Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BANC
[G.R.
No.
86564.
August
1,
1989.]
RAMON
L.
LABO,
JR.,
petitioner,
vs.
THE
COMMISSION
ON
ELECTIONS
(COMELEC)
EN
BANC
AND
LUIS
LARDIZABAL,
respondents.
Estelito
P.
Mendoza
for
petitioner.
Rillera
and
Quintana
for
private
respondent.
SYLLABUS
1.
SPECIAL
CIVIL
ACTION;
QUO
WARRANTO;
PETITION
FILED
TIMELY.
The
Court
has
considered
the
arguments
of
the
parties
and
holds
that
the
petition
for
quo
warranto
was
filed
on
time.
We
agree
with
the
respondents
that
the
fee
was
paid
during
the
ten-day
period
as
extended
by
the
pendency
of
the
petition
when
it
was
treated
by
the
COMELEC
as
a
pre-
proclamation
proceeding
which
did
not
require
the
payment
of
a
filing
fee.
At
that,
we
reach
this
conclusion
only
on
the
assumption
that
the
requirement
for
the
payment
of
the
fees
in
quo
warranto
proceedings
was
already
effective.
There
is
no
record
that
Res.
No.
1450
was
even
published;
and
as
for
Res.
No.
1996,
this
took
effect
only
on
March
3,
1988,
seven
days
after
its
publication
in
the
February
25,
1988
issues
of
the
Manila
Chronicle
and
the
Philippine
Daily
Inquirer,
or
after
the
petition
was
filed.
2.
ID.;
ID.;
PAYMENT
OF
FILING
FEES
NECESSARY
FOR
CONFERMENT
OF
JURISDICTION;
COURT
MAY
ALLOW
PAYMENT
WITHIN
A
REASONABLE
TIME.
It
is
true
that
in
the
Manchester
Case,
we
required
the
timely
payment
of
the
filing
fee
as
a
precondition
for
the
timeliness
of
the
filing
of
the
case
itself.
In
Sun
Insurance
Office,
Ltd.
v.
Asuncion,
however,
this
Court,
taking
into
account
the
special
circumstances
of
that
case,
reiterated
the
rule
that
the
trial
court
acquires
jurisdiction
over
a
case
only
upon
the
payment
of
the
prescribed
filing
fee.
However,
this
court
may
allow
the
payment
of
the
said
fee
within
a
reasonable
time.
In
the
event
of
non-compliance
therewith,
the
case
shall
be
dismissed.
The
same
idea
is
expressed
in
Rule
42,
Section
18,
of
the
COMELEC
Rules
of
Procedure
adopted
on
June
20,
1988.
3.
CIVIL
PROCEDURE;
ACTION;
RESOLUTION
ON
THE
MERITS
INSTEAD
OF
REMANDING
THE
CASE
TO
THE
TRIAL
COURT
FOR
FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS;
AS
DEMANDED
BY
THE
DICTATES
OF
JUSTICE.
Remand
of
the
case
to
the
lower
court
for
further
reception
of
evidence
is
not
necessary
where
the
court
is
in
a
position
to
resolve
the
dispute
based
on
the
records
before
it.
On
many
occasions,
the
Court,
in
the
public
interest
and
the
expeditious
administration
of
justice,
has
resolved
actions
on
the
merits
instead
of
remanding
them
to
the
trial
court
for
further
proceedings,
such
as
where
the
ends
of
justice
would
not
be
subserved
by
the
remand
of
the
case
or
when
public
interest
demands
an
early
disposition
of
the
case
or
where
the
trial
court
had
already
received
all
the
evidence
of
the
parties.
4.
ID.;
ID.;
DOCTRINE
OF
RES
JUDICATA
NOT
APPLICABLE
TO
QUESTIONS
OF
CITIZENSHIP;
DEFENSE
TO
BE
SEASONABLY
INVOKED.
There
is
also
the
claim
that
the
decision
can
no
longer
be
reversed
because
of
the
doctrine
of
res
judicata,
but
this
too
must
be
dismissed.
This
doctrine
does
not
apply
to
questions
of
citizenship,
as
the
Court
has
ruled
in
several
cases.
Moreover,
it
does
not
appear
that
it
was
properly
and
seasonably
pleaded,
in
a
motion
to
dismiss
or
in
the
answer,
having
been
invoked
only
when
the
petitioner
filed
his
reply
to
the
private
respondent's
comment.
Besides,
one
of
the
requisites
ofres
judicata,
to
wit,
identity
of
parties,
is
not
present
in
this
case.
City.
Re-examining
Santos
v.
Commission
on
Election,
137
SCRA
740
the
Court
finds,
and
so
holds,
that
it
should
be
reversed
in
favor
of
the
earlier
case
of
Geronimo
v.
Ramos,
which
represents
the
more
logical
and
democratic
rule.
There
the
Court
held
it
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
a
winner
and
imposed
as
the
representative
of
a
constituency,
the
majority
of
which
have
positively
declared
through
their
ballots
that
they
do
not
choose
him.
D
E
C
I
S
I
O
N
CRUZ,
J
p:
The
petitioner
asks
this
Court
to
restrain
the
Commission
on
Elections
from
looking
into
the
question
of
his
citizenship
as
a
qualification
for
his
office
as
Mayor
of
Baguio
City.
The
allegation
that
he
is
a
foreigner,
he
says,
is
not
the
issue.
The
issue
is
whether
or
not
the
public
respondent
has
jurisdiction
to
conduct
any
inquiry
into
this
matter,
considering
that
the
petition
for
quo
warranto
against
him
was
not
filed
on
time.
cdphil
It
is
noteworthy
that
this
argument
is
based
on
the
alleged
tardiness
not
of
the
petition
itself
but
of
the
payment
of
the
filing
fee,
which
the
petitioner
contends
was
an
indispensable
requirement.
The
fee
is,
curiously
enough,
all
of
P300.00
only.
This
brings
to
mind
the
popular
verse
that
for
want
of
a
horse
the
kingdom
was
lost.
Still,
if
it
is
shown
that
the
petition
was
indeed
filed
beyond
the
reglementary'
period,
there
is
no
question
that
this
petition
must
be
granted
and
the
challenge
abated.
The
petitioner's
position
is
simple.
He
was
proclaimed
mayor-elect
of
Baguio
City
on
January
20,
1988.
The
petition
for
quo
warranto
was
filed
by
the
private
respondent
on
January
26,1988,
but
no
filing
fee
was
paid
on
that
date.
This
fee
was
finally
paid
on
February
10,
1988,
or
twenty-one
days
after
his
proclamation.
As
the
petition
by
itself
alone
was
ineffectual
without
the
filing
fee,
it
should
be
deemed
filed
only
when
the
fee
was
paid.
This
was
done
beyond
the
reglementary
period
provided
for
under
Section
253
of
the
Omnibus
Election
Code
reading
as
follows:
SEC.
253.
Petition
for
quo
warranto.
Any
voter
contesting
the
election
of
a
Member
of
the
Batasang
Pambansa,
regional,
provincial,
or
city
officer
on
the
ground
of
ineligibility
or
of
disloyalty
to
the
Republic
of
the
Philippines
shall
files
sworn
petition
for
quo
warranto
with
the
Commission
within
ten
days
after
the
proclamation
of
the
result
of
the
election.
The
petitioner
adds
that
the
payment
of
the
filing
fee
is
required
under
Rule
36,
Section
5,
of
the
Procedural
Rules
of
the
COMELEC
providing
that
Sec.
5.
No
petition
for
quo
warranto
shall
be
given
due
course
without
the
payment
of
a
filing
fee
in
the
amount
of
Three
Hundred
Pesos
(P300.00)
and
the
legal
research
fee
as
required
by
law.
and
stresses
that
there
is
abundant
jurisprudence
holding
that
the
payment
of
the
filing
fee
is
essential
to
the
timeliness
of
the
filing
of
the
petition
itself.
He
cites
many
rulings
of
the
Court
to
this
effect,
specifically
Manchester
v.
Court
of
Appeals.
1
For
his
part,
the
private
respondent
denies
that
the
filing
fee
was
paid
out
of
time.
In
fact,
he
says,
it
was
filed
ahead
of
time.
His
point
is
that
when
he
filed
his
"Petition
for
Quo
Warranto
with
Prayer
for
Immediate
Annulment
of
Proclamation
and
Restraining
Order
or
Injunction"
on
January
26,
1988,
the
COMELEC
treated
it
as
a
pre-proclamation
controversy
and
docketed
it
as
SPC
Case
No.
88-288.
No
docket
fee
was
collected
although
it
was
offered.
It
was
only
on
February
8,
1988,
that
the
COMELEC
decided
to
treat
his
petition
as
solely
for
quo
warranto
and
re-docketed
it
as
EPC
Case
No.
88-19,
serving
him
notice
on
February
10,
1988.
He
immediately
paid
the
filing
fee
on
that
date.
The
private
respondent
argues
further
that
during
the
period
when
the
COMELEC
regarded
his
petition
as
a
pre-
proclamation
controversy,
the
time
for
filing
an
election
protest
or
quo
warranto
proceeding
was
deemed
suspended
under
Section
248
of
the
Omnibus
Election
Code.
2
At
any
rate,
he
says,
Rule
36,
Section
5,
of
the
COMELEC
Rules
of
Procedure
cited
by
the
petitioner,
became
effective
only
on
November
15,
1988,
seven
days
after
publication
of
the
said
Rules
in
the
Official
Gazette
pursuant
to
Section
4,
Rule
44
thereof.
3
These
rules
could
not
retroact
to
January
26,1988,
when
he
filed
his
petition
with
the
COMELEC.
In
his
Reply,
the
petitioner
argues
that
even
if
the
Omnibus
Election
Code
did
not
require
it,
the
payment
of
filing
fees
was
still
necessary
under
Res.
No.
1996
and,
before
that,
Res.
No.
1450
of
the
respondent
COMELEC,
promulgated
on
January
12,
1988,
and
February
26,
1980,
respectively.
To
this,
the
private
respondent
counters
that
the
latter
resolution
was
intended
for
the
local
elections
held
on
January
30,
1980,
and
did
not
apply
to
the
1988
local
elections,
which
were
supposed
to
be
governed
by
the
first-mentioned
resolution.
However,
Res.
No.
1996
took
effect
only
on
March
3,
1988,
following
the
lapse
of
seven
days
alter
its
publication
as
required
by
RA
No.
6646,
otherwise
known
as
the
Electoral
Reform
Law
of
1987,
which
became
effective
on
January
5,1988.
Its
Section
30
provides
in
part:
Sec.
30.
Effectivity
of
Regulations
and
Orders
of
the
Commission.
The
rules
and
regulations
promulgated
by
the
Commission
shall
take
effect
on
the
seventh
day
after
their
publication
in
the
Official
Gazette
or
in
at
least
(2)
daily
newspapers
of
general
circulation
in
the
Philippines.
The
Court
has
considered
the
arguments
of
the
parties
and
holds
that
the
petition
for
quo
warranto
was
filed
on
time.
We
agree
with
the
respondents
that
the
fee
was
paid
during
the
ten-day
period
as
extended
by
the
pendency
of
the
petition
when
it
was
treated
by
the
COMELEC
as
a
pre-proclamation
proceeding
which
did
not
require
the
payment
of
a
filing
fee.
At
that,
we
reach
this
conclusion
only
on
the
assumption
that
the
requirement
for
the
payment
of
the
fees
in
quo
warranto
proceedings
was
already
effective.
There
is
no
record
that
Res.
No.
1450
was
even
published;
and
as
for
Res.
No.
1996,
this
took
effect
only
on
March
3,
1988,
seven
days
after
its
publication
in
the
February
25,
1988
issues
of
the
Manila
Chronicle
and
the
Philippine
Daily
Inquirer,
or
after
the
petition
was
filed.
cdasia
The
petitioner
forgets
Taada
v.
Tuvera
4
when
he
argues
that
the
resolutions
became
effective
"immediately
upon
approval"
simply
because
it
was
so
provided
therein.
We
held
in
that
case
that
publication
was
still
necessary
under
the
due
process
clause
despite
such
effectivity
clause.
In
any
event,
what
is
important
is
that
the
filing
fee
was
paid,
and
whatever
delay
there
may
have
been
is
not
imputable
to
the
private
respondent's
fault
or
neglect.
It
is
true
that
in
the
Manchester
Case,
we
required
the
timely
payment
of
the
filing
fee
as
a
precondition
for
the
timeliness
of
the
filing
of
the
case
itself.
In
Sun
Insurance
Office,
Ltd.
v.
Asuncion,
5
however,
this
Court,
taking
into
account
the
special
circumstances
of
that
case,
declared:
This
Court
reiterates
the
rule
that
the
trial
court
acquires
jurisdiction
over
a
case
only
upon
the
payment
of
the
prescribed
filing
fee.
However,
the
court
may
allow
the
payment
of
the
said
fee
within
a
reasonable
time.
In
the
event
of
non-compliance
therewith,
the
case
shall
be
dismissed.
The
same
idea
is
expressed
in
Rule
42,
Section
18,
of
the
COMELEC
Rules
of
Procedure
adopted
on
June
20,
1988,
thus:
Sec.
18.
Non-payment
of
prescribed
fees.
If
the
fees
above
prescribed
are
not
paid,
the
Commission
may
refuse
to
take
action
thereon
until
they
are
paid
and
may
dismiss
the
action
or
the
proceeding.
(Emphasis
supplied.)
The
Court
notes
that
while
arguing
the
technical
point
that
the
petition
for
quo
warranto
should
be
dismissed
for
failure
to
pay
the
filing
fee
on
time,
the
petitioner
would
at
the
same
time
minimize
his
alleged
lack
of
citizenship
as
"a
futile
technicality."
It
is
regrettable,
to
say
the
least,
that
the
requirement
of
citizenship
as
a
qualification
for
public
office
can
be
so
demeaned.
what
is
worse
is
that
it
is
regarded
as
an
even
less
important
consideration
than
the
reglementary
period
the
petitioner
insists
upon.
This
matter
should
normally
end
here
as
the
sole
issue
originally
raised
by
the
petitioner
is
the
timeliness
of
the
quo
warranto
proceedings
against
him.
However,
as
his
citizenship
is
the
subject
of
that
proceeding,
and
considering
the
necessity
for
an
early
resolution
of
that
more
important
question
clearly
and
urgently
affecting
the
public
interest,
we
shall
directly
address
it
now
in
this
same
action.
The
Court
has
similarly
acted
in
a
notable
number
of
cases,
thus:
From
the
foregoing
brief
statement
of
the
nature
of
the
instant
case,
it
would
appear
that
our
sole
function
in
this
proceeding
should
be
to
resolve
the
single
issue
of
whether
or
not
the
Court
of
Appeals
erred
in
ruling
that
the
motion
for
new
trial
of
the
GSIS
in
question
should
indeed
be
deemed
pro
forma.
