official in relation to her
specific office! 'he said resolution is replete %ith statements,
%hich leave no doubt that the purpose of the assembly %as to
recall petitioner as Vice Mayor for her official acts as Vice
Mayor! 'he title itself suggests that the recall is intended for
the incumbent Vice Mayor of $antiago City! 'he third paragraph
of the resolution recounted 3the official acts of City Vice Mayor
)avarro that brought forth the loss of confidence in her capacity
and fitness to discharge the duties and to perform the functions
of her public office!3 #nd because of such acts, the assembly
3"+$:8V+F to invo;e the rescission of the electoral mandate of
the incumbent City Vice Mayor!3 Clearly, the intent of the 9"#
as e4pressed in the said "esolution is to remove the petitioner
as Vice Mayor for they already lost their confidence in her by
reason of her official acts as such! 'o recall, then, the
petitioner %hen she is already the incumbent City Mayor is to
deviate from the e4pressed %ill of the 9"#! 1aving, thus,
succeeded to the position of City Mayor, the petitioner %as
placed beyond the reach of the effects of the 9"# "esolution!
+ven if the 9reparatory "ecall #ssembly %ere to reconvene to
adopt
another resolution for the recall of #melita )avarro, this time as
Mayor of $antiago City, the same %ould still not prosper in vie%
of $ection &> BbC of the 8ocal Government Code of 1001 %hich
provides that 3)o recall shall ta;e place %ithin one B1C year from
the date of the official5s assumption of office or one B1C year
immediately preceding a regular election!3 'here is no more
allo%able time in the light of that la% %ithin %hich to hold
recall elections for that purpose! 'he then ViceAMayor #melita
$! )avarro assumed office as Mayor of $antiago City on :ctober
11, 1000! :ne year after her assumption of office as Mayor %ill
be :ctober 11, 2000 %hich is already %ithin the one B1C year
prohibited period immediately preceding the ne4t regular
election in May 2001!
So<ra.es vs CO'ELEC (G.R. No. 1(4(1 Nov 1, ""$
#fter three consecutive terms, an elective local official cannot see!
immediate reelection for a fourth term. The prohibited election refers to
the next regular election for the same office following the end of the third
consecutive term. #ny subsequent election, li!e a recall election, is no
longer covered by the prohibition.
Victorio $ocrates is the mayor of 9uerto 9rincesa, 9ala%an!
,ncumbent barangay officials of 9uerto 9rincesa convened
themselves into a preparatory recall assembly B9"#C to
initiate the recall of $ocrates! 'he C:M+8+C gave due course
to the recall resolution and scheduled the recall election!
+d%ard 1agedorn filed his certificate of candidacy for the
recall election! #dovo and Gilo filed before the C:M+8+C a
petition to dis7ualify 1agedorn on the ground that 1agedorn
is dis7ualified from running for a fourth consecutive term,
having been elected and having served as mayor of the city
for three B/C consecutive full terms immediately prior to the
instant recall election for the same post!
,ssue- .:) 1agedorn is 7ualified to run for mayor in the
recall election of 9uerto 9rincesa on $eptember 2>, 2002
1eld- 2es, 1agedorn is 7ualified to run for the recall
election! #fter three consecutive terms, an elective local
fallschirmjger Page !
Lex Talionis Fraternitas Inc.
official cannot see; immediate reelection for a fourth term!
'he prohibited election refers to the ne4t regular election for
the same office follo%ing the end of the third consecutive
term! #ny subse7uent election, li;e a recall election, is no
longer covered by the prohibition for t%o reasons! 6irst, a
subse7uent election li;e a recall election is no longer an
immediate reelection after three consecutive terms! $econd,
the intervening period constitutes an involuntary interruption
in the continuity of service! ,n the case of 1agedorn, his
candidacy in the recall election on $eptember 2>, 2002 is not
an immediate reelection after his third consecutive term
%hich ended on *une /0, 2001! 'he immediate reelection
that the Constitution barred 1agedorn from see;ing referred
to the regular elections in 2001! 1agedorn did not see;
reelection in the 2001 elections! 6rom *une /0, 2001 until
the recall election on $eptember 2>, 2002, the mayor of
9uerto 9rincesa %as $ocrates! Furing the same period,
1agedorn %as simply a private citizen! 'his period is clearly
an interruption in the continuity of 1agedorn5s service as
mayor, not because of his voluntary renunciation, but
because of a legal prohibition! 1agedorn5s three consecutive
terms ended on *une /0, 2001! 1agedorn5s ne% recall term
from $eptember 2>, 2002 to *une /0, 200> is not a seamless
continuation of his previous three consecutive terms as
mayor! :ne cannot stitch together 1agedorn5s previous threeA
terms %ith his ne% recall term to ma;e the recall term a
fourth consecutive term because factually it is not! #n
involuntary interruption occurred from *une /0, 2001 to
$eptember 2>, 2002 %hich bro;e the continuity or
consecutive character of 1agedorn5s service as mayor!
