The Supreme Court ruled that a local official who serves a full term in office is still considered to have served a full term for the purpose of the three-term limit, even if their election is later declared invalid. This means that if a mayor is proclaimed as the winner, serves the entire three-year term, and then a court decides the election was invalid after the term ends, that term still counts toward the three-term limit. This ensures that the spirit of the constitutional provision preventing prolonged stays in power is upheld.

When Does a Contested Election Still Count Towards Term Limits?

This case revolves around the interpretation of the three-term limit for local elective officials in the Philippines, as enshrined in Section 8, Article X of the Constitution and Section 43(b) of the Local Government Code. Marino “Boking” Morales, the mayor of Mabalacat, Pampanga, ran for a fourth consecutive term. Attorneys Venancio Q. Rivera III and Normandick De Guzman filed a petition to cancel Morales’s certificate of candidacy, arguing that he had already served three previous consecutive terms. Anthony Dee, another candidate for mayor, also filed a petition for quo warranto after Morales was proclaimed the winner, making the same argument.

Morales admitted to serving as mayor for three terms but claimed his second term (1998-2001) should not count because a Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared his proclamation void in an election protest case. He argued that during that term, he was merely a de facto officer or a caretaker of the office. He also cited a preventive suspension he served during that term. The COMELEC En Banc initially agreed with Morales, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision, consolidating Rivera and De Guzman’s petition with Dee’s.

The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether Morales’s service during the 1998-2001 term should be counted towards the three-term limit, despite the RTC’s declaration that his proclamation was void. In resolving this issue, the Supreme Court relied heavily on its previous ruling in Ong v. Alegre, a case with similar facts. In Ong, the Court held that if a proclaimed candidate serves the full term of office, such service is counted towards the three-term limit, even if their proclamation is later voided after the term expires. The Court in Ong v. Alegre stated that:

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.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the RTC’s decision declaring Morales’s proclamation void came after the term had already expired. Thus, it was of no practical or legal effect. The Court also distinguished the case from Lonzanida v. COMELEC, where the official’s term was interrupted due to a failure of elections and an order to vacate the office. In Morales’s case, there was no interruption in his service; he continuously served as mayor for the entire term.

Furthermore, the Court cited Section 8, Article X of the Constitution, which states that “no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms.” Similarly, Section 43(b) of the Local Government Code provides that “no local official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms in the same position.” The Court noted that Morales was serving his fourth term and had been mayor of Mabalacat continuously since 1995.

The Supreme Court addressed Morales’s argument that he served his second term only as a “caretaker” or de facto officer. It ruled that the three-term limit’s purpose is defeated when an official serves in the same position for three consecutive terms, regardless of whether they are considered a caretaker or de facto officer because, in either case, he exercises the powers and enjoys the benefits of the office which enables him “to stay on indefinitely”.

The Court also referred to the case of Latasa v. Comelec, where it explained the reason for the maximum term limit:

The framers of the Constitution, by including this exception, wanted to establish some safeguards against the excessive accumulation of power as a result of consecutive terms. As Commissioner Blas Ople stated during the deliberations… I think we want to prevent future situations where, as a result of continuous service and frequent re-elections, officials from the President down to the municipal mayor tend to develop a proprietary interest in their positions and to accumulate these powers and prerequisites that permit them to stay on indefinitely or to transfer these posts to members of their families in a subsequent election.

As a result of this ruling, the Supreme Court cancelled Morales’s certificate of candidacy for the 2004 election. The Court emphasized that, according to Sections 6 and 7 of Republic Act No. 6646 and Section 211 of the Omnibus Election Code, votes cast for a disqualified candidate should not be counted and should be considered stray votes. With Morales disqualified, the vice-mayor elect of Mabalacat in the 2004 elections was declared the mayor for the remainder of the term.

Moreover, the High Court dismissed Anthony Dee’s petition for quo warranto as moot since Morales was disqualified from continuing to serve as mayor. The Court however reiterated its established position in Labo v. Comelec that a second-place candidate cannot be proclaimed as a substitute winner. A vacancy in the mayor’s office must be filled by the vice-mayor.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether a local official’s service during a term should be counted toward the three-term limit if their election was later declared invalid after the term expired.
What is the three-term limit rule?	The three-term limit rule, found in the Constitution and Local Government Code, restricts local officials from serving more than three consecutive terms in the same position.
What did the Supreme Court decide?	The Supreme Court decided that a local official’s service during a full term counts toward the three-term limit, even if their election is later declared invalid after the term ends.
Why did the Court cite Ong v. Alegre?	The Court cited Ong v. Alegre because that case had similar facts and established the precedent that service during a full term counts, even if the election is later invalidated.
How did the Court distinguish this case from Lonzanida v. COMELEC?	The Court distinguished this case from Lonzanida v. COMELEC because, in Lonzanida, the official’s term was interrupted due to a failure of elections and an order to vacate the office, which was not the situation in this case.
What happens to the votes cast for a disqualified candidate?	According to Sections 6 and 7 of Republic Act No. 6646 and Section 211 of the Omnibus Election Code, votes cast for a disqualified candidate should not be counted and are considered stray votes.
Who fills the vacancy created by the disqualification?	The vacancy created by the disqualification is filled by the vice-mayor elect of the municipality, who serves as mayor for the remaining duration of the term.
Can a second-place candidate be proclaimed as a substitute winner?	No, the Supreme Court reiterated its established position that a second-place candidate cannot be proclaimed as a substitute winner.

This case underscores the importance of upholding the three-term limit rule to prevent the accumulation of excessive power by a single individual. The decision reinforces the principle that serving a full term carries legal weight, even if the election is later contested. By disqualifying Morales and affirming the vice-mayor as the rightful successor, the Supreme Court ensured that the constitutional intent of limiting terms is respected.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Atty. Venancio Q. Rivera III v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 167591, May 9, 2007