But
going
over
the
extended
pleadings
of
both
parties,
the
Court
is
immediately
impressed
that
substantial
justice
may
not
be
timely
achieved,
if
we
should
decide
this
case
upon
such
a
technical
ground
alone.
We
have
carefully
read
all
the
allegations
and
arguments
of
the
parties,
very
ably
and
comprehensively
expounded
by
evidently
knowledgeable
and
unusually
competent
counsel,
and
we
feel
we
can
better
serve
the
interests
of
justice
by
broadening
the
scope
of
our
inquiry,
for
as
the
record
before
us
stands,
we
see
that
there
is
enough
basis
for
us
to
end
the
basic
controversy
between
the
parties
here
and
now,
dispensing,
however,
with
procedural
steps
which
would
not
anyway
affect
substantially
the
merits
of
their
respective
claims.
6
xxx
xxx
xxx
While
it
is
the
fault
of
the
petitioner
for
appealing
to
the
wrong
court
and
thereby
allowing
the
period
for
appeal
to
lapse,
the
more
correct
procedure
was
for
the
respondent
court
to
forward
the
case
to
the
proper
court
which
was
the
Court
of
Appeals
for
appropriate
action.
Considering,
however,
the
length
of
time
that
this
case
has
been
pending,
we
apply
the
rule
in
the
case
of
Del
Castillo
v.
Jaymalin,
(112
SCRA
629)
and
follow
the
principle
enunciated
in
Alger
Electric,
Inc.
v.
Court
of
Appeals,
(135
SCRA
37)
which
states:
".
.
.
it
is
a
cherished
rule
of
procedure
for
this
Court
to
always
strive
to
settle
the
entire
controversy
in
a
single
proceeding
leaving
no
root
or
branch
to
bear
the
seeds
of
future
litigation.
No
useful
purpose
will
be
served
if
this
case
is
remanded
to
the
trial
court
only
to
have
its
decision
raised
again
to
the
Intermediate
Appellate
Court
and
from
there
to
this
Court."
(p.
43)
Only
recently
in
the
case
of
Beautifont,
Inc.,
et
al.
v.
Court
of
Appeals,
et
al.
(G.R.
No.
50141,
January
29,1988),
we
stated
that:
".
.
.
But
all
those
relevant
facts
are
now
before
this
Court.
And
those
facts
dictate
the
rendition
of
a
verdict
in
the
petitioner's
favor.
There
is
therefore
no
point
in
referring
the
case
back
to
the
Court
of
Appeals.
The
facts
and
the
legal
propositions
involved
will
not
change,
nor
should
the
ultimate
judgment.
Considerable
time
has
already
elapsed
and,
to
serve
the
ends
of
justice,
it
is
time
that
the
controversy
is
finally
laid
to
rest.
(See
Sotto
v.
Samson,
5
SCRA
733;
Republic
v.
Paredes,
108
Phil.
57;
Lianga
Lumber
Co.
v.
Lianga
Timber
Co.,
Inc.,
76
SCRA
197;
Erico
v.
Heirs
of
Chigas,
98
SCRA
575;
Francisco
v.
City
of
Davao,
12
SCRA
628;
Valencia
v.
Mabilangan,
105
Phil.
162).
'Sound
practice
seeks
to
accommodate
the
theory
which
avoids
waste
of
time,
effort
and
expense,
both
to
the
parties
and
the
government,
not
to
speak
of
delay
in
the
disposal
of
the
case
(of:
Fernandez
v.
Garcia,
92
Phil.
592,
597).
A
marked
characteristic
of
our
judicial
set-up
is
that
where
the
dictates
of
justice
so
demand
.
.
.
the
Supreme
Court
should
act,
and
act
with
finality.'
(Li
Siu
Liat
v.
Republic,
21
SCRA
1039,
1046,
citing
Samal
v.
CA,
99
Phil.
230
and
U.S.
v.
Gimenez,
34
Phil.
74).
In
this
case,
the
dictates
of
justice
do
demand
that
this
Court
act,
and
act
with
finality."
7
xxx
xxx
xxx
Remand
of
the
case
to
the
lower
court
for
further
reception
of
evidence
is
not
necessary
where
the
court
is
in
a
position
to
resolve
the
dispute
based
on
the
records
before
it.
On
many
occasions,
the
Court,
in
the
public
interest
and
the
expeditious
administration
of
justice,
has
resolved
actions
on
the
merits
instead
of
remanding
them
to
the
trial
court
for
further
proceedings,
such
as
where
the
ends
of
justice
would
not
be
subserved
by
the
remand
of
the
case
or
when
public
interest
demands
an
early
disposition
of
the
case
or
where
the
trial
court
had
already
received
all
the
evidence
of
the
parties.
8
This
course
of
action
becomes
all
the
more
justified
in
the
present
case
where,
to
repeat
for
stress,
it
is
claimed
that
a
foreigner
is
holding
a
public
office.
We
also
note
in
his
Reply,
the
petitioner
says:
In
adopting
private
respondent's
comment,
respondent
COMELEC
implicitly
adopted
as
"its
own"
private
respondent's
repeated
assertion
that
petitioner
is
no
longer
a
Filipino
citizen.
In
so
doing,
has
not
respondent
COMELEC
effectively
disqualified
itself,
by
reason
of
prejudgment,
from
resolving
the
petition
forquo
warranto
filed
by
private
respondent
still
pending
before
it?
9
This
is
still
another
reason
why
the
Court
has
seen
fit
to
rule
directly
on
the
merits
of
this
case.
Going
over
the
record,
we
find
that
there
are
two
administrative
decisions
on
the
question
of
the
petitioner's
citizenship.
The
first
was
rendered
by
the
Commission
on
Elections
on
May
12,
1982,
and
found
the
petitioner
to
be
a
citizen
of
the
Philippines.
10
The
second
was
rendered
by
the
Commission
on
Immigration
and
Deportation
on
September
13,
1988,
and
held
that
the
petitioner
was
not
a
citizen
of
the
Philippines.
11
The
first
decision
was
penned
by
then
COMELEC
Chairman
Vicente
Santiago,
Jr.,
with
Commissioners
Pabalate,
Savellano
and
Opinion
concurring
in
full
and
Commissioner
Bacungan
concurring
in
the
dismissal
of
the
petition
"without
prejudice
to
the
issue
of
the
respondent's
citizenship
being
raised
a
new
in
a
proper
case.
"Commissioner
Sagadraca
reserved
his
vote,
while
Commissioner
Felipe
was
for
deferring
decision
until
representations
shall
have
been
made
with
the
Australian
Embassy
for
official
verification
of
the
petitioner's
alleged
naturalization
as
an
Australian.
The
second
decision
was
unanimously
rendered
by
Chairman
Miriam
Defensor-Santiago
and
Commissioners
Alano
and
Geraldez
of
the
Commission
on
Immigration
and
Deportation.
prLL
It
is
important
to
observe
that
in
the
proceeding
before
the
COMELEC,
there
was
no
direct
proof
that
the
herein
petitioner
had
been
formally
naturalized
as
a
citizen
of
Australia.
This
conjecture,
which
was
eventually
rejected,
was
merely
inferred
from
the
fact
that
he
had
married
an
Australian
citizen,
obtained
an
Australian
passport,
and
registered
as
en
alien
with
the
CID
upon
his
return
to
this
country
in
1980.
On
the
other
hand,
the
decision
of
the
CID
took
into
account
the
official
statement
of
the
Australian
Government
dated
August
12,
1984,
through
its
Consul
in
the
Philippines,
that
the
petitioner
was
still
an
Australian
citizen
as
of
that
date
by
reason
of
his
naturalization
in
1976.
That
statement
12
is
reproduced
in
full
as
follows:
I,
GRAHAM
COLIN
WEST,
Consul
of
Australia
in
the
Philippines,
by
virtue
of
a
certificate
of
appointment
signed
and
sealed
by
the
Australian
Minister
of
State
for
Foreign
Affairs
on
19
October
1983,
and
recognized
as
such
by
Letter
of
Patent
signed
and
sealed
by
the
Philippines
Acting
Minister
of
Foreign
Affairs
on
23
November
1983,
do
hereby
provide
the
following
statement
in
response
to
the
Subpoena
Testificandum
dated
9
April
1984
in
regard
to
the
Petition
for
disqualification
against
RAMON
LABO,
JR.
Y
LOZANO
(SPC
No.
84-73).
and
do
hereby
certify
that
the
statement
is
true
and
correct.
STATEMENT
A)
RAMON
LABO,
JR.
Y
LOZANO,
date
of
birth
23
December
1934,
was
married
in
the
Philippines
to
an
Australian
citizen.
As
the
spouse
of
an
Australian
citizen,
he
was
not
required
to
meet
normal
requirements
for
the
grant
of
citizenship
and
was
granted
Australian
citizenship
by
Sydney
on
28
July
1976.
B)
Any
person
over
the
age
of
16
years
who
is
granted
Australian
citizenship
must
take
an
oath
of
allegiance
or
make
an
affirmation
of
allegiance.
The
wording
of
the
oath
of
affirmation
is:
"I.
.
.
.,
renouncing
all
other
allegiance
.
.
.
.,"
etc.
This
need
not
necessarily
have
any
effect
on
his
former
nationality
as
this
would
depend
on
the
citizenship
laws
of
his
former
country.
C)
The
marriage
was
declared
void
in
the
Australian
Federal
Court
in
Sydney
on
27
June
1980
on
the
ground
that
the
marriage
had
been
bigamous.
D)
According
to
our
records
LABO
is
still
an
Australian
citizen.
E)
Should
he
return
to
Australia,
LABO
may
face
court
action
in
respect
of
Section
50
of
Australian
Citizenship
Act
1948
which
relates
to
the
giving
of
false
or
misleading
information
of
a
material
nature
in
respect
of
an
application
for
Australian
citizenship.
If
such
a
prosecution
was
successful,
he
could
be
deprived
of
Australian
citizenship
under
Section
21
of
the
Act.
F)
There
are
two
further
ways
in
which
LABO
could
divest
himself
of
Australian
citizenship:
The
petitioner
does
not
question
the
authenticity
of
the
above
evidence.
Neither
does
he
deny
that
he
obtained
Australian
Passport
No.
754705,
which
he
used
in
coming
back
to
the
Philippines
in
1980,
when
he
declared
before
the
immigration
authorities
that
he
was
an
alien
and
registered
as
such
under
Alien
Certificate
of
Registration
No.
B-
323985.
16
He
later
asked
for
the
change
of
his
status
from
immigrant
to
a
returning
former
Philippine
citizen
and
was
granted
Immigrant
Certificate
of
Residence
No.
223809.
17
He
also
categorically
declared
that
he
was
a
citizen
of
Australia
in
a
number
of
sworn
statements
voluntarily
made
by
him
and.
even
sought
to
avoid
the
jurisdiction
of
the
barangay
court
on
the
ground
that
he
was
a
foreigner.
18
The
decision
of
the
COMELEC
in
1982
quaintly
dismisses
all
these
acts
as
"mistakes"
that
did
not
divest
the
petitioner
of
his
citizenship,
although,
as
earlier
noted,
not
all
the
member
joined
in
this
finding.
We
reject
this
ruling
as
totally
baseless.
The
petitioner
is
not
an
unlettered
person
who
was
not
aware
of
the
consequences
of
his
acts,
let
alone
the
fact
that
he
was
assisted
by
counsel
when
he
performed
these
acts.
The
private
respondent
questions
the
motives
of
the
COMELEC
at
that
time
and
stresses
Labo's
political
affiliation
with
the
party
in
power
then,
but
we
need
not
go
into
that
now.
There
is
also
the
claim
that
the
decision
can
no
longer
be
reversed
because
of
the
doctrine
of
res
judicata,
but
this
too
must
be
dismissed.
This
doctrine
does
not
apply
to
questions
of
citizenship,
as
the
Court
has
ruled
in
several
cases.
19
Moreover,
it
does
not
appear
that
it
was
properly
and
seasonably
pleaded,
in
a
motion
to
dismiss
or
in
the
answer,
having
been
invoked
only
when
the
petitioner
filed
his
reply
20
to
the
private
respondent's
comment.
Besides,
one
of
the
requisites
of
res
judicata,
to
wit,
identity
of
parties,
is
not
present
in
this
case.
The
petitioner's
contention
that
his
marriage
to
an
Australian
national
in
1976
did
not
automatically
divest
him
of
Philippine
citizenship
is
irrelevant.
There
is
no
claim
or
finding
that
he
automatically
ceased
to
be
a
Filipino
because
of
that
marriage.
He
became
a
citizen
of
Australia
because
he
was
naturalized
as
such
through
a
formal
and
positive
process,
simplified
in
his
case
because
he
was
married
to
an
Australian
citizen.
As
a
condition
for
such
naturalization,
he
formally
took
the
Oath
of
Allegiance
and/or
made
the
Affirmation
of
Allegiance,
both
quoted
above.
Renouncing
all
other
allegiance,
he
swore
"to
be
faithful
and
bear
true
allegiance
to
Her
Majesty
Elizabeth
the
Second,
Queen
of
Australia.
.
.
.
,
and
to
fulfill
his
duties
as
an
Australian
citizen."cdll
The
petitioner
now
claims
that
his
naturalization
in
Australia
made
him
at
worst
only
a
dual
national
and
did
not
divest
him
of
his
Philippine
citizenship.
Such
a
specious
argument
cannot
stand
against
the
clear
provisions
of
CA
No.
63,
which
enumerates
the
modes
by
which
Philippine
citizenship
may
be
lost.
Among
these
are:
(1)
naturalization
in
a
foreign
country;
(2)
express
renunciation
of
citizenship;
and
(3)
subscribing
to
an
oath
of
allegiance
to
support
the
Constitution
or
laws
of
a
foreign
country,
all
of
which
are
applicable
to
the
petitioner.
It
is
also
worth
mentioning
in
this
connection
that
under
Article
IV,
Section
5,
of
the
present
Constitution,
"Dual
allegiance
of
citizens
is
inimical
to
the
national
interest
and
shall
be
dealt
with
by
law."
Even
if
it
be
assumed
that,
as
the
petitioner
asserts,
his
naturalization
in
Australia
was
annulled
after
it
was
found
that
his
marriage
to
the
Australian
citizen
was
bigamous,
that
circumstance
alone
did
not
automatically
restore
his
Philippine
citizenship.
His
divestiture
of
Australian
citizenship
does
not
concern
us
here.
That
is
a
matter
between
him
and
his
adopted
country.
What
we
must
consider
is
the
fact
that
he
voluntarily
and
freely
rejected
Philippine
citizenship
and
willingly
and
knowingly
embraced
the
citizenship
of
a
foreign
country.
