CAYAT V. COMELEC G.R. No. 163776 April 24, 2007 FACTS: Fr.

Nardo Cayat and Thomas Palileng are the only mayoralty candidates for the May 2004 elections in Buguias Benguet. Palileng filed a petition for cancellation of the COC of Cayat on the ground of misrepresentation. Palileng argues that Cayat misrepresents himself hen he declared in his COC that he is eligi!le to run as mayor hen in fact he is not !ecause he is ser"ing pro!ation after !eing con"icted for the offense of acts of lasci"iousness. Comelec# granted the petition of Palileng and Cayat filed a motion for reconsideration. $uch# M% as denied !ecause Cayat failed to pay the filing fee and hence# it as declared final and e&ecutory. 'espite this decision# Cayat as still proclaimed as the inner and Palileng filed a petition for annulment of proclamation. Comelec declared Palileng as the duly elected mayor and Feliseo Bayacsan as the duly elected "ice mayor. Bayacsan argues that he should !e declared as mayor !ecause of the doctrine of re(ection of second placer. ISS E: )ON the re(ection of second placer doctrine is applica!le. !EL": The doctrine cannot !e applied in this case !ecause the dis*ualification of Cayat !ecame final and e&ecutory !efore the elections and hence# there is only one candidate to spea+ of. The la e&pressly declares that a candidate dis*ualified !y final (udgment !efore an election cannot !e "oted for# and "otes cast for him shall not !e counted. ,s such# Palileng is the only candidate and the duly elected mayor. The doctrine ill apply in Bayacsan-s fa"or# regardless of his inter"ention in the present case# if t o conditions concur. /01 the decision on Cayat-s dis*ualification remained pending on election day# 00 May 2004# resulting in the presence of t o mayoralty candidates for Buguias# Benguet in the elections2 and /21 the decision on Cayat-s dis*ualification !ecame final only after the elections.

RIVERA III V. COMELEC G.R. No. 167#$1 M%& $, 2007 FACTS: , petition for cancelation of the Certificate of Candidacy of Marino Morales as mayoralty candidate in Ma!alacat# Pampanga for the May 2004 mayoralty as filed on the ground the he already ser"ed three consecuti"e terms in the office he see+s to run. Morales argues that this is not so !ecause although he really ser"ed in 033450336 /0st term1 and 200452007 /8rd term1# he as merely a careta+er or de facto mayor in 033652000/2nd term1 !ecause his election as declared "oid !y the %TC due to an election protest. Comelec ruled that Morales already ser"ed his third term and after an M% as filed# declared it final and e&ecutory on May 04# 2004. ISS E: )ON Morales had already ser"ed his 8 consecuti"e terms and if so# ho should ta+e his position. !EL": For the three5term limit for electi"e local go"ernment officials to apply# t o conditions or re*uisites must concur# to it. /01 that the official concerned has !een elected for three /81 consecuti"e terms in the same local go"ernment post# and /21 that he has fully ser"ed three /81 consecuti"e terms. 9ere# Morales as elected for the term :uly 0# 0336 to :une 80# 2000. 9e assumed the position. 9e ser"ed as mayor until :une 80# 2000. 9e as mayor for the entire period not ithstanding the 'ecision of the %TC in the electoral protest case filed !y petitioner 'ee ousting him /respondent1 as mayor. $uch circumstance does not constitute an interruption in ser"ing the full term. )hether as ;careta+er; or ;de facto; officer# he e&ercises the po ers and en(oys the prere*uisites of the office hich ena!les him ;to stay on indefinitely;. )ith regard to the person ho ill replace Morales# it is a rule that the ineligi!ility of a candidate recei"ing ma(ority "otes does not entitle the eligi!le candidate recei"ing the ne&t highest num!er of "otes to !e declared elected. , minority or defeated candidate cannot !e deemed elected to the office. $ince his dis*ualification !ecame final and e&ecutory after the elections# the candidate ha"ing the second highest num!er of "otes cannot assume the position. 9ence# it is the petitioner# the elected <ice Mayor ,nthony 'ee ho should !e declared as the mayor.

