Page 1 of 3 LOC GOV digest by: Mary Ann Lee

RAYMUNDO ADORMEO V. COMELEC

G.R. No. 147927; February 4, 2002; . !u"#u$b"%&
NA'URE( Petition for certiorari with a prayer for writ of preliminary injunction and/ or temporary
restraining order to set aside COMELEC resolution declaring Ramon Y. alaga! "r.
#ualified to run for Mayor in Lucena City for the May $%! &''$ election.
FAC')( Petitioner Raymundo (dormeo and pri)ate respondent! Ramon Y. alaga! "r. were the
only candidates for mayor of Lucena City in the May $%! &''$ elections.
alaga! "r. was elected mayor in May $**&! and ser)ed the full term.
+e was re,elected in $**-,$**..
/n the election of $**.! he lost to 0ernard 1. agarao. +owe)er! in the recall election of
May $&! &'''! he again won and ser)ed the une2pired term of agarao until "une 3'!
&''$. 4$3 months and $. days5
Petitioner filed with the Office of the Pro)incial Election 6uper)isor! Lucena City a Petition to
7eny 7ue Course to or Cancel Certificate of Candidacy and/or 7is#ualification of Ramon Y.
alaga! "r.! on the ground that the latter was elected and had ser)ed as city mayor for three 435
consecuti)e terms. Petitioner contended that alaga8s candidacy as Mayor constituted a
)iolation of 6ection .! (rticle 9 of the $*.: Constitution.
he Comelec first di)ision on (pril &'! &''$ found alaga! "r. dis#ualified.
he Comelec en ;anc re)ersed and ruled that<
$.5 respondent was not elected for three 435 consecuti)e terms ;ecause he did not win in
the May $$! $**. elections=
&.5 that he was installed only as mayor ;y reason of his )ictory in the recall elections=
3.5 that his )ictory in the recall elections was not considered a term of office and is not
included in the 3,term dis#ualification rule! and
4.) that he did not fully ser)e the three 435 consecuti)e terms! and his loss in the May $$!
$**. elections is considered an interruption in the continuity of his ser)ice as Mayor of
Lucena City.
*))UE( >O? alaga is dis#ualified to run for mayor
+ELD( ?o
RA'*O( he issue ;efore us was already addressed in 0orja! "r. )s. COMELEC! &*- 6CR( $-:!
$@* 4$**.5! where we held!o recapitulate! the term limit for electi)e local officials
must ;e taAen to refer to the right to be elected as well as the right to serve in the
same elective position.
Conse#uently! it is not enough that an indi)idual has served three consecuti)e terms in
an electi)e local office! he must also ha)e ;een elected to the same position for the
same num;er of times ;efore the dis#ualification can apply.
his point can ;e made clearer ;y considering the following case or situation<
6uppose B is elected mayor and! during his first term! he is twice suspended for
misconduct for a total of $ year.
Page 2 of 3 LOC GOV digest by: Mary Ann Lee
/f he is twice reelected after that! can he run for one more term in the ne2t
electionB
Yes! ;ecause he has served only two full terms successively.
o consider C as eligi;le for reelection would ;e in accord with the understanding
of the Constitutional Commission that while the people should ;e protected from
the e)ils that a monopoly of political power may ;ring a;out! care should ;e
taAen that their freedom of choice is not unduly curtailed.
LiAewise! in the case of LonCanida )s. COMELEC! 3$$ 6CR( @'&! @$$ 4$***5! we said!
Dhis Court held that the two conditions for the application of the
dis#ualification must concur<
$5 that the official concerned has ;een elected for three consecuti)e
terms in the same local go)ernment post and
&5 that he has fully ser)ed three consecuti)e terms.E
(ccordingly! COMELEC8s ruling that pri)ate respondent was not elected for three 435
consecuti)e terms should ;e upheld.
Patently untena;le is petitioner8s contention that COMELEC in allowing respondent
alaga! "r. to run in the May $**. election )iolates (rticle 9! 6ection . of $*.: Constitution. o
;olster his case! respondent ad)erts to the comment of Fr. "oa#uin 0ernas! a Constitutional
Commission mem;er! stating that in interpreting said pro)ision that Dif one is elected
representati)e to ser)e the une2pired term of another! that une2pired! no matter how short! will
;e considered one term for the purpose of computing the num;er of successi)e terms allowed.E
(s pointed out ;y the COMELEC en banc! Fr. 0ernas8 comment is pertinent only to
mem;ers of the +ouse of Representati)es.GnliAe local go)ernment officials! there is no recall
election pro)ided for mem;ers of Congress.
?either can respondent8s )ictory in the recall election ;e deemed a )iolation of 6ection
.! (rticle 9 of the Constitution as D)oluntary renunciationE for clearly it is not.
/n LonCanida )s. COMELEC! we said<
DHhe second sentence of the constitutional pro)ision under scrutiny states!
DIoluntary renunciation of office for any length of time shall not ;e considered as
an interruption in the continuity of ser)ice for the full term for which he was
elected.E he clear intent of the framers of the constitution to ;ar any attempt to
circum)ent the three,term limit ;y a )oluntary renunciation of office and at the
same time respect the people8s choice and grant their elected official full ser)ice
of a term is e)ident in this pro)ision. Ioluntary renunciation of a term does not
cancel the renounced term in the computation of the three term limit= con)ersely!
in)oluntary se)erance from office for any length of time short of the full term
pro)ided ;y law amounts to an interruption of continuity of ser)ice. he petitioner
)acated his post a few months ;efore the ne2t mayoral elections! not ;y
)oluntary renunciation ;ut in compliance with the legal process of writ of
e2ecution issued ;y the COMELEC to that effect. 6uch in)oluntary se)erance
from office is an interruption of continuity of ser)ice and thus! the petitioner did
not fully ser)e the $**-,$**. mayoral term.E
D*),O)*'*ON( Petition 7/6M/66E7. COMELEC en ;anc (FF/RME7.
Page 3 of 3 LOC GOV digest by: Mary Ann Lee