The
possibility
that
he
may
have
been
subsequently
rejected
by
Australia,
as
he
claims,
does
not
mean
that
he
has
been
automatically
reinstated
as
a
citizen
of
the
Philippines.
Under
CA
No.
63
as
amended
by
PD
No.
725,
Philippine
citizenship
may
be
reacquired
by
direct
act
of
Congress,
by
naturalization,
or
by
repatriation.
It
does
not
appear
in
the
record,
nor
does
the
petitioner
claim,
that
he
has
reacquired
Philippine
citizenship
by
any
of
these
methods.
He
does
not
point
to
any
judicial
decree
of
naturalization
as
to
any
statute
directly
conferring
Philippine
citizenship
upon
him.
Neither
has
he
shown
that
he
has
complied
withPD
No.
725,
providing
that:
.
.
.
(2)
natural-born
Filipinos
who
have
lost
their
Philippine
citizenship
may
reacquire
Philippine
citizenship
through
repatriation
by
applying
with
the
Special
Committee
on
Naturalization
created
by
Letter
of
Instruction
No.
270,
and,
if
their
applications
are
approved,
taking
the
necessary
oath
of
allegiance
to
the
Republic
of
the
Philippines,
after
which
they
shall
be
deemed
to
have
reacquired
Philippine
citizenship.
The
Commission
on
Immigration
and
Deportation
shall
thereupon
cancel
their
certificate
of
registration.
(Emphasis
supplied.)
That
is
why
the
Commission
on
Immigration
and
Deportation
rejected
his
application
for
the
cancellation
of
his
alien
certificate
of
registration.
And
that
is
also
the
reason
we
must
deny
his
present
claim
for
recognition
as
a
citizen
of
the
Philippines.
The
petitioner
is
not
now,
nor
was
he
on
the
day
of
the
local
elections
on
January
18,
1988,
a
citizen
of
the
Philippines.
In
fact,
he
was
not
even
a
qualified
voter
under
the
Constitution
itself
because
of
his
alienage.
21
He
was
therefore
ineligible
as
a
candidate
for
mayor
of
Baguio
City
under
Section
42
of
the
Local
Government
Code
providing
in
material
part
as
follows:
Sec.
42.
Qualifications.
(1)
An
elective
local
official
must
be
a
citizen
of
the
Philippines,
at
least
twenty-
three
years
of
age
on
election
day,
a
qualified
voter
registered
as
such
in
the
barangay,
municipality,
city
or
province
where
he
proposes
to
be
elected,
a
resident
therein
for
at
least
one
year
at
the
time
of
the
filing
of
his
certificate
of
candidacy,
and
able
to
read
and
write
English,
Pilipino,
or
any
other
local
language
or
dialect.
The
petitioner
argues
that
his
alleged
lack
of
citizenship
is
a
"futile
technicality"
that
should
not
frustrate
the
will
of
the
electorate
of
Baguio
City
who
elected
him
by
a
"resonant
and
thunderous
majority."
To
be
accurate,
it
was
not
as
loud
as
all
that,
for
his
lead
over
the
second-placer
was
only
about
2,100
votes.
In
any
event,
the
people
of
that
locality
could
not
have,
even
unanimously,
changed
the
requirements
of
the
Local
Government
Code
and
theConstitution.
The
electorate
had
no
power
to
permit
a
foreigner
owing
his
total
allegiance
to
the
Queen
of
Australia,
or
at
least
a
stateless
individual
owing
no
allegiance
to
the
Republic
of
the
Philippines,
to
preside
over
them
as
mayor
of
their
city.
Only
citizens
of
the
Philippines
have
that
privilege
over
their
countrymen.
The
probability
that
many
of
those
who
voted
for
the
petitioner
may
have
done
so
in
the
belief
that
he
was
qualified
only
strengthens
the
conclusion
that
the
results
of
the
election
cannot
nullify
the
qualifications
for
the
office
now
held
by
him.
These
qualifications
are
continuing
requirements;
once
any
of
them
is
lost
during
incumbency,
title
to
the
office
itself
is
deemed
forfeited.
In
the
case
at
bar,
the
citizenship
and
voting
requirements
were
not
subsequently
lost
but
were
not
possessed
at
all
in
the
first
place
on
the
day
of
the
election.
The
petitioner
was
disqualified
from
running
as
mayor
and,
although
elected,
is
not
now
qualified
to
serve
as
such.
LLpr
Finally,
there
is
the
question
of
whether
or
not
the
private
respondent,
who
filed
the
quo
warranto
petition,
can
replace
the
petitioner
as
mayor.
He
cannot.
The
simple
reason
is
that
as
he
obtained
only
the
second
highest
number
of
votes
in
the
election,
he
was
obviously
not
the
choice
of
the
people
of
Baguio
City.
The
latest
ruling
of
the
Court
on
this
issue
is
Santos
v.
Commission
on
Elections,
22
decided
in
1985.
In
that
case,
the
candidate
who
placed
second
was
proclaimed
elected
after
the
votes
for
his
winning
rival,
who
was
disqualified
as
a
turncoat
and
considered
a
non-candidate,
were
all
disregarded
as
stray.
In
effect,
the
second
placer
won
by
default.
That
decision
was
supported
by
eight
members
of
the
Court
then,
23
with
three
dissenting
24
and
another
two
reserving
their
vote.25
One
was
on
official
leave.
26
Re-examining
that
decision,
the
Court
finds,
and
so
holds,
that
it
should
be
reversed
in
favor
of
the
earlier
case
of
Geronimo
v.
Ramos,
27
which
represents
the
more
logical
and
democratic
rule.
That
case,
which
reiterated
the
doctrine
first
announced
in
1912
in
Topacio
vs.
Paredes,
28
was
supported
by
ten
members
of
the
Court,
29
without
any
dissent,
although
one
reserved
his
vote,
30
another
took
no
part,
31
and
two
others
were
an
leave.
32
There
the
Court
held:
".
.
.
it
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
a
winner
and
imposed
as
the
representative
of
a
constituency,
the
majority
of
which
have
positively
declared
through
their
ballots
that
they
do
not
choose
him.
Sound
policy
dictates
that
public
elective
offices
are
filled
by
those
who
have
received
the
highest
number
of
votes
cast
in
the
election
for
that
office,
and
it
is
a
fundamental
idea
in
all
republican
forms
of
government
that
no
one
can
be
declared
elected
and
no
measure
can
be
declared
carried
unless
he
or
it
receives
a
majority
or
plurality
of
the
legal
votes
cast
in
the
election.
(20
Corpus
Juris
2nd,
S
243,
p.
676.)
The
fact
that
the
candidate
who
obtained
the
highest
number
of
votes
is
later
declared
to
be
disqualified
or
not
eligible
for
the
office
to
which
he
was
elected
does
not
necessarily
entitle
the
candidate
who
obtained
the
second
highest
number
of
votes
to
be
declared
the
winner
of
the
elective
office.
The
votes
cast
for
a
dead,
disqualified,
or
non-eligible
person
may
not
be
valid
to
vote
the
winner
into
office
or
maintain
him
there.
However,
in
the
absence
of
a
statute
which
clearly
asserts
a
contrary
political
and
legislative
policy
on
the
matter,
if
the
votes
were
cast
in
the
sincere
belief
that
the
candidate
was
alive,
qualified,
or
eligible,
they
should
not
be
treated
as
stray,
void
or
meaningless.
It
remains
to
stress
that
the
citizen
of
the
Philippines
must
take
pride
in
his
status
as
such
and
cherish
this
priceless
gift
that,
out
of
more
than
a
hundred
other
nationalities,
God
has
seen
fit
to
grant
him.
Having
been
so
endowed,
he
must
not
lightly
yield
this
precious
advantage,
rejecting
it
for
another
land
that
may
offer
him
material
and
other
attractions
that
he
may
not
find
in
his
own
country.
To
be
sure,
he
has
the
right
to
renounce
the
Philippines
if
he
sees
fit
and
transfer
his
allegiance
to
a
state
with
more
allurements
for
him.
33
But
having
done
so,
he
cannot
expect
to
be
welcomed
back
with
open
arms
once
his
taste
for
his
adopted
country
turns
sour
or
he
is
himself
disowned
by
it
as
an
undesirable
alien.
Philippine
citizenship
is
not
a
cheap
commodity
that
can
be
easily
recovered
after
its
renunciation.
It
may
be
restored
only
after
the
returning
renegade
makes
a
formal
act
of
re-dedication
to
the
country
he
has
abjured
and
he
solemnly
affirms
once
again
his
total
and
exclusive
loyalty
to
the
Republic
of
the
Philippines.
This
may
not
be
accomplished
by
election
to
public
office.
WHEREFORE,
petitioner
Ramon
J.
Labo,
Jr.
is
hereby
declared
NOT
a
citizen
of
the
Philippines
and
therefore
DISQUALIFIED
from
continuing
to
serve
as
Mayor
of
Baguio
City.
He
is
ordered
to
VACATE
his
office
and
surrender
the
same
to
the
Vice-Mayor
of
Baguio
City
once
this
decision
becomes
final
and
executory.
The
temporary
restraining
order
dated
January
31,
1989,
is
LIFTED.
Fernan,
C
.
J
.,
Narvasa,
Melencio-Herrera,
Paras,
Feliciano,
Gancayco,
Padilla,
Bidin,
Sarmiento,
Cortes,
Grio-Aquino,
Medialdea
and
Regalado,
JJ
.,
concur.
Separate
Opinions
GUTIERREZ,
JR.,
J
.,
concurring:
As
in
the
case
of
Frivaldo
v.
Commission
on
Elections
(G.
R.
No.
87193,
June
23,
1989)
and
inspite
of
what
would
otherwise
be
insuperable
procedural
obstacles,
I
am
constrained
to
concur
in
the
Court's
decision
so
forcefully
and
felicitously
written
by
Mr.
Justice
Isagani
A.
Cruz.
I
do
so
because
I
cannot
see
how
the
Court
can
countenance
a
citizen
of
a
foreign
country
or
one
who
has
renounced
Filipino
citizenship
sitting
as
the
mayor
of
one
of
the
most
important
cities
in
the
Philippines.
dctai
What
was
raised
to
the
Court
was
only
the
issue
of
the
COMELEC's
jurisdiction
to
inquire
into
the
citizenship
of
the
petitioner.
Ordinarily,
we
would
have
limited
ourselves
to
sustaining
the
jurisdiction
of
the
COMELEC
and
remanding
the
case
for
further
proceedings
and
the
rendition
of
a
decision.
Under
Section
7,
Article
XI-A
of
the
Constitution,
a
decision,
order,
or
ruling
of
the
COMELEC
may
be
brought
to
the
Supreme
Court
on
certiorari
by
the
aggrieved
party
within
thirty
days
from
receipt
of
a
copy
thereof.
No
decision
on
the
petitioner's
citizenship
has
been
rendered
and
no
decision
can,
as
yet,
be
elevated
to
us
for
review.
I,
therefore,
reiterate
my
statement
in
Frivaldo
that
my
concurrence
is
limited
only
to
cases
involving
citizenship
and
disloyalty
but
not
to
any
of
the
many
other
grounds
for
disqualification
cited
in
my
concurring
opinion.
Our
decision
to
disqualify
the
petitioner
is
particularly
distressing
to
me
because
I
am
impressed
by
the
singular
achievements
in
the
beautification
of
Baguio
City,
in
the
peace
and
order
situation,
and
in
the
resurgence
of
civic
pride
so
visible
to
anyone
who
has
gone
up
to
Baguio
since
Mr.
Labo
assumed
the
mayorship.
However,
I
see
no
other
way
this
case
can
be
resolved
except
by
adopting
a
pragmatic
approach.
It
is
beyond
dispute
that
a
non-citizen
cannot
be
the
mayor
of
Footnotes
1.149
SCRA
562.
2.Sec.
248.Effect
of
filing
petition
to
annul
or
suspend
the
proclamation.
The
filing
with
the
Commission
of
a
petition
to
annul
or
to
suspend
the
proclamation
of
any
candidate
shall
suspend
the
running
of
the
period
within
which
to
file
an
election
protest
or
quo
warranto
proceedings.
3.Rule
44,
Sec.
4.
COMELEC
Rules
of
Procedure,
Effectivity.
These
Rules
shall
be
published
in
the
Official
Gazette
and
shall
take
effect
on
the
seventh
day
following
its
publication.
Actually,
the
Rules
became
effective
seven
days
after
the
official
release
of
the
Official
Gazette
dated
June
27,
1988
on
November
8,1988.
4.146
SCRA
446.
5.G.R.
Nos.
79937-38,
February
13,
1989.
6.Velasco
v.
Court
of
Appeals,
95
SCRA
616.
See
also
Ortigas
v.
Ruiz,
148
SCRA
326;
First
Asian
Transport
and
Shipping
Agency,
Inc.
v.
Ople,
142
SCRA
542;
Quisumbing
v.
Court
of
Appeals,
122
SCRA
703;
Del
Castillo
v.
Jaymalin,
112
SCRA
629;
Francisco
v.
City
of
Davao,
12
SCRA
628.
7.Tejones
v.
Gironella,
159
SCRA
100.
8.Lianga
Bay
Logging
Co.,
Inc.
v.
CA,
157
SCRA
357
9.Rollo,
p.
159.
10.Ibid.,
pp.
182A-195.
11.Id.,
pp.
94-107.
12.Id.
Emphasis
supplied.
13.Id.
Emphasis
supplied.
14.Id.
Emphasis
supplied.
15.Id.
Emphasis
supplied.
16.Id.
17.Id
18.(i)Statement
dated
25
November
1976
that
he
is
an
"Australian,
made
before
Det.
Abaya.
(ii)
Statement
affirming
that
he
is
an
Australian
citizen
in
the
affidavit-complaint
executed
on
1
July
1988
and
in
the
complaint
filed
on
13
January
1982
with
the
City
Court
of
Baguio:
".
.
.
being
an
Australian
citizen
the
subject
of
this
complaint
is
one
of
which
the
Barangay
Court
cannot
take
cognizance
of."
19.Soria
v.
Commissioner
of
Immigration,
37
SCRA
213;
Lee
v.
Commissioner
of
Immigration,
42
SCRA
561;
Sia
Reyes
v.
Deportation
Board,
122
SCRA
478.
20.Rollo,
pp.
159-160.
21.Art.
V,
Sec.
1,1987
Constitution.
22.137
SCRA
740.
23.Cuevas,
J.,
ponente,
with
Makasiar,
Concepcion,
Jr.,
Escolin,
Relova,
De
la
Fuente,
Alampay
and
Aquino,
JJ.,
concurring.
24.Teehankee,
Acting
C.J.,
Abad
Santos
and
Melencio-Herrera,
JJ.
25.Plana
and
Gutierrez,
Jr.,
JJ.
26.Fernando,
C.J.