"ELA TORRE V. COMELEC G.R. No. 121#$2 '(l& #, 1$$6 FACTS: Petitioner %olando dela Torre as dis*ualified from running as mayor of Ca"inti =aguna on the ground that he as con"icted of "iolation the ,nti5Fencing =a . 9e argues that he should not !e dis*ualified !ecause he is ser"ing pro!ation of his sentence and hence# the e&ecution of his (udgment as suspended together ith all its legal conse*uences. ISS E: )ON 'ela Torre is dis*ualified to run for pu!lic office. !EL": $ec.40 of =>C pro"ides. 'is*ualifications. The follo ing persons are dis*ualified from running for any electi"e local position. /a1 Those sentenced !y final (udgment for an offense in"ol"ing moral turpitude or for an offense punisha!le !y one /01 year or more of imprisonment ithin t o /21 years after ser"ing sentence2 Moral turopitude is considered as an act of !aseness# "ileness# or depra"ity in the pri"ate duties hich a man o es his fello men# or to society in general# contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty !et een man and oman or conduct contrary to (ustice# honesty# modesty# or good morals. ?n this case of fencing# actual +no ledge !y the ;fence; of the fact that property recei"ed is stolen displays the same degree of malicious depri"ation of one@s rightful property as that hich animated the ro!!ery or theft hich# !y their "ery nature# are crimes of moral turpitude. 9ence 'ela Torre is dis*ualified from see+ing pu!lic office. )ith regard to his argument that he is under pro!ation# the court ruled that the legal effect of pro!ation is only to suspend the e&ecution of the sentence. 'ela Torre@s con"iction su!sists and remains totally unaffected not ithstanding the grant of pro!ation. ?n fact# a (udgment of con"iction in a criminal case ipso facto attains finality hen the accused applies for pro!ation# although it is not e&ecutory pending resolution of the application for pro!ation.

chrism

Page 0

MERCA"O V. MAN)ANO G.R. No. 13#0*3 M%& 26, 1$$$ FACTS: %espondent Adu ManBano on as "ice mayor of Ma+ati City in the May 0336 elections. 9o e"er# upon petition of a certain Arnesto Mamaril# the COC of ManBano as cancelled !y Comelec on the ground that he is a dual citiBen. ISS E: )ON ManBano is eligi!le to !e Ma+ati <P e"en if he is a dual citiBen. !EL": $ec.40 of the =>C pro"ides that persons ith dual citiBenship are dis*ualified from running any electi"e position. 9o e"er# the court ruled that dual citiBenship under $ec.40 must !e understood as dual allegiance. The former arises hen different la s of citiBenship of different countries are applied to a person ithout any "oluntary act /jus soli, jus sanguinis) hile the latter arises out of a positi"e act of a person ho simultaneously o es loyalty to different countries. To terminate the status of dual allegiance# it must conform ith the strict processes of la hile in dual citiBenship# the mere election of Philippine CitiBenship upon filing of the COC is sufficient to terminate the pre"ious status. By declaring in his COC that he is a Filipino citiBen2 that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant of another country2 that he ill defend and support the Constitution of the Philippines and !ear true faith and allegiance thereto and that he does so ithout mental reser"ation# pri"ate respondent has# as far as the la s of this country are concerned# effecti"ely repudiated his ,merican citiBenship and anything hich he may ha"e said !efore as a dual citiBen.

VALLES V. COMELEC G.R. No. 137000. A(+(,- $, 2000 FACTS: %osalind C!asco =opeB ho as !orn on May 0D# 0384 in ,ustralia to a Filipino father and an ,ustralian mother# ran for go"ernor of 'a"ao Oriental. Petitioner Cirilo <alles filed a petition for dis*ualification against =opeB on the ground that she is an ,ustralian CitiBen. ISS E: )ON =opeB is eligi!le to run as go"ernor. !EL": Ender the Philippine Bill of 0302 and the :ones =a # the la s effecti"e at the time of !irth of =opeB !efore the 0384 Constitution# her father is considered as $panish su!(ect and a Filipino citiBen. ,s such# she is also a Filipino CitiBen. The signing into la of the 0384 Philippine Constitution has esta!lished the principle of (us sanguinis as !asis for the ac*uisition of Philippine citiBenship# to it. /01 Those ho are citiBens of the Philippine ?slands at the time of the adoption of this Constitution. /21 Those !orn in the Philippine ?slands of foreign parents ho# !efore the adoption of this Constitution had !een elected to pu!lic office in the Philippine ?slands. /81 Those hose fathers are citiBens of the Philippines. /41 Those hose mothers are citiBens of the Philippines and# upon reaching the age of ma(ority# elect Philippine citiBenship. /41 Those ho are naturaliBed in accordance ith la . The principle of (us sangguinis has !een adopted also !y the 0378 and 0367 Constitution. 9ence# =opeB is a Filipino citiBen# ha"ing !een !orn to a Filipino father. The fact of her !eing !orn in ,ustralia is not tantamount to her losing her Philippine citiBenship. ?f ,ustralia follo s the principle of (us soli# then at most# pri"ate respondent can also claim ,ustralian citiBenship resulting to her possession of dual citiBenship. ,lso# the mere fact that =opeB as a holder of an ,ustralian passport and had an alien certificate of registration are not acts constituting an effecti"e renunciation of citiBenship and do not militate against her claim of Filipino citiBenship. For renunciation to effecti"ely result in the loss of citiBenship# the same must !e e&press.

