Ong vs.

Alegre
Facts:
A candidate was disqualified by the COMELEC en banc to run for mayor for he has served for three-consecutive terms.
During his second term, the opposing party filed a protest and the RTC declared the opposing party as the duly elected mayor. However, such
decision came out three years after and when the candidate has already started his third term.
Since the COMELEC disqualified the candidate, his political party nominated the brother of the candidate as a substitute.
The COMELEC denied due course the certificate of candidacy in the same mayoralty election as substitute for his brother.
Issues:

Whether or not the assumption of office as mayor from July 1, 1998 to June 30, 2001, may be considered as one full term service in the
context of the consecutive three-term limit rule.

Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied due course to the certificate of candidacy in the same
mayoralty election as substitute for his brother.
Ruling:

We hold that such assumption of office constitutes, "service for the full term", and should be counted as a full term served in contemplation of
the three-term limit prescribed by the constitutional and statutory provisions, supra, barring local elective officials from being elected and
serving for more than three consecutive term for the same position.

For the three-term limit for elective local government officials to apply, two conditions or requisites must concur, to wit: (1) that the official
concerned has been elected for three (3) consecutive terms in the same local government post, and (2) that he has fully served three (3)
consecutive terms.
A candidate whose certificate of candidacy has been cancelled or not given due course cannot be substituted by another belonging to the
same political party as that of the former.

A person without a valid certificate of candidacy cannot be considered a candidate in much the same way as any person who has
not filed any certificate of candidacy at all can not, by any stretch of the imagination, be a candidate at all.
Rivera vs. Comelec
Facts:
a petition to cancel the candidates Certificate of Candidacy on the ground that he was elected and had served three previous consecutive
terms as mayor.
He responded that he was not validly elected for the term 1998 to 2001 since the RTC, declared in its Decision that his proclamation as mayor
was void.
Issue:
Whether or not the term 1998 to 2001 should be counted when his proclamation as mayor was declared void.
Ruling:

Such circumstance does not constitute an interruption in serving the full term. Section 8, Article X of the Constitution can not be more clear
and explicit The term of the office of elected local officials . . . shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more than three
consecutive terms . . . .Upon the other hand, Section 43 (b) of R.A. No. 7160 (the Local Government Code) clearly provides: No local official
shall serve for more than three consecutive terms in the same position . . ..

Adormeo vs. Comelec

Facts:
A petition was filed to disqualify the candidate from running for Mayor on the ground that the candidate was elected and had served as city
mayor for three (3) consecutive terms.

The candidate was elected mayor in May 1992. He served the full term. Again, he was re-elected in 1995-1998. In the election of 1998 he lost.

In the recall election of May 12, 2000, he again won and served the unexpired term until June 30, 2001.
Issue:

Whether or not the candidate was elected for three (3) consecutive terms.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court held that respondent was not elected for three (3) consecutive terms. For nearly two years he was a private citizen. The
continuity of his mayorship was disrupted by his defeat in the 1998 elections. Neither can respondent's victory in the recall election be deemed
a violation of Section 8, Article X of the Constitutionas "voluntary renunciation" for clearly it was not. Hence, he was not disqualified to run for
mayor in the May 14, 2001 elections.