27.
136
SCRA
435.
28.23
Phil.
238.
29.Gutierrez,
Jr.,
J.,
ponente,
with
Teehankee,
Abad
Santos,
Melencio-Herrera,
Plana,
Escolin,
Relova,
De
la
Fuente,
Cuevas
and
Alampay,
JJ.,
concurring.
30.Makasiar,
J.
31.Aquino,
J.
32.Fernando,
C.J.
and
Concepcion,
Jr.,
J.
33.Except
in
times
of
war,
under
CA
No.
63.
|||
(Labo,
Jr.
v.
COMELEC,
G.R.
No.
86564,
[August
1,
1989],
257
PHIL
1-23)
EN
BANC
[G.R.
No.
151914.
July
31,
2002.]
TEODULO
M.
COQUILLA,
petitioner,
vs.
THE
HON.
COMMISSION
ON
ELECTIONS
and
MR.
NEIL
M.
ALVAREZ,
respondents.
Franklin
Delano
M.
Sacmar
for
petitioner.
The
Solicitor
General
for
public
respondent.
Jonathan
M.
Agnes
and
Christoper
L.
Moscare
for
private
respondent.
SYNOPSIS
Petitioner
was
born
of
Filipino
parents
in
Oras,
Eastern
Samar.
He
joined
the
United
States
Navy
and
was
subsequently
naturalized
as
U.S.
citizen.
Thereafter,
he
applied
for
repatriation
and
consequently
took
his
oath
as
a
citizen
of
the
Philippines.
Petitioner
filed
his
certificate
of
candidacy
stating
therein
that
he
had
been
a
resident
of
Oras,
Eastern
Samar
for
two
years.
Respondent
sought
the
cancellation
of
petitioner's
certificate
of
candidacy
on
the
ground
that
the
latter
had
made
a
material
misrepresentation
therein
by
stating
that
he
had
been
a
resident
of
Oras
for
two
years
when
in
truth
he
had
resided
therein
for
only
six
months
since
he
took
his
oath
as
a
citizen
of
the
Philippines.
The
Second
Division
of
the
COMELEC
ordered
the
cancellation
of
petitioner's
certificate
of
candidacy.
The
Supreme
Court
ruled
that
petitioner
lacked
the
requisite
residency
to
qualify
him
for
the
mayorship
of
Oras,
Eastern
Samar.
The
term
"residence"
is
to
be
understood
not
in
its
common
acceptation
as
referring
to
"dwelling"
of
"habitation,"
but
rather
to
"domicile"
or
legal
residence,
that
is
"the
place
where
a
party
actually
or
constructively
has
his
permanent
home,
where
he,
no
matter
where
he
may
be
found
at
any
given
time,
eventually
intends
to
return
and
remain.
A
domicile
of
origin
is
acquired
by
every
person
at
birth.
It
is
usually
the
place
where
the
child's
parents
reside
and
continues
until
the
same
is
abandoned
by
acquisition
of
a
new
domicile.
In
the
case
at
bar,
petitioner
lost
his
domicile
of
origin
in
Oras
by
becoming
a
U.S.
citizen
after
enlisting
in
the
U.S.
Navy.
From
then
on
and
until
the
time
when
he
acquired
Philippine
citizenship,
petitioner
was
an
alien
without
any
right
to
reside
in
the
Philippines
save
as
the
immigration
laws
may
have
allowed
him
to
stay
as
a
visitor
or
as
a
resident
alien.
HDATSI
SYLLABUS
1.
POLITICAL
LAW;
ELECTION
LAWS;
COMELEC
RULES
OF
PROCEDURE;
MOTION
FOR
RECONSIDERATION;
REGLEMENTARY
PERIOD
FOR
FILING;
CASE
AT
BAR.
The
five-day
period
for
filing
a
motion
for
reconsideration
under
Rule
19,
2
should
be
counted
from
the
receipt
of
the
decision,
resolution,
order,
or
ruling
of
the
COMELEC
Division.
In
this
case,
petitioner
received
a
copy
of
the
resolution
of
July
19,
2001
of
the
COMELEC's
Second
Division
on
July
28,
2001.
Five
days
later,
on
August
2,
2001,
he
filed
his
motion
for
reconsideration.
On
February
6,
2002,
he
received
a
copy
of
the
order,
dated
January
30,
2002,
of
the
COMELEC
en
banc
denying
his
motion
for
reconsideration.
Five
days
later,
on
February
11,
2002,
he
filed
this
petition
for
certiorari.
There
is
no
question,
therefore,
that
petitioner's
motion
for
reconsideration
of
the
resolution
of
the
COMELEC
Second
Division,
as
well
as
his
petition
for
certiorari
to
set
aside
of
the
order
of
the
COMELEC
en
banc,
was
filed
within
the
period
provided
for
in
Rule
19,
2
of
the
COMELEC
Rules
of
Procedure
and
in
Art.
IX(A),
7
of
the
Constitution.
2.
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
SUSPENDS
THE
RUNNING
OF
THE
PERIOD
TO
ELEVATE
THE
MATTER
TO
THE
SUPREME
COURT,
IF
MOTION
FOR
RECONSIDERATION
IS
NOT
PRO
FORMA;
CASE
AT
BAR.
The
motion
for
reconsideration
was
not
pro
forma
and
its
filing
did
suspend
the
period
for
filing
the
petition
for
certiorariin
this
case.
The
mere
reiteration
in
a
motion
for
reconsideration
of
the
issues
raised
by
the
parties
and
passed
upon
by
the
court
does
not
make
a
motionpro
forma;
otherwise,
the
movant's
remedy
would
not
be
a
reconsideration
of
the
decision
but
a
new
trial
or
some
other
remedy.
3.
REMEDIAL
LAW;
ACTIONS;
MOTION
FOR
RECONSIDERATION;
WHEN
CONSIDERED
PRO
FORMA.
[I]n
the
cases
where
a
motion
for
reconsideration
was
held
to
be
pro
forma,
the
motion
was
so
held
because
(1)
it
was
a
second
motion
for
reconsideration,
or
(2)
it
did
not
comply
with
the
rule
that
the
motion
must
specify
the
findings
and
conclusions
alleged
to
be
contrary
to
law
or
not
supported
by
the
evidence,
or
(3)
it
failed
to
substantiate
the
alleged
errors,
or
(4)
it
merely
alleged
that
the
decision
in
question
was
contrary
to
law,
or
(5)
the
adverse
party
was
not
given
notice
thereof.
TcDIEH
4.
POLITICAL
LAW;
ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW;
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
CODE;
ELECTIVE
LOCAL
OFFICIALS;
QUALIFICATIONS;
RESIDENCY
REQUIREMENT;
RESIDENCE,
DEFINED.
The
term
"residence"
is
to
be
understood
not
in
its
common
acceptation
as
referring
to
"dwelling"
or
"habitation,"
but
rather
to
"domicile"
or
legal
residence,
that
is,
"the
place
where
a
party
actually
or
constructively
has
his
permanent
home,
where
he,
no
matter
where
he
may
be
found
at
any
given
time,
eventually
intends
to
return
and
remain
(animus
manendi)."
A
domicile
of
origin
is
acquired
by
every
person
at
birth.
It
is
usually
the
place
where
the
child's
parents
reside
and
continues
until
the
same
is
abandoned
by
acquisition
of
new
domicile
(domicile
of
choice).
5.
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
NOT
ESTABLISHED
IN
CASE
AT
BAR.
In
the
case
at
bar,
petitioner
lost
his
domicile
of
origin
in
Oras
by
becoming
a
U.S.
citizen
after
enlisting
in
the
U.S.
Navy
in
1965.
From
then
on
and
until
November
10,
2000,
when
he
reacquired
Philippine
citizenship,
petitioner
was
an
alien
without
any
right
to
reside
in
the
Philippines
save
as
out
immigration
laws
may
have
allowed
him
to
stay
as
a
visitor
or
as
a
resident
alien.
6.
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
CITIZENSHIP
REQUIREMENT;
MAY
BE
POSSESSED
EVEN
ON
THE
DAY
THE
CANDIDATE
ASSUMES
OFFICE.
[C]itizenship
may
be
possessed
even
on
the
day
the
candidate
assumes
office.
But
in
the
case
of
residency,
as
already
noted,
39(a)
of
the
Local
Government
Code
requires
that
the
candidate
must
have
been
a
resident
of
the
municipality
"for
at
least
one
(1)
year
immediately
preceding
the
day
of
the
election."
D
E
C
I
S
I
O
N
MENDOZA,
J
p:
This
is
a
petition
for
certiorari
to
set
aside
the
resolution,
1
dated
July
19,
2001,
of
the
Second
Division
of
the
Commission
on
Elections
(COMELEC),
ordering
the
cancellation
of
the
certificate
of
candidacy
of
petitioner
Teodulo
M.
Coquilla
for
the
position
of
mayor
of
Oras,
Eastern
Samar
in
the
May
14,
2001
elections
and
the
order,
dated
January
30,
2002,
of
the
COMELEC
en
banc
denying
petitioner's
motion
for
reconsideration.
acHDTE
The
facts
are
as
follows:
Petitioner
Coquilla
was
born
on
February
17,
1938
of
Filipino
parents
in
Oras,
Eastern
Samar.
He
grew
up
and
resided
there
until
1965,
when
he
joined
the
United
States
Navy.
He
was
subsequently
naturalized
as
a
U.S.
citizen.
2
From
1970
to
1973,
petitioner
thrice
visited
the
Philippines
while
on
leave
from
the
U.S.
Navy.
3
Otherwise,
even
after
his
retirement
from
the
U.S.
Navy
in
1985,
he
remained
in
the
United
States.
On
October
15,
1998,
petitioner
came
to
the
Philippines
and
took
out
a
residence
certificate,
although
he
continued
making
several
trips
to
the
United
States,
the
last
of
which
took
place
on
July
6,
2000
and
lasted
until
August
5,
2000.
4
Subsequently,
petitioner
applied
for
repatriation
under
R.A.
No.
8171
5
to
the
Special
Committee
on
Naturalization.
His
application
was
approved
on
November
7,
2000,
and,
on
November
10,
2000,
he
took
his
oath
as
a
citizen
of
the
Philippines.
Petitioner
was
issued
Certificate
of
Repatriation
No.
000737
on
November
10,
2000
and
Bureau
of
Immigration
Identification
Certificate
No.
115123
on
November
13,
2000.
On
November
21,
2000,
petitioner
applied
for
registration
as
a
voter
of
Butnga,
Oras,
Eastern
Samar.
His
application
was
approved
by
the
Election
Registration
Board
on
January
12,
2001.
6
On
February
27,
2001,
he
filed
his
certificate
of
candidacy
stating
therein
that
he
had
been
a
resident
of
Oras,
Eastern
Samar
for
"two
(2)
years."
7
On
March
5,
2001,
respondent
Neil
M.
Alvarez,
who
was
the
incumbent
mayor
of
Oras
and
who
was
running
for
reelection,
sought
the
cancellation
of
petitioner's
certificate
of
candidacy
on
the
ground
that
the
latter
had
made
a
material
misrepresentation
in
his
certificate
of
candidacy
by
stating
that
he
had
been
a
resident
of
Oras
for
two
years
when
in
truth
he
had
resided
therein
for
only
about
six
months
since
November
10,
2000,
when
he
took
his
oath
as
a
citizen
of
the
Philippines.
The
COMELEC
was
unable
to
render
judgment
on
the
case
before
the
elections
on
May
14,
2001.
Meanwhile,
petitioner
was
voted
for
and
received
the
highest
number
of
votes
(6,131)
against
private
respondent's
5,752
votes,
or
a
margin
of
379
votes.
On
May
17,
2001,
petitioner
was
proclaimed
mayor
of
Oras
by
the
Municipal
Board
of
Canvassers.
8
He
subsequently
took
his
oath
of
office.
On
July
19,
2001,
the
Second
Division
of
the
COMELEC
granted
private
respondent's
petition
and
ordered
the
cancellation
of
petitioner's
certificate
of
candidacy
on
the
basis
of
the
following
findings:
Respondent's
frequent
or
regular
trips
to
the
Philippines
and
stay
in
Oras,
Eastern
Samar
after
his
retirement
from
the
U.S.
Navy
in
1985
cannot
be
considered
as
a
waiver
of
his
status
as
a
permanent
resident
or
immigrant
.
.
.
of
the
U.S.A.
prior
to
November
10,
2000
as
would
qualify
him
to
acquire
the
status
of
residency
for
purposes
of
compliance
with
the
one-year
residency
requirement
of
Section
39(a)
of
the
Local
Government
Code
of
1991
in
relation
to
Sections
65
and
68
of
the
Omnibus
Election
Code.
The
one
(1)
year
residency
requirement
contemplates
of
the
actual
residence
of
a
Filipino
citizen
in
the
constituency
where
he
seeks
to
be
elected.
All
things
considered,
the
number
of
years
he
claimed
to
have
resided
or
stayed
in
Oras,
Eastern
Samar
since
1985
as
an
American
citizen
and
permanent
resident
of
the
U.S.A.
before
November
10,
2000
when
he
reacquired
his
Philippine
citizenship
by
[repatriation]
cannot
be
added
to
his
actual
residence
thereat
after
November
10,
2000
until
May
14,
2001
to
cure
his
deficiency
in
days,
months,
and
year
to
allow
or
render
him
eligible
to
run
for
an
elective
office
in
the
Philippines.
Under
such
circumstances,
by
whatever
formula
of
computation
used,
respondent
is
short
of
the
one-year
residence
requirement
before
the
May
14,
2001
elections.
9
Petitioner
filed
a
motion
for
reconsideration,
but
his
motion
was
denied
by
the
COMELEC
en
banc
on
January
30,
2002.
Hence
this
petition.
I.
Two
questions
must
first
be
resolved
before
considering
the
merits
of
this
case:
(a)
whether
the
30-day
period
for
appealing
the
resolution
of
the
COMELEC
was
suspended
by
the
filing
of
a
motion
for
reconsideration
by
petitioner
and
(b)
whether
the
COMELEC
retained
jurisdiction
to
decide
this
case
notwithstanding
the
proclamation
of
petitioner.
A.
With
respect
to
the
first
question,
private
respondent
contends
that
the
petition
in
this
case
should
be
dismissed
because
it
was
filed
late;
that
the
COMELEC
en
banc
had
denied
petitioner's
motion
for
reconsideration
for
being
pro
forma;
and
that,
pursuant
to
Rule
19,
4
of
the
COMELEC
Rules
of
Procedure,
the
said
motion
did
not
suspend
the
running
of
the
30-day
period
for
filing
this
petition.
He
points
out
that
petitioner
received
a
copy
of
the
resolution,
dated
July
19,
2001,
of
the
COMELEC's
Second
Division
on
July
28,
2001,
so
that
he
had
only
until
August
27,
2001
within
which
to
file
this
petition.