CO. ILLA V. COMELEC G.R. No. 1#1$14 '(l& 31, 2002 FACTS: Petitioner Teodulo Co*uilla is a Filipino citiBen ho as naturaliBed as an ,merican CitiBen after (oining the E$ Na"y. 9e then applied for repatriation and on No".2000# his application as appro"ed and he too+ his oath as a citiBen of the Philippines. On Fe!.2000# he filed his COC to run as a mayor of Oras# Aastern $amar here he stated that he has !een residing in the place for t o years. ,nother candidate Neil ,l"areB filed a petition for cancellation of the COC of Co*uilla !ut the Comelec failed to resol"e the issue so the petitioner later on as declared the inner. ,l"areB argues that Co*uilla has not complied ith the residency re*uirement for the position of mayor. ISS E: )ON Co*uilla complied re*uirement. ith the residency

!EL": ,lthough Co*uilla as !orn and gre 5up in Oras# Aastern $amar# he is deemed to ha"e lost his residence together ith his citiBenship hen he as naturaliBed as ,merican citiBen. 9e is only deemed to ha"e ac*uired his citiBenship and residence until his re5 ac*uisition of his Philippine citiBenship hen he too+ oath on No".2000. ,s such# hen he filed his COC# he is considered as resident of the place for a fe months and not t o years as he stated therein. 9ence# his dis*ualification is "alid on the ground of misrepresentation. Co*uilla cannot in"o+e the ruling in BengBon ". 9%AT that upon repatriation# he is deemed to ha"e reac*uired his original status. This is !ecause the issue here is his false statement in his COC.

chrism

Page 2

' STIM/ASTE V. /AL"ERIAN G.R. No. 17$413 No01231r 2*, 200* FACTS: Petitioner Pricila :ustim!aste filed a dis*ualification case against %ustico Balderian# a mayoralty candidate in Ta!o!ta!o! =eyte on the ground of material misrepresentation in his COC and that he is not a Filipino citiBen. Petitioner argues that Balderian-s real name is C9E TACF $?,O !ut it as not the name reflected in his COC. Comelec denied the dis*ualification case and Balderian on the election. 9ence# this petition for certiorari. ISS E: )ON Balderian committed misrepresentation in his COC. !EL": The petition is ithout merit !ecause $AC. 76 of the Omni!us Alection Code pro"ides that cancellation of COC is allo ed only if any material representation contained therein as re*uired under $ection 74 hereof is false ,lthough the !irth name of the respondent is C9E TACF $?,O# there is already a decision of the :u"enile and 'omestic %elations Court /:'%C1 granting his change of name to %ustico Balderian. The use of a name other than that stated in the certificate of !irth is not a material misrepresentation# as ;material misrepresentation; under $ec.76 refers to ;*ualifications for electi"e office.; There as also no intent to decei"e the electorate as to pri"ate respondent-s identity# nor that !y using his Filipino name the "oting pu!lic as there!y decei"ed. SEC. 74. Contents of certificate of candidacy. The certificate of candidacy shall state that the person filing it is announcing his candidacy for the office stated therein and that he is eligible for said office; if for e!ber of the "atasang #a!bansa, the pro$ince, including its co!ponent cities, highly urbani%ed city or district or sector &hich he see's to represent; the political party to &hich he belongs; ci$il status; his date of birth; residence; his post office address for all election purposes; his profession or occupation; that he &ill support and defend the Constitution of the #hilippines and &ill !aintain true faith and allegiance thereto; that he &ill obey the la&s, legal orders, and decrees pro!ulgated by the duly constituted authorities; that he is not a per!anent resident or i!!igrant to a foreign country; that the obligation assu!ed by his oath is assu!ed $oluntarily, &ithout !ental reser$ation or purpose of e$asion; and that the facts stated in the certificate of candidacy are true to the best of his 'no&ledge.