La.asa vs CO'ELEC (G.R. No. 1(4)! De< 1", ""+$
# mayor for 4 consecutive term of a municipality which became a city in
the said mayorAs last term is barred from running in the next preceding
election if the said new city has the same territorial jurisdiction when it
was still a municipality.
#rsenio #! 8atasa, %as elected mayor of the Municipality of
Figos, Favao del $ur in the elections of 1002, 100=, and 100!
Furing petitioner<s third term, the Municipality of Figos %as
became a component city! :n 6ebruary 2, 2001, petitioner
filed his certificate of candidacy for city mayor for the May
1>, 2001 elections! 1e stated therein that he is eligible
therefor, and li;e%ise disclosed that he had already served
for three consecutive terms as mayor of the Municipality of
Figos and is no% running for the first time for the position of
city mayor! :n March 1, 2001, private respondent "omeo M!
$unga, also a candidate for city mayor in the said elections,
filed before the C:M+8+C a 9etition to Feny Fue Course,
Cancel Certificate of Candidacy andP or 6or Fis7ualification
against petitioner 8atasa! "espondent $unga alleged therein
that petitioner falsely represented in his certificate of
candidacy that he is eligible to run as mayor of Figos City
since petitioner had already been elected and served for
three consecutive terms as mayor from 1002 to 2001! :n
March =, 2001, petitioner 8atasa filed his #ns%er, arguing
that he did not ma;e any false representation in his
certificate of candidacy since he fully disclosed therein that
he had served as mayor of the Municipality of Figos for three
consecutive terms! Moreover, he argued that this fact does
not bar him from filing a certificate of candidacy for the May
1>, 2001 elections since this %ill be the first time that he %ill
be running for the post of city mayor!
,ssue- .:) 8atasa is barred from running as mayor of the
ne%ly created city of Figos being the mayor of Figos for /
consecutive term %hen it %as still a municipality!
1eld- 2es, 8atasa is barred from running! #n elective local
official, therefore, is not barred from running again in for
same local government post, unless t%o conditions concur-
1!C that the official concerned has been elected for three
consecutive terms to the same local government post, and
2!C that he has fully served three consecutive terms! ,n the
present case, petitioner argued that a city and a municipality
have separate and distinct personalities! 'hus they cannot be
treated as a single entity and must be accorded different
treatment consistent %ith specific provisions of the 8ocal
Government Code! 1e does not deny the fact that he has
already served for three consecutive terms as municipal mayor!
1o%ever, he asserts that %hen Figos %as converted from a
municipality to a city, it attained a different (uridical
personality! 'herefore, %hen he filed his certificate of
candidacy for city mayor, he cannot be construed as vying for
the same local government post! 'rue, the ne% city ac7uired a
ne% corporate e4istence separate and distinct from that of the
municipality! 'his does not mean, ho%ever, that for the purpose
of applying the sub(ect Constitutional provision, the office of
the municipal mayor %ould no% be construed as a different
local government post as that of the office of the city mayor! #s
stated earlier, the territorial (urisdiction of the City of Figos is
the same as that of the municipality! Conse7uently, the
inhabitants of the municipality are the same as those in the city!
'hese inhabitants are the same group of voters %ho elected
petitioner 8atasa to be their municipal mayor for three
consecutive terms! 'hese are also the same inhabitants over
%hom he held po%er and authority as their chief e4ecutive for
nine years! 'he delineation of the metes and bounds of the City
of Figos did not change even by an inch the land area previously
covered by the Municipality of Figos! 'he framers of the
Constitution specifically included an e4ception to the people<s
freedom to choose those %ho %ill govern them in order to avoid
the evil of a single person accumulating e4cessive po%er over a
particular territorial (urisdiction as a result of a prolonged stay
in the same office! 'o allo% petitioner 8atasa to vie for the
position of city mayor after having served for three consecutive
terms as a municipal mayor %ould obviously defeat the very
intent of the framers %hen they %rote this e4ception! $hould he
be allo%ed another three consecutive terms as mayor of the City
of Figos, petitioner %ould then be possibly holding office as
chief e4ecutive over the same territorial (urisdiction and
inhabitants for a total of eighteen consecutive years! 'his is the
very scenario sought to be avoided by the Constitution, if not
abhorred by it!
fallschirmjger Page 1"
Lex Talionis Fraternitas Inc.
fallschirmjger Page 11
PDF to Word