Since
the
petition
in
this
case
was
filed
on
February
11,
2002,
the
same
should
be
considered
as
having
been
filed
late
and
should
be
dismissed.
Private
respondent's
contention
has
no
merit.
Rule
19
of
the
COMELEC
Rules
of
Procedure
provides
in
pertinent
parts:
Sec.
2.
Period
for
Filing
Motions
for
Reconsideration.
A
motion
to
reconsider
a
decision,
resolution,
order,
or
ruling
of
a
Division
shall
be
filed
within
five
days
from
the
promulgation
thereof.
Such
motion,
if
not
pro-
forma,
suspends
the
execution
for
implementation
of
the
decision,
resolution,
order,
or
ruling.
Sec.
4.
Effect
of
Motion
for
Reconsideration
on
Period
to
Appeal.
A
motion
to
reconsider
a
decision,
resolution,
order,
or
ruling,
when
not
pro-forma,
suspends
the
running
of
the
period
to
elevate
the
matter
to
the
Supreme
Court.
The
five-day
period
for
filing
a
motion
for
reconsideration
under
Rule
19,
2
should
be
counted
from
the
receipt
of
the
decision,
resolution,
order,
or
ruling
of
the
COMELEC
Division.
10
In
this
case,
petitioner
received
a
copy
of
the
resolution
of
July
19,
2001
of
the
COMELEC's
Second
Division
on
July
28,
2001.
Five
days
later,
on
August
2,
2001,
he
filed
his
motion
for
reconsideration.
On
February
6,
2002,
he
received
a
copy
of
the
order,
dated
January
30,
2002,
of
the
COMELEC
en
banc
denying
his
motion
for
reconsideration.
Five
days
later,
on
February
11,
2002,
he
filed
this
petition
for
certiorari.
There
is
no
question,
therefore,
that
petitioner's
motion
for
reconsideration
of
the
resolution
of
the
COMELEC
Second
Division,
as
well
as
his
petition
for
certiorari
to
set
aside
of
the
order
of
the
COMELEC
en
banc,
was
filed
within
the
period
provided
for
in
Rule
19,
2
of
the
COMELEC
Rules
of
Procedure
and
in
Art.
IX
(A),
7
of
the
Constitution.
EAcTDH
It
is
contended,
however,
that
petitioner's
motion
for
reconsideration
before
the
COMELEC
en
banc
did
not
suspend
the
running
of
the
period
for
filing
this
petition
because
the
motion
was
pro
forma
and,
consequently,
this
petition
should
have
been
filed
on
or
before
August
27,
2001.
It
was
actually
filed,
however,
only
on
February
11,
2002.
Private
respondent
cites
the
finding
of
the
COMELEC
en
banc
that
An
incisive
examination
of
the
allegations
in
the
Motion
for
Reconsideration
shows
that
the
same
[are]
a
mere
rehash
of
his
averments
contained
in
hisVerified
Answer
and
Memorandum.
Neither
did
respondent
raise
new
matters
that
would
sufficiently
warrant
a
reversal
of
the
assailed
resolution
of
the
Second
Division.
This
makes
the
said
Motion
pro
forma.
11
We
do
not
think
this
contention
is
correct.
The
motion
for
reconsideration
was
not
pro
forma
and
its
filing
did
suspend
the
period
for
filing
the
petition
forcertiorari
in
this
case.
The
mere
reiteration
in
a
motion
for
reconsideration
of
the
issues
raised
by
the
parties
and
passed
upon
by
the
court
does
not
make
a
motion
pro
forma;
otherwise,
the
movant's
remedy
would
not
be
a
reconsideration
of
the
decision
but
a
new
trial
or
some
other
remedy.
12
But,
as
we
have
held
in
another
case:
13
Among
the
ends
to
which
a
motion
for
reconsideration
is
addressed,
one
is
precisely
to
convince
the
court
that
its
ruling
is
erroneous
and
improper,
contrary
to
the
law
or
the
evidence;
and
in
doing
so,
the
movant
has
to
dwell
of
necessity
upon
the
issues
passed
upon
by
the
court.
If
a
motion
for
reconsideration
may
not
discuss
these
issues,
the
consequence
would
be
that
after
a
decision
is
rendered,
the
losing
party
would
be
confined
to
filing
only
motions
for
reopening
and
new
trial.
Indeed,
in
the
cases
where
a
motion
for
reconsideration
was
held
to
be
pro
forma,
the
motion
was
so
held
because
(1)
it
was
a
second
motion
for
reconsideration,
14
or
(2)
it
did
not
comply
with
the
rule
that
the
motion
must
specify
the
findings
and
conclusions
alleged
to
be
contrary
to
law
or
not
supported
by
the
evidence,
15
or
(3)
it
failed
to
substantiate
the
alleged
errors,
16
or
(4)
it
merely
alleged
that
the
decision
in
question
was
contrary
to
law,
17
or
(5)
the
adverse
party
was
not
given
notice
thereof.
18
The
16-page
motion
for
reconsideration
filed
by
petitioner
in
the
COMELEC
en
banc
suffers
from
none
of
the
foregoing
defects,
and
it
was
error
for
the
COMELEC
en
banc
to
rule
that
petitioner's
motion
for
reconsideration
was
pro
forma
because
the
allegations
raised
therein
are
a
mere
"rehash"
of
his
earlier
pleadings
or
did
not
raise
"new
matters."
Hence,
the
filing
of
the
motion
suspended
the
running
of
the
30-day
period
to
file
the
petition
in
this
case,
which,
as
earlier
shown,
was
done
within
the
reglementary
period
provided
by
law.
B.
As
stated
before,
the
COMELEC
failed
to
resolve
private
respondent's
petition
for
cancellation
of
petitioner's
certificate
of
candidacy
before
the
elections
on
May
14,
2001.
In
the
meantime,
the
votes
were
canvassed
and
petitioner
was
proclaimed
elected
with
a
margin
of
379
votes
over
private
respondent.
Did
the
COMELEC
thereby
lose
authority
to
act
on
the
petition
filed
by
private
respondent?
R.A.
No.
6646
provides:
SECTION
6.
.
Effect
of
Disqualification
Case.
Any
candidate
who
has
been
declared
by
final
judgment
to
be
disqualified
shall
not
be
voted
for,
and
the
votes
cast
for
him
shall
not
be
counted.
If
for
any
reason
a
candidate
is
not
declared
by
final
judgment
before
an
election
to
be
disqualified
and
he
is
voted
for
and
receives
the
winning
number
of
votes
in
such
election,
the
Court
or
Commission
shall
continue
with
the
trial
and
hearing
of
the
action,
inquiry,
or
protest
and,
upon
motion
of
the
complainant
or
any
intervenor,
may
during
the
pendency
thereof
order
the
suspension
of
the
proclamation
of
such
candidate
whenever
the
evidence
of
his
guilt
is
strong.
(Emphasis
added)
SECTION
7
.
Petition
to
Deny
Due
Course
To
or
Cancel
a
Certificate
of
Candidacy.
The
procedure
hereinabove
provided
shall
apply
to
petitions
to
deny
due
course
to
or
cancel
a
certificate
of
candidacy
as
provided
in
Section
78
of
Batas
Pambansa
Blg.
881.
The
rule
then
is
that
candidates
who
are
disqualified
by
final
judgment
before
the
election
shall
not
be
voted
for
and
the
votes
cast
for
them
shall
not
be
counted.
But
those
against
whom
no
final
judgment
of
disqualification
had
been
rendered
may
be
voted
for
and
proclaimed,
unless,
on
motion
of
the
complainant,
the
COMELEC
suspends
their
proclamation
because
the
grounds
for
their
disqualification
or
cancellation
of
their
certificates
of
candidacy
are
strong.
Meanwhile,
the
proceedings
for
disqualification
of
candidates
or
for
the
cancellation
or
denial
of
certificates
of
candidacy,
which
have
been
begun
before
the
elections,
should
continue
even
after
such
elections
and
proclamation
of
the
winners.
In
Abella
v.
COMELEC
19
and
Salcedo
II
v.
COMELEC,
20
the
candidates
whose
certificates
of
candidacy
were
the
subject
of
petitions
for
cancellation
were
voted
for
and,
having
received
the
highest
number
of
votes,
were
duly
proclaimed
winners.
This
Court,
in
the
first
case,
affirmed
and,
in
the
second,
reversed
the
decisions
of
the
COMELEC
rendered
after
the
proclamation
of
candidates,
not
on
the
ground
that
the
latter
had
been
divested
of
jurisdiction
upon
the
candidates'
proclamation
but
on
the
merits.
II.
On
the
merits,
the
question
is
whether
petitioner
had
been
a
resident
of
Oras,
Eastern
Samar
at
least
one
(1)
year
before
the
elections
held
on
May
14,
2001
as
he
represented
in
his
certificate
of
candidacy.
We
find
that
he
had
not.
First,
39(a)
of
the
Local
Government
Code
(R.A
No.
7160)
provides:
Qualifications.
(a)
An
elective
local
official
must
be
a
citizen
of
the
Philippines;
a
registered
voter
in
the
barangay,
municipality,
city,
or
province
or,
in
the
case
of
a
member
of
the
sangguniang
panlalawigan,
sangguniang
panlungsod,
or
sangguniang
bayan,
the
district
where
he
intends
to
be
elected;
a
resident
therein
for
at
least
one
(1)
year
immediately
preceding
the
day
of
the
election;
and
able
to
read
and
write
Filipino
or
any
other
local
language
or
dialect.
(Emphasis
supplied)
The
term
"residence"
is
to
be
understood
not
in
its
common
acceptation
as
referring
to
"dwelling"
or
"habitation,"
21
but
rather
to
"domicile"
or
legal
residence,
22
that
is,
"the
place
where
a
party
actually
or
constructively
has
his
permanent
home,
where
he,
no
matter
where
he
may
be
found
at
any
given
time,
eventually
intends
to
return
and
remain
(animus
manendi)."
23
A
domicile
of
origin
is
acquired
by
every
person
at
birth.
It
is
usually
the
place
where
the
child's
parents
reside
and
continues
until
the
same
is
abandoned
by
acquisition
of
new
domicile
(domicile
of
choice).
24
In
the
case
at
bar,
petitioner
lost
his
domicile
of
origin
in
Oras
by
becoming
a
U.S.
citizen
after
enlisting
in
the
U.S.
Navy
in
1965.
From
then
on
and
until
November
10,
2000,
when
he
reacquired
Philippine
citizenship,
petitioner
was
an
alien
without
any
right
to
reside
in
the
Philippines
save
as
our
immigration
laws
may
have
allowed
him
to
stay
as
a
visitor
or
as
a
resident
alien.
Indeed,
residence
in
the
United
States
is
a
requirement
for
naturalization
as
a
U.S.
citizen.
Title
8,
1427(a)
of
the
United
States
Code
provides:
Requirements
of
naturalization.
Residence
(a)
No
person,
except
as
otherwise
provided
in
this
subchapter,
shall
be
naturalized
unless
such
applicant,
(1)
immediately
preceding
the
date
of
filing
his
application
for
naturalization
has
resided
continuously,
after
being
lawfully
admitted
for
permanent
residence,
within
the
United
States
for
at
least
five
years
and
during
the
five
years
immediately
preceding
the
date
of
filing
his
petition
has
been
physically
present
therein
for
periods
totaling
at
least
half
of
that
time,
and
who
has
resided
within
the
State
or
within
the
district
of
the
Service
in
the
United
States
in
which
the
applicant
filed
the
application
for
at
least
three
months,
(2)
has
resided
continuously
within
the
United
States
from
the
date
of
the
application
up
to
the
time
of
admission
to
citizenship,
and
(3)
during
all
the
period
referred
to
in
this
subsection
has
been
and
still
is
a
person
of
good
moral
character,
attached
to
the
principles
of
the
Constitution
of
the
United
States,
and
well
disposed
to
the
good
order
and
happiness
of
the
United
States.
(Emphasis
added)
In
Caasi
v.
Court
of
Appeals,
25
this
Court
ruled
that
immigration
to
the
United
States
by
virtue
of
a
"greencard,"
which
entitles
one
to
reside
permanently
in
that
country,
constitutes
abandonment
of
domicile
in
the
Philippines.
With
more
reason
then
does
naturalization
in
a
foreign
country
result
in
an
abandonment
of
domicile
in
the
Philippines.
Nor
can
petitioner
contend
that
he
was
"compelled
to
adopt
American
citizenship"
only
by
reason
of
his
service
in
the
U.S.
armed
forces.
26
It
is
noteworthy
that
petitioner
was
repatriated
not
under
R.A.
No.
2630,
which
applies
to
the
repatriation
of
those
who
lost
their
Philippine
citizenship
by
accepting
commission
in
the
Armed
Forces
of
the
United
States,
but
under
R.A.
No.
8171,
which,
as
earlier
mentioned,
provides
for
the
repatriation
of,
among
others,
natural-born
Filipinos
who
lost
their
citizenship
on
account
of
political
or
economic
necessity.
In
any
event,
the
fact
is
that,
by
having
been
naturalized
abroad,
he
lost
his
Philippine
citizenship
and
with
it
his
residence
in
the
Philippines.
Until
his
reacquisition
of
Philippine
citizenship
on
November
10,
2000,
petitioner
did
not
reacquire
his
legal
residence
in
this
country.
cSEaDA
Second,
it
is
not
true,
as
petitioner
contends,
that
he
reestablished
residence
in
this
country
in
1998
when
he
came
back
to
prepare
for
the
mayoralty
elections
of
Oras
by
securing
a
Community
Tax
Certificate
in
that
year
and
by
"constantly
declaring"
to
his
townmates
of
his
intention
to
seek
repatriation
and
run
for
mayor
in
the
May
14,
2001
elections.
27
The
status
of
being
an
alien
and
a
non-resident
can
be
waived
either
separately,
when
one
acquires
the
status
of
a
resident
alien
before
acquiring
Philippine
citizenship,
or
at
the
same
time
when
one
acquires
Philippine
citizenship.
As
an
alien,
an
individual
may
obtain
an
immigrant
visa
under
13
28
of
the
Philippine
Immigration
Act
of
1948
and
an
Immigrant
Certificate
of
Residence
(ICR)
29
and
thus
waive
his
status
as
a
non-resident.
On
the
other
hand,
he
may
acquire
Philippine
citizenship
by
naturalization
under
C.A.
No.
473,
as
amended,
or,
if
he
is
a
former
Philippine
national,
he
may
reacquire
Philippine
citizenship
by
repatriation
or
by
an
act
of
Congress,
30
in
which
case
he
waives
not
only
his
status
as
an
alien
but
also
his
status
as
a
non-
resident
alien.