4ARE V. COMELEC G.R. No. 1#7#26 April 2*, 2004 FACTS: $al"ador Moll and ,"elino Ceriola are candidates for mayor in Malinao# ,l!ay. Ceriola filed a petition for dis*ualification against Moll on the ground that he as pre"iouslt sentenced !y final (udgment to suffer the penalty of D months to 0 year and 3 months for the crime of usurpation of authority or official functions. Moll on the May 2000 election !ut on March 2008# Comelec issued a resolution dis*ualifying him from office and declared Ceriola to !e the mayor. The "ice5mayor Amiliana Fare filed a petition to against the resolution on the part of the proclamation of Cariola. $he argues that she is the rightful successor the the position of mayor. ISS E: )ON the proclaimation of Ceriola is "alid. !EL": Moll argues that his (udgment is not yet final !ut since he as not a!le to seasona!ly file his M%# it did not stay the implementation of the (udgment. On the issue of ho should !e the mayor# the court ruled that Comelec as rong in proclaiming Ceriola !ecause the resolution dis*ualifying Moll too+ effect after the election# that is on March 2008. Comelec argued that under the OAC $ec.24# Gany "ote cast in fa"or of a candidate ho has !een dis*ualified !y final (udgment shall !e considered as stray and shall not !e counted !ut it shall not in"alidate the !allot.; Moll# according to Comelec# as dis*ualified hen he as con"icted !y final (udgment long !efore the election and so Ceriola is the lone candidate in the election. The court ho e"er disagrees. The court said that it is clear that it as only on March 03# 2008# that the Comelec en !anc issued %esolution to dis*ualify Moll from running as a mayoral candidate. Thus# on May 04# 2000# hen the electorate "oted for him as mayor# they ere under the !elief that he as *ualified. There is no presumption that they agreed to the su!se*uent in"alidation of their "otes as stray "otes# in case of his dis*ualification. To allo the defeated and repudiated candidate to ta+e o"er the mayoralty despite his re(ection !y the electorate is to disenfranchise them through no fault on their part# and to undermine the importance and the meaning of democracy and the right of the people to elect officials of their choice. ,s such# in case of permanent "acancy# the elected "ice mayor should !e proclaimed as the mayor.

/OR'A V. COMELEC G.R. No. 1334$# S1p-1231r 3, 1$$* FACTS: %espondent :ose Carpo is the "ice5mayor of Pateros for a term ending :une 0332. )hen the mayor Cesar Bor(a died# Carpo !ecame the mayor !y operation of la . ?n 0332# Carpo ran and elected as mayor and in 0336 he again filed his COC for re5 election !ut petitioner Ben(amin Bor(a :r. contested it on the ground that he had already ser"ed the three5consecuti"e term allo ed !y la . ISS E: )ON Carpo has already ser"ed three consecuti"e terms. !EL": The contention of Bor(a is unmeritorious. The three term limit of local officials must !e ta+en to the right to !e elected and the right to ser"e the same electi"e position. Conse*uently# it is not enough that an indi"idual has ser"ed three consecuti"e terms !ut he must also !e elected in the to the same position in the same num!er of times !efore the dis*ualification can apply. ?n this case# the first term of Carpo cannot !e included in the computation !ecause he as not elected in that instance !ut rather only ser"ed the remaining term of the deceased mayor !y "irtue of operation of la .

chrism

Page 8

LO)ANI"A V. COMELEC G.R. No. 13#1#0 '(l& 2*, 1$$$ FACTS: %omeo =onBanida as the mayor of $an ,ntonio# Ham!ales for t o consecuti"e terms. ?n 0334# he ran again for his third term and on. 9o e"er# after an election protest has !een filed !y his opponent :uan ,l"es# the Comelec declared a failure of election and the position "acant !ut =onBanida still continued to function as such. ,fter the recounting of "otes# Comelec declared ,"es as the inner of the election and issued a resolution for such in Fe!ruary 0336# a fe months after the ne&t election. =onBanida acceded to the resolution and ,"es too+ o"er the position. ?n the May 0336 elections# =onBanida again filed his COC to run as mayor of the place !ut his opponent this time# Aufemio Muli filed a dis*ualification case on the ground that he has already ser"ed his three5term limit. Muli contends that e"en though ,"es has !een declared as the inner in the 0334 polls# =onBanida still functioned as the mayor for almost the entire term. ISS E: )ON =onBanida has already ser"ed his three5term limit. !EL": The argument of Muli is ithout merit. The three5term limitation pro"ided !y the Constitution and the =C> pro"ides that GThe term of office of electi"e local officials# e&cept !arangay officials# hich shall !e determined !y la shall !e three years and no such officials shall ser"e for more than three consecuti"e terms. <oluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not !e considered as an interruption in the continuity of his ser"ice for the full term for hich he as elected.I ?n the present case the assumption in office of =onBanida in 0334 cannot !e considered as part of the three5term limit !ecause of the a!sence of t o re*uisites. First# the petitioner cannot !e considered as ha"ing !een duly elected to the post in the May 0334 elections# and second# the petitioner did not fully ser"e the 033450336 mayoral term !y reason of in"oluntary relin*uishment of office. To recapitulate# the term limit for electi"e local officials must !e ta+en to refer to the right to !e elected as ell as the right to ser"e in the same electi"e position. Conse*uently# it is not enough that an indi"idual has ser"ed 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.