In
the
case
at
bar,
the
only
evidence
of
petitioner's
status
when
he
entered
the
country
on
October
15,
1998,
December
20,
1998,
October
16,
1999,
and
June
23,
2000
is
the
statement
"Philippine
Immigration
[-]
Balikbayan"
in
his
1998-2008
U.S.
passport.
As
for
his
entry
on
August
5,
2000,
the
stamp
bore
the
added
inscription
"good
for
one
year
stay."
31
Under
2
of
R.A.
No.
6768
(An
Act
Instituting
a
Balikbayan
Program),
the
term
balikbayan
includes
a
former
Filipino
citizen
who
had
been
naturalized
in
a
foreign
country
and
comes
or
returns
to
the
Philippines
and,
if
so,
he
is
entitled,
among
others,
to
a
"visa-free
entry
to
the
Philippines
for
a
period
of
one
(1)
year"
(3(c)).
It
would
appear
then
that
when
petitioner
entered
the
country
on
the
dates
in
question,
he
did
so
as
a
visa-free
balikbayan
visitor
whose
stay
as
such
was
valid
for
one
year
only.
Hence,
petitioner
can
only
be
held
to
have
waived
his
status
as
an
alien
and
as
a
non-resident
only
on
November
10,
2000
upon
taking
his
oath
as
a
citizen
of
the
Philippines
under
R.A.
No.
8171.
32
He
lacked
the
requisite
residency
to
qualify
him
for
the
mayorship
of
Oras,
Eastern
Samar.
Petitioner
invokes
the
ruling
in
Frivaldo
v.
Commission
on
Elections
33
in
support
of
his
contention
that
the
residency
requirement
in
39(a)
of
the
Local
Government
Code
includes
the
residency
of
one
who
is
not
a
citizen
of
the
Philippines.
Residency,
however,
was
not
an
issue
in
that
case
and
this
Court
did
not
make
any
ruling
on
the
issue
now
at
bar.
The
question
in
Frivaldo
was
whether
petitioner,
who
took
his
oath
of
repatriation
on
the
same
day
that
his
term
as
governor
of
Sorsogon
began
on
June
30,
1995,
complied
with
the
citizenship
requirement
under
39(a).
It
was
held
that
he
had,
because
citizenship
may
be
possessed
even
on
the
day
the
candidate
assumes
office.
But
in
the
case
of
residency,
as
already
noted,
39(a)
of
the
Local
Government
Code
requires
that
the
candidate
must
have
been
a
resident
of
the
municipality
"for
at
least
one
(1)
year
immediately
preceding
the
day
of
the
election."
Nor
can
petitioner
invoke
this
Court's
ruling
in
Bengzon
III
v.
House
of
Representatives
Electoral
Tribunal.
34
What
the
Court
held
in
that
case
was
that,
upon
repatriation,
a
former
natural-born
Filipino
is
deemed
to
have
recovered
his
original
status
as
a
natural-born
citizen.
Third,
petitioner
nonetheless
says
that
his
registration
as
a
voter
of
Butnga,
Oras,
Eastern
Samar
in
January
2001
is
conclusive
of
his
residency
as
a
candidate
because
117
of
the
Omnibus
Election
Code
requires
that
a
voter
must
have
resided
in
the
Philippines
for
at
least
one
year
and
in
the
city
or
municipality
wherein
he
proposes
to
vote
for
at
least
six
months
immediately
preceding
the
election.
As
held
in
Nuval
v.
Guray,
35
however,
registration
as
a
voter
does
not
bar
the
filing
of
a
subsequent
case
questioning
a
candidate's
lack
of
residency.
Petitioner's
invocation
of
the
liberal
interpretation
of
election
laws
cannot
avail
him
any.
As
held
in
Aquino
v.
Commission
on
Elections:
36
A
democratic
government
is
necessarily
a
government
of
laws.
In
a
republican
government
those
laws
are
themselves
ordained
by
the
people.
Through
their
representatives,
they
dictate
the
qualifications
necessary
for
service
in
government
positions.
And
as
petitioner
clearly
lacks
one
of
the
essential
qualifications
for
running
for
membership
in
the
House
of
Representatives,
not
even
the
will
of
a
majority
or
plurality
of
the
voters
of
the
Second
District
of
Makati
City
would
substitute
for
a
requirement
mandated
by
the
fundamental
law
itself.
Fourth,
petitioner
was
not
denied
due
process
because
the
COMELEC
failed
to
act
on
his
motion
to
be
allowed
to
present
evidence.
Under
5(d),
in
relation
to7,
of
R.A.
No.
6646
(Electoral
Reforms
Law
of
1987),
proceedings
for
denial
or
cancellation
of
a
certificate
of
candidacy
are
summary
in
nature.
The
holding
of
a
formal
hearing
is
thus
not
de
rigeur.
In
any
event,
petitioner
cannot
claim
denial
of
the
right
to
be
heard
since
he
filed
a
Verified
Answer,
a
Memorandum
and
a
Manifestation,
all
dated
March
19,
2001,
before
the
COMELEC
in
which
he
submitted
documents
relied
by
him
in
this
petition,
which,
contrary
to
petitioner's
claim,
are
complete
and
intact
in
the
records.
IaHDcT
III.
The
statement
in
petitioner's
certificate
of
candidacy
that
he
had
been
a
resident
of
Oras,
Eastern
Samar
for
"two
years"
at
the
time
he
filed
such
certificate
is
not
true.
The
question
is
whether
the
COMELEC
was
justified
in
ordering
the
cancellation
of
his
certificate
of
candidacy
for
this
reason.
We
hold
that
it
was.
Petitioner
made
a
false
representation
of
a
material
fact
in
his
certificate
of
candidacy,
thus
rendering
such
certificate
liable
to
cancellation.
The
Omnibus
Election
Code
provides:
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
Member
of
the
Batasang
Pambansa,
the
province,
including
its
component
cities,
highly
urbanized
city
or
district
or
sector
which
he
seeks
to
represent;
the
political
party
to
which
he
belongs;
civil
status;
his
date
of
birth;
residence;
his
post
office
address
for
all
election
purposes;
his
profession
or
occupation;
that
he
will
support
and
defend
the
Constitution
of
the
Philippines
and
will
maintain
true
faith
and
allegiance
thereto;
that
he
will
obey
the
laws,
legal
orders,
and
decrees
promulgated
by
the
duly
constituted
authorities;
that
he
is
not
a
permanent
resident
or
immigrant
to
a
foreign
country;
that
the
obligation
imposed
by
his
oath
is
assumed
voluntarily,
without
mental
reservation
or
purpose
of
evasion;
and
that
the
facts
stated
in
the
certificate
of
candidacy
are
true
to
the
best
of
his
knowledge.
SEC.
78.
Petition
to
deny
due
course
to
or
cancel
a
certificate
of
candidacy.
A
verified
petition
seeking
to
deny
due
course
or
to
cancel
a
certificate
of
candidacy
may
be
filed
by
any
person
exclusively
on
the
ground
that
any
material
representation
contained
therein
as
required
under
Section
74
hereof
is
false.
The
petition
may
be
filed
at
any
time
not
later
than
twenty-five
days
from
the
time
of
the
filing
of
the
certificate
of
candidacy
and
shall
be
decided,
after
due
notice
and
hearing,
not
later
than
fifteen
days
before
the
election.
Indeed,
it
has
been
held
that
a
candidate's
statement
in
her
certificate
of
candidacy
for
the
position
of
governor
of
Leyte
that
she
was
a
resident
of
Kananga,
Leyte
when
this
was
not
so
37
or
that
the
candidate
was
a
"natural-born"
Filipino
when
in
fact
he
had
become
an
Australian
citizen
38
constitutes
a
ground
for
the
cancellation
of
a
certificate
of
candidacy.
On
the
other
hand,
we
held
in
Salcedo
II
v.
COMELEC
39
that
a
candidate
who
used
her
husband's
family
name
even
though
their
marriage
was
void
was
not
guilty
of
misrepresentation
concerning
a
material
fact.
In
the
case
at
bar,
what
is
involved
is
a
false
statement
concerning
a
candidate's
qualification
for
an
office
for
which
he
filed
the
certificate
of
candidacy.
This
is
a
misrepresentation
of
a
material
fact
justifying
the
cancellation
of
petitioner's
certificate
of
candidacy.
The
cancellation
of
petitioner's
certificate
of
candidacy
in
this
case
is
thus
fully
justified.
WHEREFORE,
the
petition
is
DISMISSED
and
the
resolution
of
the
Second
Division
of
the
Commission
on
Elections,
dated
July
19,
2001,
and
the
order,
dated
January
30,
2002
of
the
Commission
on
Elections
en
banc
are
AFFIRMED.
SO
ORDERED.
Davide,
Jr.,
C.J.,
Bellosillo,
Puno,
Vitug,
Kapunan,
Panganiban,
Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio,
Austria-
Martinez
and
Corona,
JJ.,
concur.
Footnotes
1.Per
Presiding
Commissioner
Ralph
C.
Lantion
and
concurred
in
by
Commissioners
Mehol
K.
Sadain
and
Florentino
A.
Tuazon,
Jr.
2.The
records
do
not
disclose
when
petitioner
became
a
U.S.
citizen.
3.Records,
pp.
167-169.
4.Petitioner's
U.S.
passport
for
1998-2008
shows
the
following
dates
of
arrival
in
the
Philippines
and
dates
of
departure
for
the
United
States:
arrival
October
15,
1998,
departure
November
3,
1998;
arrival
December
20,
1998
(with
no
record
of
corresponding
departure);
arrival
October
16,
1999,
departure
November
1,
1999;
arrival
June
23,
2000,
departure
July
6,
2000;
arrival
August
5,
2000
(Records,
pp.
227-228).
5.This
law,
entitled
AN
ACT
PROVIDING
FOR
THE
REPATRIATION
OF
FILIPINO
WOMEN
WHO
HAVE
LOST
THEIR
PHILIPPINE
CITIZENSHIP
BY
MARRIAGE
TO
ALIENS
AND
NATURAL-BORN
FILIPINOS,
applies
to
former
natural-born
Filipinos
who
have
lost
their
Philippine
citizenship
on
account
of
economic
or
political
necessity.
It
would
appear
that
petitioner
was
repatriated
under
this
law
on
the
ground
that
he
lost
his
Philippine
citizenship
on
account
of
economic
necessity.
6.Petition,
Annex
O,
p.
56.
7.Id.,
Annex
C,
p.
34.
8.Id.,
Annex
H,
p.
46.
9.Resolution,
pp.
7-8;
Rollo,
pp.
30-31.
10.Bulaong
v.
COMELEC,
220
SCRA
745
(1993).
11.Order,
pp.
1-2;
Rollo,
pp.
32-33.
12.Siy
v.
Court
of
Appeals,
138
SCRA
536
(1985);
Continental
Cement
Corporation
v.
Court
of
Appeals,
184
SCRA
728
(1990).
13.Guerra
Enterprises
Company,
Inc.
v.
Court
of
First
Instance
of
Lanao
del
Sur,
32
SCRA
314,
317
(1970).
14.Manila
Trading
v.
Enriquez,
1
SCRA
1056
(1961);
City
of
Cebu
v.
Mendoza,
62
SCRA
440
(1975);
Debuque
v.
Climaco,
99
SCRA
353
(1980);
Garcia
v.
Echiverri,
132
SCRA
631
(1984);
Commissioner
of
Internal
Revenue
v.
Island
Garment
Manufacturing
Corporation,
153
SCRA
665
(1987);
Vda.
de
Espina
v.
Abaya,
196
SCRA
312
(1991).
15.A
similar
rule
is
found
in
Rule
19,
3
of
the
COMELEC
Rules
of
Procedure.
16.Villarica
v.
Court
of
Appeals,
57
SCRA
24
(1974).
17.Jessena
v.
Hervas,
83
SCRA
799
(1978);
Marikina
Valley
Development
Corporation
v.
Flojo,
251
SCRA
87
(1995);
Nieto
v.
De
los
Angeles,
109
SCRA
229
(1981).
18.Sembrano
v.
Ramirez,
166
SCRA
30
(1988);
Pojas
v.
Gozo-Dadole,
192
SCRA
575
(1990);
Bank
of
the
Philippine
Islands
v.
Far
East
Molasses
Corporation,
198
SCRA
689
(1991).
19.201
SCRA
253
(1991).
20.312
SCRA
447
(1999).
21.Uytengsu
v.
Republic,
95
Phil.
890,
894
(1954).
22.Nuval
v.
Guray,
52
Phil.
645
(1928);
Gallego
v.
Verra,
73
Phil.
453
(1941);
Romualdez
v.
RTC,
Br.
7,
Tacloban
City,
226
SCRA
408
(1993).
23.Aquino
v.
COMELEC,
248
SCRA
400,
420
(1995).
24.25
Am.
Jur.
2d,
11.
25.191
SCRA
229
(1990).
26.Petition,
p.
6;
Rollo,
p.
8.
27.Id.,
pp.
9-11;
id.,
pp.
11-13.
28.This
provision
states:
"Under
the
conditions
set
forth
in
this
Act,
there
may
be
admitted
in
the
Philippines
immigrants,
termed
"quota
immigrants"
not
in
excess
of
fifty
(50)
of
any
one
nationality
or
without
nationality
for
any
one
calendar
year,
except
that
the
following
immigrants,
termed
"nonquota
immigrants,"
may
be
admitted
without
regard
to
such
numerical
limitations.
The
corresponding
Philippine
Consular
representative
abroad
shall
investigate
and
certify
the
eligibility
of
a
quota
immigrant
previous
to
his
admission
into
the
Philippines.
Qualified
and
desirable
aliens
who
are
in
the
Philippines
under
temporary
stay
may
be
admitted
within
the
quota,
subject
to
the
provisions
of
the
last
paragraph
of
Section
9
of
this
Act.
(a)
The
wife
or
the
husband
or
the
unmarried
child
under
twenty-one
years
of
age
of
a
Philippine
citizen,
if
accompanying
or
following
to
join
such
citizen;
(b)
A
child
of
alien
parents
born
during
the
temporary
visit
abroad
of
the
mother,
the
mother
having
been
previously
lawfully
admitted
into
the
Philippine
for
permanent
residence,
if
the
child
is
accompanying
or
coming
to
join
a
parent
and
applies
for
admission
within
five
years
from
the
date
of
its
birth;
(c)
A
child
born
subsequent
to
the
issuance
of
the
immigration
visa
of
the
accompanying
parent,
the
visa
not
having
expired;
(d)
A
woman
who
was
citizen
of
the
Philippines
and
who
lost
her
citizenship
because
of
her
marriage
to
an
alien
or
by
reason
of
the
loss
of
Philippine
citizenship
by
her
husband,
and
her
unmarried
child
under
twenty-one
years
of
age,
if
accompanying
or
following
to
join
her;
(e)
A
person
previously
lawfully
admitted
into
the
Philippines
for
permanent
residence,
who
is
returning
from
a
temporary
visit
abroad
to
an
unrelinquished
residence
in
the
Philippines,
(As
amended
by
Sec.