A"ORMEO V. COMELEC G.R. No. 147$27 F13r(%r& 4, 2002 FACTS: %aymundo ,dormeo filed a petition for dis*ualification against the incum!ent mayor of =ucena City# %amon Talaga :r.# from his re5election !id for the 2000 polls on the ground that he has already ser"ed three consecuti"e terms. Talaga as the mayor of the place in 03325 0334 and again on 033450336. ?n his re5 election !id in 0336# ho e"er# he lost to Bernard Tagarao. ?n a recall election in 2000# Talaga run against Tagarao and on and he ser"ed the une&pired term of the latter. The Comelec first denied the petition of ,dormeo !ut granted it after a motion for reconsideration has !een filed. ISS E: )ON Tagala already ser"ed for three consecuti"e terms. !EL": Talaga ser"ed t o consecuti"e term at most and then lost. ,fter t o years as a pri"ate citiBen# he ran again in the recall election and on. ,s such# his term cannot !e considered as consecuti"e although he merely ser"ed the une&pired term of Tagarao after the recall polls. The continuity of his mayorship as disrupted !y his defeat in the 0336 elections. The comment of Fr. :oa*uin Bernas# a Constitutional Commission mem!er# stating that in interpreting said pro"ision that Gif one is elected representati"e to ser"e the une&pired term of another# that une&pired# no matter ho short# ill !e considered one term for the purpose of computing the num!er of successi"e terms allo edI is only applica!le to mem!ers of Congress here there is no recall election pro"ided.

LATASA V. COMELEC G.R. No. 1#4*2$ "151231r 10, 2003 FACTS: ,rsenio =atasa as the mayor of the M(6i5ip%li-& of 'igos# 'a"ao del $ur in 0332# 0334 and 0336. ?n $eptem!er 2000# a ple!iscite as conducted to con"ert the municipality to Ci-& of 'igos. This mar+ed the end of the term of =atasa as mayor of the municipality. 9o e"er# the charter of the ne city pro"ides that =atasa ill stay in position in a hold5o"er capacity until the ne&t election. ?n 2000 elections# =atasa again filed a COC to run as mayor. 9e argues that although he has already ser"ed three consecuti"e term in municipal mayor# this is his first !id as a city mayor. 9is opponent in the election %omeo $unga filed a dis*ualification case against =atasa in the Comelec on the ground of "iolation of the three5term rule. Comelec granted the petition. =atasa filed a M% that as not acted upon until the day of election and hence# he on and proclaimed as the mayor. ISS E: )ON =atasa can still run as mayor of 'igos City after ser"ing three terms as mayor of municipality of 'igos. !EL": The ne city ac*uired a ne corporate e&istence separate and distinct from that of the municipality. This does not mean# ho e"er# that for the purpose of applying the su!(ect Constitutional pro"ision# the office of the municipal mayor ould no !e construed as a different local go"ernment post as that of the office of the city mayor. ,s stated earlier# the territorial (urisdiction of the City of 'igos is the same as that of the municipality. Conse*uently# the inha!itants of the municipality are the same as those in the city. These inha!itants are the same group of "oters ho elected petitioner =atasa to !e their municipal mayor for three consecuti"e terms. These are also the same inha!itants o"er hom he held po er and authority as their chief e&ecuti"e for nine years. The Court !elie"es that =atasa did in"oluntarily relin*uish his office as municipal mayor since the said office has !een deemed a!olished due to the con"ersion. 9o e"er# the "ery instant he "acated his office as municipal mayor# he also assumed office as city mayor unli+e in =onBanida case# here petitioner for e"en (ust a short period of time# stepped do n from office. ?n this case# there as no interruption in the holding of office and hence# the three consecuti"e term is completed. $ince =atasa as proclaimed !ut later on dis*ualified# the second placer $unga# cannot assume the position !ut the "ice mayor. chrism Page 4

7ANIS V. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION G.R. No. 102$4* F13r(%r& 2, 1$$4 FACTS: :aime Panis as employed as ,dministrati"e Officer of the Ce!u City Medical Center /CCMC1 formerly# Ce!u City 9ospita# hile pri"ate respondent Bella <eloso as ,dministrati"e Officer of the City 9ealth 'epartment detailed at the said hospital. Panis and <eloso are !oth candidate for the position of ,ssistant Chief of 9ospital for ,dministration of CCMC !ut the city mayor appointed the latter. Panis *uestioned the appointment of <eloso on the grounds that the position as not legally created# there as no screening process made and that the ne&t in ran+ rule as not applied. ISS E: )ON <eloso has the right to !e appointed to the disputed position. !EL": On the issue of the legality of the position# it as created under Ordinance 020D hen the hospital changed its name. ?t is the e*ui"alent of Office of the hospital administrator. )ith regard to the screening process# Panis did not attend the screening process scheduled !y the Personnel $election Board e"en after due notice. On the issue of the ne&t5in5ran+# the court ruled that the ;ne&t in ran+; rule specifically applies only in cases of promotion. The instant contro"ersy# ho e"er# in"ol"es a ne office and a position created in the course of a "alid reorganiBation. Ender the la # a "acancy not filled !y promotion may !e filled !y transfer of present employees in the go"ernment ser"ice# !y reinstatement# !y reemployment of those separated from the ser"ice# and appointment of outsiders ho ha"e appropriate ci"il ser"ice eligi!ility# !ut not necessarily in this order. ,ssuming nonetheless that a "acancy actually occurred that can !e filled up only !y promotion# the concept of ;ne&t in ran+; does not impose any mandatory or peremptory re*uirement to appoint the person occupying the ne&t lo er position in the occupational group of the office. )hat the Ci"il $er"ice =a and the ,dministrati"e Code of 0367 pro"ide is that if a "acancy is filled up !y the promotion# the person holding the position ne&t in ran+ thereto ;shall !e considered for promotion. ?n other ords# one ho is ;ne&t in ran+; to a "acancy is gi"en preferential consideration for promotion to the "acant position# !ut it does nor necessarily follo that he alone and no one else can !e appointed. There is no "ested right granted the ne&t in ran+ nor a ministerial duty imposed on the appointing authority to promote the holder to the "acant position.

MEN)ON V. 7ETILLA G.R. No. $0762 M%& 20, 1$$1 FACTS: On Fe!.0366# '?=> $ec. =uis $antos designated <ice5>o". =eopoldo Petilla as acti"e go"ernor of =eyte !ecause no go"ernor has yet !een proclaimed in the pro"ince. The most senior mem!er of the $angguniang Panlala igan ,urelio MenBon as also designated !y $antos to !e acting <ice5>o"ernor. The $P issued a resolution declaring the appointment of MenBon in"alid on the ground the la does not pro"ide in cases of succession in the Office of the <ice5 >o"ernor in case of a temporary "acancy and the appointment is not necessary since the <ice5>o"ernor ho is temporarily performing the functions of the >o"ernor# could concurrently assume the functions of !oth offices. MenBon *uestioned the said resolution !ut it as dismissed !y the court and in the meantime the issue on the go"ernorship of =eyte as settled and ,delina =arraBa!al as proclaimed the >o"ernor. The pro"incial treasurer allo ed the payment of the salary and emoluments for MenBon as acti"e "ice5go"ernor !ut =arraBa!al later as+ed to pay it !ac+. ISS E: )ON there as "acancy and )ON MenBon is entitled to the emoluments. !EL": The issues should !e resol"ed in the affirmati"e. The la on Pu!lic Officers is clear on the matter. There is no "acancy hene"er the office is occupied !y a legally *ualified incum!ent. , sensu contrario# there is a "acancy hen there is no person la fully authoriBed to assume and e&ercise at present the duties of the office. ?n this case# the office of the <ice5>o"ernor as left "acant hen the duly elected <ice5 >o"ernor Petilla as appointed ,cting >o"ernor. ?n the eyes of the la # the office to hich he as elected as left !arren of a legally *ualified person to e&ercise the duties of the office of the <ice5>o"ernor. The =C> is silent on the mode of succession in the e"ent of a temporary "acancy in the Office of the <ice5>o"ernor. 9o e"er# under the circumstances# the Court rules that# in order to o!"iate the dilemma resulting from an interregnum created !y the "acancy# the President# acting through her alter ego# the $ecretary of '?=># may remedy the situation. ?n "ie of the foregoing# the petitioner@s right to !e paid the salary attached to the Office of the <ice >o"ernor is indu!ita!le.

S/ o8 S%6 A69r1, C%-%69(%61, 0. CA G.R. No. 11***3 '%6(%r& 16, 1$$* FACTS: ,ugusto T. ,ntonio as elected !gy captain of $apang Palay# $an ,ndres. ?n that capacity# he as appointed !y the President as mem!er of the $angguniang Bayan of the Municipality of $an ,ndres and as later elected president of the ,ssociation of Barangay Councils /,BC1. Mean hile# the election for the president of Federation of the ,ssociation of Barangay Councils /F,BC1 as declared "oid !y the '?=> for lac+ of *uorum and the reorganiBation in the pro"incial council !ecame necessary. Being president of ,BC# the '?=> $ec. appointed ,ntonio as temporary mem!er of the $angguniang Panlala igan of the Pro"ince of Catanduanes. ,s such# ,ntonio tendered his resignation as mem!er of $B. The <P of ,BC# Nenito ,*uino as appointed as mem!er of $B in replacement of ,ntonio. =ater $C# in"alidate the decision of the '?=> ith regard to the election of the F,BC president and also the appointment of ,ntonio as mem!er of $P. ,ntonio rote a letter to $B to reassume his position !ut it as denied on the ground that he has already resigned. ISS E: )ON there is an effecti"e resignation of a!andonment of office. !EL": ,ntonio cannot assume his pre"ious position !ecause although there as no effecti"e resignation# there as an a!andonment of office. To constitute a complete and operati"e resignation from pu!lic office# there must !e. /a1 an intention to relin*uish a part of the term2 /!1 an act of relin*uishment2 and /c1 an acceptance !y the proper authority. ?n this case# there is no effecti"e resignation !ecause there is no e"idence that the resignation as accepted !y any go"ernment functionary or office. 9o e"er# ,ntonio has effecti"ely relin*uished his mem!ership in the $angguniang Bayan due to his "oluntary a!andonment of said post. This is clear hen he did not simultaneously discharge the duties and o!ligations of !oth positions. Neither did he# at that time# e&press an intention to resume his office as mem!er of the $B. 9is o"ert acts# silence# inaction and ac*uiescence# hen ,*uino succeeded him to his original position# sho that ,ntonio had a!andoned the contested office. ,ntonio-s failure to promptly assert his alleged right implies his loss of interest in the position. 9is o"ert acts plainly sho that he really meant his resignation and understood its effects. chrism Page 4