5,
Rep.
Act
No.
503.)
(f)
The
wife
or
the
husband
or
the
unmarried
child
under
twenty-one
years
of
age,
of
an
alien
lawfully
admitted
into
the
Philippines
for
permanent
residence
prior
to
the
date
on
which
this
Act
becomes
effective
and
who
is
resident
therein,
if
such
wife,
husband,
or
child
applies
for
admission
within
a
period
of
two
years
following
the
date
on
which
this
Act
becomes
effective;
(g)
A
natural
born
citizen
of
the
Philippines,
who
has
been
naturalized
in
a
foreign
country,
and
is
returning
to
the
Philippines
for
permanent
residence,
including
the
spouse
and
minor
children,
shall
be
considered
a
non-quota
immigrant
for
purposes
of
entering
the
Philippines
(As
amended
by
Rep.
Act
No.
4376,
approved
June
19,
1965)."
29
.
See
R.
Ledesma,
An
Outline
of
Philippine
Immigration
and
Citizenship
Laws,
135
(1999).
30
.
C.A.
No.
63,
2.
31
.
Records,
pp.
227-228.
32
.
The
COMELEC
considered
November
10,
2000
as
the
date
of
petitioner's
repatriation.
Section
2
of
R.A.
No.
8171
provides,
however,
"Repatriation
shall
be
effected
by
taking
the
necessary
oath
of
allegiance
to
the
Republic
of
the
Philippines
and
registration
in
the
proper
civil
registry
and
in
the
Bureau
of
Immigration.
The
Bureau
of
Immigration
shall
thereupon
cancel
the
pertinent
alien
certificate
of
registration
and
issue
the
certificate
of
identification
as
Filipino
citizen
to
the
repatriated
citizen."
33
.
257
SCRA
727
(1996).
34
.
G.R.
No.
142840,
May
7,
2001.
35
.
54
Phil.
645
(1928).
36
.
248
SCRA
400,
429
(1995).
37
.
Abella
v.
Larrazabal,
180
SCRA
509
(1989);
Abella
v.
COMELEC,
201
SCRA
253
(1991).
38
.
Labo,
Jr.
v.
COMELEC,
211
SCRA
297
(1992).
39
.
312
SCRA
447
(1999).
|||
(Coquilla
v.
COMELEC,
G.R.
No.
151914,
[July
31,
2002])
EN
BANC
[G.R.
No.
121592.
July
5,
1996.]
ROLANDO
P.
DELA
COMMISSION
ON
ELECTIONS
and
MARCIAL
VILLANUEVA,
respondents.
Pete
Quirino-Quadra
for
petitioner.
Leonardo
G.
Ragaza,
Sr.
for
private
respondent.
The
Solicitor
General
for
public
respondents.
SYLLABUS
1.
ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW;
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
CODE;
DISQUALIFICATIONS
FROM
RUNNING
FOR
ANY
ELECTIVE
POSITION;
MORAL
TURPITUDE
AS
A
GROUND,
DEFINED.
The
Court
has
consistently
adopted
the
definition
in
Black's
Law
Dictionary
of
"moral
turpitude"
as:
".
.
.
an
act
of
baseness,
vileness,
or
depravity
in
the
private
duties
which
a
man
owes
his
fellow
men,
or
to
society
in
general,
contrary
to
the
accepted
and
customary
rule
of
right
and
duty
between
man
and
woman
or
conduct
contrary
to
justice,
honesty,
modesty,
or
good
morals."
2.
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
WHETHER
OR
NOT
A
CRIME
INVOLVES
MORAL
TURPITUDE
IS
ULTIMATELY
A
QUESTION
OF
FACT
AND
DEPENDS
ON
ALL
THE
CIRCUMSTANCES
SURROUNDING
THE
VIOLATION
OF
THE
STATUTE.
Not
every
criminal
act,
however,
involves
moral
turpitude.
It
is
for
this
reason
that
"as
to
what
crime
involves
moral
turpitude,
is
for
the
Supreme
Court
to
determine."
In
resolving
the
foregoing
question,
the
Court
is
guided
by
one
of
the
general
rules
that
crimes
mala
in
se
involve
moral
turpitude,
while
crimes
mala
prohibita
do
not,
the
rationale
of
which
was
set
forth
in
"Zari
v.
Flores,"
to
wit:
"It
(moral
turpitude)
implies
something
immoral
in
itself,
regardless
of
the
fact
that
it
is
punishable
by
law
or
not.
It
must
not
be
merely
mala
prohibita,
but
the
act
itself
must
be
inherently
immoral.
The
doing
of
the
act
itself,
and
not
its
prohibition
by
statute
fixes
the
moral
turpitude.
Moral
turpitude
does
not,
however,
include
such
acts
as
are
not
of
themselves
immoral
but
whose
illegality
lies
in
their
being
positively
prohibited."
This
guideline
nonetheless
proved
short
of
providing
a
clear-cut
solution,
for
in
"International
Rice
Research
Institute
v.
NLRC,"
the
Court
admitted
that
it
cannot
always
be
ascertained
whether
moral
turpitude
does
or
does
not
exist
by
merely
classifying
a
crime
as
malum
in
se
or
as
malum
prohibitum.
There
are
crimes
which
are
mala
in
se
and
yet
but
rarely
involve
moral
turpitude
and
there
are
crimes
which
involve
moral
turpitude
and
are
mala
prohibita
only.
In
the
final
analysis,
whether
or
not
a
crime
involves
moral
turpitude
is
ultimately
a
question
of
fact
and
frequently
depends
on
all
the
circumstances
surrounding
the
violation
of
the
statute.
3.
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
CONVICTION
FOR
AN
OFFENSE
INVOLVING
MORAL
TURPITUDE
STANDS
EVEN
IF
THE
CANDIDATE
WAS
GRANTED
PROBATION
FOR
THE
SAME
CRIME.
Anent
the
second
issue
where
petitioner
contends
that
his
probation
had
the
effect
of
suspending
the
applicability
of
Section
40
(a)
of
theLocal
Government
Code,
suffice
it
to
say
that
the
legal
effect
of
probation
is
only
to
suspend
the
execution
of
the
sentence.
Petitioner's
conviction
of
fencing
which
we
have
heretofore
declared
as
a
crime
of
moral
turpitude
and
thus
falling
squarely
under
the
disqualification
found
in
Section
40
(a),
subsists
and
remains
totally
unaffected
notwithstanding
the
grant
of
probation.
In
fact,
a
judgment
of
conviction
in
a
criminal
case
ipso
facto
attains
finality
when
the
accused
applies
for
probation,
although
it
is
not
executory
pending
resolution
of
the
application
for
probation.
Clearly
then,
petitioner's
theory
has
no
merit.
4.
CRIMINAL
LAW;
ANTI-FENCING
LAW
(P.D.
1612);
FENCING;
DEFINED.
Fencing
is
defined
in
Section
2
of
P.D.
1612
(Anti-
Fencing
Law)
as:
"a.
.
.
.
the
act
of
any
person
who,
with
intent
to
gain
for
himself
or
for
another,
shall
buy,
receive,
possess,
keep,
acquire,
conceal,
sell
or
dispose
of,
or
shall
buy
and
sell,
or
in
any
manner
deal
in
any
article,
item,
object
or
anything
of
value
which
he
knows,
or
should
be
known
to
him,
to
have
been
derived
from
the
proceeds
of
the
crime
of
robbery
or
theft."
5.
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
ELEMENTS.
From
the
foregoing
definition
may
be
gleaned
the
elements
of
the
crime
of
fencing
which
are:
"1.
A
crime
of
robbery
or
theft
has
been
committed;
2.
The
accused
who
is
not
a
principal
or
accomplice
in
the
crime
of
robbery
or
theft,
buys,
receives,
possesses,
keeps,
acquires,
conceals,
sells,
or
disposes,
or
buys
and
sells,
or
in
any
manner
deals
in
any
article,
item,
object
or
anything
of
value,
which
have
been
derived
from
the
proceeds
of
the
said
crime.
3.
The
accused
knows
or
should
have
known
that
the
said
article,
item,
object
or
anything
of
value
has
been
derived
from
the
proceeds
of
the
crime
of
robbery
or
theft;
and
4.
There
is,
on
the
part
of
the
accused,
intent
to
gain
for
himself
or
for
another."
6.
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
IS
A
CRIME
INVOLVING
MORAL
TURPITUDE.
Moral
turpitude
is
deducible
from
the
third
element.
Actual
knowledge
by
the
"fence"
of
the
fact
that
property
received
is
stolen
displays
the
same
degree
of
malicious
deprivation
of
one's
rightful
property
as
that
which
animated
the
robbery
or
theft,
which,
by
their
very
nature,
are
crimes
of
moral
turpitude.
And
although
the
participation
of
each
felon
in
the
unlawful
taking
differs
in
point
in
time
and
in
degree,
both
the
"fence"
and
the
actual
perpetrator/s
of
the
robbery
or
theft
invaded
one's
peaceful
dominion
for
gain
thus
deliberately
reneging
in
the
process
"private
duties"
they
owe
their
"fellowmen"
or
"society"
in
the
manner
"contrary
to
.
.
.
accepted
and
customary
rule
of
right
and
duty
.
.
.,
justice,
honesty
.
.
.
or
good
morals."
The
same
underlying
reason
holds
even
if
the
"fence"
did
not
have
actual
knowledge,
but
merely
"should
have
known"
the
origin
of
the
property
received.
In
this
regard,
the
Court
held:
"When
knowledge
of
the
existence
of
a
particular
fact
is
an
element
of
the
offense,
such
knowledge
is
established
if
a
person
is
aware
of
the
high
probability
of
its
existence
unless
he
actually
believes
that
it
does
not
exist.
On
the
other
hand,
the
words
'should
know'
denote
the
fact
that
a
person
of
reasonable
prudence
and
intelligence
would
ascertain
the
fact
in
the
performance
of
his
duty
to
another
or
would
govern
his
conduct
upon
assumption
that
such
fact
exists."
Verily,
circumstances
normally
exist
to
forewarn,
for
instance,
a
reasonably
vigilant
buyer
that
the
object
of
the
same
may
have
been
derived
from
the
proceeds
of
robbery
or
theft.
Such
circumstances
include
the
time
and
place
of
the
sale,
both
of
which
may
not
be
in
accord
with
the
usual
practices
of
commerce.
The
nature
and
condition
of
the
goods
sold,
and
the
fact
that
the
seller
is
not
regularly
engaged
in
the
business
of
selling
goods
may
likewise
suggest
the
illegality
of
their
source,
and
therefore
should
caution
the
buyer.
This
justifies
the
presumption
found
in
Section
5
of
P.D.
No.
1612
that
"mere
possession
of
any
goods,
.
.
.,
object
or
anything
of
value
which
has
been
the
subject
of
robbery
or
thievery
shall
be
prima
facie
evidence
of
fencing"
a
presumption
that
is,
according
to
the
Court,
"reasonable
for
no
other
natural
or
logical
inference
can
arise
from
the
established
fact
of
.
.
.
possession
of
the
proceeds
of
the
crime
of
robbery
or
theft."
R
E
S
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
FRANCISCO,
J
p:
Petitioner
Rolando
P.
Dela
Torre
via
the
instant
petition
for
certiorari
seeks
the
nullification
of
two
resolutions
issued
by
the
Commission
on
Elections
(COMELEC)
allegedly
with
grave
abuse
of
discretion
amounting
to
lack
of
jurisdiction
in
SPA
No.
95-
047,
a
case
for
disqualification
filed
against
petitioner
before
the
COMELEC.
1
The
first
assailed
resolution
dated
May
6,
1995
declared
the
petitioner
disqualified
from
running
for
the
position
of
Mayor
of
Cavinti,
Laguna
in
the
last
May
8,
1995
elections,
citing
as
the
ground
therefor,
Section
40(a)
of
Republic
Act
No.
7160
(the
Local
Government
Code
of
1991)
2
provides
as
follows:
"Sec.
40.
Disqualifications.
The
following
persons
are
disqualified
from
running
for
any
elective
local
position:
"(a)
Those
sentenced
by
final
judgment
for
an
offense
involving
moral
turpitude
or
for
an
offense
punishable
by
one
(1)
year
or
more
of
imprisonment
within
two
(2)
years
after
serving
sentence;
"(b)
.
.
.
In
disqualifying
the
petitioner,
the
COMELEC
held
that:
"Documentary
evidence
.
.
.
established
that
herein
respondent
(petitioner
in
this
case)
was
found
guilty
by
the
Municipal
Trial
Court,
.
.
.
in
Criminal
Case
No.
14723
for
violation
of
P.D.
1612,
(otherwise
known
as
the
Anti-Fencing
Law)
in
a
Decision
dated
June
1,
1990.
Respondent
appealed
the
said
conviction
with
the
Regional
Trial
Court
.
.
.,
which
however,
affirmed
respondent's
conviction
in
a
Decision
dated
November
14,
1990.
Respondent's
conviction
became
final
on
January
18,
1991.
"xxx
xxx
xxx
".
.
.
,
there
exists
legal
grounds
to
disqualify
respondent
as
candidate
for
Mayor
of
Cavinti,
Laguna
this
coming
elections.
Although
there
is
'dearth
of
jurisprudence
involving
violation
of
the
Anti-Fencing
Law
of
1979
or
P.D.
1612'
.
.
.
,
the
nature
of
the
offense
under
P.D.
1612
with
which
respondent
was
convicted
certainly
involves
moral
turpitude
.
.
."
3
The
second
assailed
resolution,
dated
August
28,
1995,
denied
petitioner's
motion
for
reconsideration.
In
said
motion,
petitioner
claimed
that
Section
40
(a)
of
the
Local
Government
Code
does
not
apply
to
his
case
inasmuch
as
the
probation
granted
him
by
the
MTC
on
December
21,
1994
which
suspended
the
execution
of
the
judgment
of
conviction
and
all
other
legal
consequences
flowing
therefrom,
rendered
inapplicable
Section
40
(a)
as
well.
4
The
two
(2)
issues
to
be
resolved
are:
1.
Whether
or
not
the
crime
of
fencing
involves
moral
turpitude.
2.
Whether
or
not
a
grant
of
probation
affects
Section
40
(a)'s
applicability.
Particularly
involved
in
the
first
issue
is
the
first
of
two
instances
contemplated
in
Section
40
(a)
when
prior
conviction
of
a
crime
becomes
a
ground
for
disqualifications
i.e.,
"when
the
conviction
by
final
judgment
is
for
an
offense
involving
moral
turpitude."