R1p(3li5 A5- No. *2$#

'(61 6, 1$$7

AN ACT 7ROVI"ING FOR T!E 7ROCLAMATION OF A LONE CAN"I"ATE FOR ANY ELECTIVE OFFICE IN A S7ECIAL ELECTION, AN" FOR OT!ER 7 R7OSES

S15-io6 4. Disqualification. J ?n addition to the dis*ualifications mentioned in $ec.s 02 and D6 of the (!nibus Election Code and $ec. 40 of %epu!lic ,ct No. 70D0# other ise +no n as the )ocal *o$ern!ent Code# hene"er the e"idence of guilt is strong# the follo ing persons are dis*ualified to run in a special election called to fill the "acancy in an electi"e office# to it. a1 ,ny electi"e official ho has resigned from his office !y accepting an appointi"e office or for hate"er reason hich he pre"iously occupied !ut has caused to !ecome "acant due to his resignation2 and !1 ,ny person ho# directly or indirectly# coerces# !ri!es# threatens# harasses# intimidates or actually causes# inflicts or produces any "iolence# in(ury# punishment# torture# damage# loss or disad"antage to any person or persons aspiring to !ecome a candidate or that of the immediate mem!er of his family# his honor or property that is meant to eliminate all other potential candidate. S15-io6 #. Prohibited acts, election offenses and penalties. J ,ny act of coercion# !ri!ery# threat# harassment# intimidation# terrorism# or actually causing# inflicting or producing "iolence# in(ury# punishment# torture# damage# loss or disad"antage to discourage any other person or persons from filing a certificate of candidacy in order to eliminate all other potential candidate from running in a special election shall constitute as an election offense. <iolations of this pro"ision shall !e prosecuted and penaliBed in accordance ith the pro"ision of $ec. 2D4 of the Omni!us Alection Code.

RE7 /LIC ACT NO. $16#

'(61 7, 2002

AN ACT INSTIT TING T!E COM7RE!ENSIVE "ANGERO S "R GS ACT OF 2002, RE7EALING RE7 /LIC ACT NO. 642#, OT!ER:ISE 4NO:N AS T!E "ANGERO S "R GS ACT OF 1$72, AS AMEN"E", 7ROVI"ING F N"S T!EREFOR, AN" FOR OT!ER 7 R7OSES S15-io6 27. Cri!inal )iability of a #ublic (fficer or E!ployee for isappropriation, isapplication or +ailure to ,ccount for the Confiscated, Sei%ed and-or Surrendered .angerous .rugs, #lant Sources of .angerous .rugs, Controlled #recursors and Essential Che!icals, /nstru!ents-#araphernalia and-or )aboratory E0uip!ent /ncluding the #roceeds or #roperties (btained fro! the 1nla&ful ,ct Co!!itted. The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Fi"e hundred thousand pesos /P400#000.001 to Ten million pesos /P00#000#000.001# in addition to a!solute perpetual dis*ualification from any pu!lic office# shall !e imposed upon any pu!lic officer or employee ho misappropriates# misapplies or fails to account for confiscated# seiBed or surrendered dangerous drugs# plant sources of dangerous drugs# controlled precursors and essential chemicals# instrumentsKparaphernalia andKor la!oratory e*uipment including the proceeds or properties o!tained from the unla ful acts as pro"ided for in this ,ct. ,ny electi"e local or national official found to ha"e !enefited from the proceeds of the traffic+ing of dangerous drugs as prescri!ed in this ,ct# or ha"e recei"ed any financial or material contri!utions or donations from natural or (uridical persons found guilty of traffic+ing dangerous drugs as prescri!ed in this ,ct# shall !e remo"ed from office and perpetually dis*ualified from holding any electi"e or appointi"e positions in the go"ernment# its di"isions# su!di"isions# and intermediaries# including go"ernment5o ned or Jcontrolled corporations. S15-io6 2*. Cri!inal )iability of *o$ern!ent (fficials and E!ployees. J The ma&imum penalties of the unla ful acts pro"ided for in this ,ct shall !e imposed# in addition to a!solute perpetual dis*ualification from any pu!lic office# if those found guilty of such unla ful acts are go"ernment officials and employees.

R1p(3li5 A5- No. $22#

A(+(,- 2$, 2003

AN ACT MA4ING T!E CITI)ENS!I7 OF 7!ILI77INE CITI)ENS :!O AC. IRE FOREIGN CITI)ENS!I7 7ERMANENT. AMEN"ING FOR T!E 7 R7OSE COMMON:EALT! ACT. NO. 63, AS AMEN"E" AN" FOR OT!ER 7 R7OSES "e it enacted by the Senate and 2ouse of 3epresentati$es of the #hilippines in Congress asse!bled . S15-io6 1. Short Title this act shall !e +no n as the ;Ci-i;16,<ip R1-16-io6 %69 R1=%5>(i,i-io6 A5- o8 2003.; S15-io6 2. Declaration of Policy 4 ?t is here!y declared the policy of the $tate that all Philippine citiBens of another country shall !e deemed not to ha"e lost their Philippine citiBenship under the conditions of this ,ct. S15-io6 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship 4 ,ny pro"ision of la to the contrary not ithstanding# natural5!orn citiBenship !y reason of their naturaliBation as citiBens of a foreign country are here!y deemed to ha"e re5ac*uired Philippine citiBenship upon ta+ing the follo ing oath of allegiance to the %epu!lic. ;? LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL# solemny s ear /or affrim1 that ? ill support and defend the Constitution of the %epu!lic of the Philippines and o!ey the la s and legal orders promulgated !y the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines2 and ? here!y declare that ? recogniBe and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and ill maintain true faith and allegiance thereto2 and that ? imposed this o!ligation upon myself "oluntarily ithout mental reser"ation or purpose of e"asion.; Natural !orn citiBens of the Philippines ho# after the effecti"ity of this ,ct# !ecome citiBens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citiBenship upon ta+ing the aforesaid oath. S15-io6 4. Derivative Citizenship 4 The unmarried child# hether legitimate# illegitimate or adopted# !elo ac*uire Philippine citiBenship upon effecti"ity of this ,ct shall !e deemed citiBenship of the Philippines. eighteen /061 years of age# of those ho re5

S15-io6 #. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities 4 Those ho retain or re5ac*uire Philippine citiBenship under this ,ct shall en(oy full ci"il and political rights and !e su!(ect to all attendant lia!ilities and responsi!ilities under e&isting la s of the Philippines and the follo ing conditions. /01 Those intending to e&ercise their right of surffrage must Meet the re*uirements under $ection 0# ,rticle < of the Constitution# %epu!lic ,ct No. 3063# other ise +no n as ;The O"erseas ,!sentee <oting ,ct of 2008; and other e&isting la s2 /21 Those see+ing electi"e pu!lic in the Philippines shall meet the *ualification for holding such pu!lic office as re*uired !y the Constitution and e&isting la s and# at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy# ma+e a personal and s orn renunciation of any and all foreign citiBenship !efore any pu!lic officer authoriBed to administer an oath2 /81 Those appointed to any pu!lic office shall su!scri!e and s ear to an oath of allegiance to the %epu!lic of the Philippines and its duly constituted authorities prior to their assumption of office. #ro$ided# That they renounce their oath of allegiance to the country here they too+ that oath2 /41 Those intending to practice their profession in the Philippines shall apply ith the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice2 and /41 That right to "ote or !e elected or appointed to any pu!lic office in the Philippines cannot !e e&ercised !y# or e&tended to# those ho. /a1 are candidates for or are occupying any pu!lic office in the country of hich they are naturaliBed citiBens2 andKor /!1 are in acti"e ser"ice as commissioned or non5commissioned officers in the armed forces of the country hich they are naturaliBed citiBens. S15-io6 6. Separability Clause 4 ?f any section or pro"ision of this ,ct is held unconstitutional or in"alid# any other section or pro"ision not affected there!y shall remain "alid and effecti"e. S15-io6 7. Repealing Clause 4 ,ll la s# decrees# orders# rules and regulations inconsistent ith the pro"isions of this ,ct are here!y repealed or modified accordingly. S15-io6 *. Effectivity Clause This ,ct shall ta+e effect after fifteen /041 days follo ing its pu!lication in the (fficial *a%ette or t o /21 ne spaper of general circulation.

1$*7 CONSTIT TION ?ART. @ SEC.*A

$ection 6. The term of office of electi"e local officials# e&cept !arangay officials# hich shall !e determined !y la # shall !e three years and no such official shall ser"e for more than three consecuti"e terms. <oluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not !e considered as an interruption in the continuity of his ser"ice for the full term for hich he as elected.