And
in
this
connection,
the
Court
has
consistently
adopted
the
definition
in
Black's
Law
Dictionary
of
"moral
turpitude"
as:
".
.
.
an
act
of
baseness,
vileness,
or
depravity
in
the
private
duties
which
a
man
owes
his
fellowmen,
or
to
society
in
general,
contrary
to
the
accepted
and
customary
rule
of
right
and
duty
between
man
and
woman
or
conduct
contrary
to
justice,
honesty,
modesty,
or
good
morals."
5
Not
every
criminal
act,
however,
involves
moral
turpitude.
It
is
for
this
reason
that
"as
to
what
crime
involves
moral
turpitude,
is
for
the
Supreme
Court
to
determine".
6
In
resolving
the
foregoing
question,
the
Court
is
guided
by
one
of
the
general
rules
that
crimes
mala
in
se
involve
moral
turpitude,
while
crimesmala
prohibita
do
not
7
,
the
rationale
of
which
was
set
forth
in
"Zari
v.
Flores,"
8
to
wit:
"It
(moral
turpitude)
implies
something
immoral
in
itself,
regardless
of
the
fact
that
it
is
punishable
by
law
or
not.
It
must
not
be
merely
mala
prohibita,
but
the
act
itself
must
be
inherently
immoral.
The
doing
of
the
act
itself,
and
not
its
prohibition
by
statute
fixes
the
moral
turpitude.
Moral
turpitude
does
not,
however,
include
such
acts
as
are
not
of
themselves
immoral
but
whose
illegality
lies
in
their
being
positively
prohibited."
9
This
guideline
nonetheless
proved
short
of
providing
a
clear-cut
solution,
for
in
"International
Rice
Research
Institute
v.
NLRC,"
10
the
Court
admitted
that
it
cannot
always
be
ascertained
whether
moral
turpitude
does
or
does
not
exist
by
merely
classifying
a
crime
as
malum
in
se
or
as
malum
prohibitum.
There
are
crimes
which
are
mala
in
se
and
yet
but
rarely
involve
moral
turpitude
and
there
are
crimes
which
involve
moral
turpitude
and
are
mala
prohibita
only.
In
the
final
analysis,
whether
or
not
a
crime
involves
moral
turpitude
is
ultimately
a
question
of
fact
and
frequently
depends
on
all
the
circumstances
surrounding
the
violation
of
the
statute.
11
The
Court
in
this
case
shall
nonetheless
dispense
with
a
review
of
the
facts
and
circumstances
surrounding
the
commission
of
the
crime,
inasmuch
as
petitioner
after
all
does
not
assail
his
conviction.
Petitioner
has
in
effect
admitted
all
the
elements
of
the
crime
of
fencing.
At
any
rate,
the
determination
of
whether
or
not
fencing
involves
moral
turpitude
can
likewise
be
achieved
by
analyzing
the
elements
alone.
Fencing
is
defined
in
Section
2
of
P.D.
1612
(Anti-Fencing
Law)
as:
"a.
.
.
.
the
act
of
any
person
who,
with
intent
to
gain
for
himself
or
for
another,
shall
buy,
receive,
possess,
keep,
acquire,
conceal,
sell
or
dispose
of,
or
shall
buy
and
sell,
or
in
any
manner
deal
in
any
article,
item,
object
or
anything
of
value
which
he
knows,
or
should
be
known
to
him,
to
have
been
deprived
from
the
proceeds
of
the
crime
of
robbery
or
theft."
12
From
the
foregoing
definition
may
be
gleaned
the
elements
of
the
crime
of
fencing
which
are:
"1.
A
crime
of
robbery
or
theft
has
been
committed;
"2.
The
accused
who
is
not
a
principal
or
accomplice
in
the
crime
of
robbery
or
theft,
buys,
receives,
possesses,
keeps,
acquires,
conceals,
sells
or
disposes,
or
buys
and
sells,
or
in
any
manner
deals
in
any
article,
item,
object
or
anything
of
value,
which
have
been
deprived
from
the
proceeds
of
the
said
crime;
"3.
The
accused
knows
or
should
have
known
that
the
said
article,
item,
object
or
anything
of
value
has
been
derived
from
the
proceeds
of
the
crime
of
robbery
or
theft;
and
[Emphasis
supplied.]
"4.
There
is,
on
the
part
of
the
accused,
intent
to
gain
for
himself
or
for
another."
13
Moral
turpitude
is
deducible
from
the
third
element.
Actual
knowledge
by
the
"fence"
of
the
fact
that
property
received
is
stolen
displays
the
same
degree
of
malicious
deprivation
of
one's
rightful
property
as
that
which
animated
the
robbery
or
theft
which,
by
their
very
nature,
are
crimes
of
moral
turpitude.
And
although
the
participation
of
each
felon
in
the
unlawful
taking
differs
in
point
in
time
and
in
degree,
both
the
"fence"
and
the
actual
perpetrator/s
of
the
robbery
or
theft
invaded
one's
peaceful
dominion
for
gain
thus
deliberately
reneging
in
the
process "private
duties" they
owe
their "fellowmen" or"society" in a manner "contrary to . . . accepted and customary rule of right and duty . . ., justice, honesty . . . or
good
morals."
The
duty
not
to
appropriate,
or
to
return,
anything
acquired
either
by
mistake
or
with
malice
is
so
basic
it
finds
expression
in
some
key
provisions
of
the
Civil
Code
on
"Human
Relations"
and"Solutio
Indebiti",
to
wit:
"Article
19.
Every
person
must,
in
the
exercise
of
his
right
and
in
the
performance
of
his
duties,
act
with
justice,
give
everyone
his
due,
and
observe
honesty
and
good
faith."
"Article
20.
Every
person
who,
contrary
to
law,
wilfully
or
negligently
causes
damage
to
another,
shall
indemnify
the
latter
for
the
same."
"Article
21.
Any
person
who
wilfully
causes
loss
or
injury
to
another
in
a
manner
that
is
contrary
to
morals,
good
customs,
or
public
policy
shall
compensate
the
latter
for
the
damage."
"Article
22.
Every
person
who
through
an
act
of
performance
by
another,
or
any
other
means,
acquires
or
comes
into
possession
of
something
at
the
expense
of
the
latter
without
just
or
legal
ground,
shall
return
the
same
to
him."
"Article
2154.
If
something
is
received
when
there
is
no
right
to
demand
it,
and
it
was
unduly
delivered
through
mistake,
the
obligation
to
return
it
arises."
The
same
underlying
reason
holds
even
if
the
"fence"
did
not
have
actual
knowledge,
but
merely
"should
have
known"
the
origin
of
the
property
received.
In
this
regard,
the
Court
held:
"When
knowledge
of
the
existence
of
a
particular
fact
is
an
element
of
the
offense,
such
knowledge
is
established
if
a
person
is
aware
of
the
high
probability
of
its
existence
unless
he
actually
believes
that
it
does
not
exist.
On
the
other
hand,
the
words
'should
know'
denote
the
fact
that
a
person
of
reasonable
prudence
and
intelligence
would
ascertain
the
fact
in
the
performance
of
his
duty
to
another
or
would
govern
his
conduct
upon
assumption
that
such
fact
exists."
14
[Emphasis
supplied.]
Verily,
circumstances
normally
exist
to
forewarn,
for
instance,
a
reasonably
vigilant
buyer
that
the
object
of
the
sale
may
have
been
derived
from
the
proceeds
of
robbery
or
theft.
Such
circumstances
include
the
time
and
place
of
the
sale,
both
of
which
may
not
be
in
accord
with
the
usual
practices
of
commerce.
The
nature
and
condition
of
the
goods
sold,
and
the
fact
that
the
seller
is
not
regularly
engaged
in
the
business
of
selling
goods
may
likewise
suggest
the
illegality
of
their
source,
and
therefore
should
caution
the
buyer.
This
justifies
the
presumption
found
in
Section
5
of
P.D.
No
1612
that
"mere
possession
of
any
goods,
.
.
.,
object
or
anything
of
value
which
has
been
the
subject
of
robbery
or
thievery
shall
be
prima
facie
evidence
of
fencing"
a
presumption
that
is,
according
to
the
Court,"
reasonable
for
no
other
natural
or
logical
inference
can
arise
from
the
established
fact
of
.
.
.
possession
of
the
proceeds
of
the
crime
of
robbery
or
theft."
15
All
told,
the
COMELEC
did
not
err
in
disqualifying
the
petitioner
on
the
ground
that
the
offense
of
fencing
of
which
he
had
been
previously
convicted
by
final
judgment
was
one
involving
moral
turpitude.
Anent
the
second
issue
where
petitioner
contends
that
his
probation
had
the
effect
of
suspending
the
applicability
of
Section
40
(a)
of
the
Local
Government
Code,
suffice
it
to
say
that
the
legal
effect
of
probation
is
only
to
suspend
the
execution
of
the
sentence.
16
Petitioner's
conviction
of
fencing
which
we
have
heretofore
declared
as
a
crime
of
moral
turpitude
and
thus
falling
squarely
under
the
disqualification
found
in
Section
40
(a),
subsists
and
remains
totally
unaffected
notwithstanding
the
grant
of
probation.
In
fact,
a
judgment
of
conviction
in
a
criminal
case
ipso
facto
attains
finality
when
the
accused
applies
for
probation,
although
it
is
not
executory
pending
resolution
of
the
application
for
probation.
17
Clearly
then,
petitioner's
theory
has
no
merit.
ACCORDINGLY,
the
instant
petition
for
certiorari
is
hereby
DISMISSED
and
the
assailed
resolutions
of
the
COMELEC
dated
May
6,
1995
and
August
28,
1995
are
AFFIRMED
in
toto.
SO
ORDERED.
Narvasa,
C
.
J
.,
Padilla,
Regalado,
Davide,
Jr.,
Romero,
Bellosillo,
Melo,
Puno,
Vitug,
Kapunan,
Mendoza,
Hermosisima,
Jr.,
Panganiban
and
Torres,
Jr.,
JJ
.,concur.
Footnotes
1.Petition
dated
September
8,
1995,
p.
1;
Rollo,
p.
3.
2.COMELEC
Resolution
dated
May
6,
1995;
Rollo,
p.
18.
3.Resolution,
id.,
pp.
1-2;
Rollo,
pp.
18-19.
4.Motion
for
Reconsideration
dated
May
16,
1995,
p.
2;
Rollo,
p.
23.
5.Zari
vs.
Flores,
94
SCRA
317,
323
citing
Tak
Ng
vs.
Republic
of
the
Phil.
41
Phil.
275;
Court
Administrator
vs.
San
Andres,
197
SCRA
704;
International
Rice
Research
Institute
vs.
NLRC,
221
SCRA
760.
6.International
Rice
Research
Institute
vs.
NLRC,
id.
at
p.
767
citing
In
Re:
Victorio
Lanuevo,
66
SCRA
245.
7.Id.
8.Supra.
9.Id.
at
p.
323.
10.Supra.
11.Id.
at
p.
768.
12.Section
2(a)
of
P.D.
1612
(Anti-Fencing
Law).
13.Dizon-Pamintuan
vs.
People,
234
SCRA
63,
72.
14.Id.,
at
p.
73.
15.Id.
at
p.
74.
16.Section
4,
P.D.
No.
768.
"SEC.
4.
Grant
of
Probation.
Subject
to
the
provisions
of
this
Decree,
the
court
may,
after
it
shall
have
convicted
and
sentenced
the
defendant
but
before
he
begins
to
serve
his
sentence
and
upon
his
application,
suspend
the
execution
of
said
sentence
and
place
the
defendant
on
probation
for
such
period
and
upon
such
terms
and
conditions
as
it
may
deem
best.
"xxx
xxx
xxx
17.Heirs
of
the
Late
Francisco
Abueg
vs.
Court
of
Appeals,
219
SCRA
82;
Palo
vs.
Militante,
184
SCRA
395.
|||
(Dela
Torre
v.
COMELEC,
G.R.
No.
121592
(Resolution),
[July
5,
1996],
327
PHIL
1144-1156)
EN
BANC
[G.R.
No.
135083.
May
26,
1999.]
ERNESTO
S.
MERCADO,
petitioner,
vs.
EDUARDO
BARRIOS
MANZANO
and
the
COMMISSION
ON
ELECTIONS,
respondents.
Balase,
Tamase,
Alampay
Law
Office
for
petitioner.
Siguion
Reyna,
Montecillo
&
Ongsiako
for
private
respondent.
SYNOPSIS
Petitioner
Mercado
and
private
respondent
Manzano
were
candidates
for
vice
mayor
of
the
City
of
Makati
in
the
May
11,
1998
elections.
The
proclamation
of
private
respondent
was
suspended
in
view
of
a
pending
petition
for
disqualification
filed
by
a
certain
Ernesto
Mamaril
who
alleged
that
private
respondent
was
not
a
citizen
of
the
Philippines
but
of
the
United
States.
The
Second
Division
of
the
COMELEC
granted
the
petition
of
Mamaril
and
ordered
the
cancellation
of
the
certificate
of
candidacy
of
private
respondent
on
the
ground
that
he
is
a
dual
citizen
and
under
Sec.
40
of
the
Local
Government
Code,
persons
with
dual
citizenship
are
disqualified
from
running
for
any
elective
position.
Private
respondent
filed
a
motion
for
reconsideration.
The
motion
remained
pending
until
after
the
election.
The
board
of
canvassers
tabulated
the
votes
but
suspended
the
proclamation
of
the
winner.
Petitioner
sought
to
intervene
in
the
case
for
disqualification.
COMELEC
en
banc
reversed
the
decision
and
declared
private
respondent
qualified
to
run
for
the
position.
Pursuant
to
the
ruling
of
the
COMELEC
en
banc,
the
board
of
canvassers
proclaimed
private
respondent
as
vice
mayor.
This
petition
sought
the
reversal
of
the
resolution
of
the
COMELEC
en
banc
and
to
declare
the
private
respondent
disqualified
to
hold
the
office
of
the
vice
mayor
of
Makati.
cdasia
On
the
issue
of
whether
the
petitioner
has
personality
to
bring
this
suit
considering
that
he
was
not
the
original
party
in
the
disqualification
case,
the
Supreme
Court
ruled
that
under
Sec.
6
of
R.A.
No.
6646,
otherwise
known
as
the
Electoral
Reforms
Law
of
1987,
intervention
may
be
allowed
in
proceedings
for
disqualification
even
after
election
if
there
has
yet
been
no
final
judgment
rendered.
As
regards
the
issue
of
citizenship,
the
Court
ruled
that
by
filing
a
certificate
of
candidacy
when
he
ran
for
his
present
post,
private
respondent
elected
Philippine
citizenship
and
in
effect
renounced
his
American
citizenship.
SYLLABUS
1.
POLITICAL
LAW;
ELECTORAL
REFORMS
LAW
OF
1987
(R.A.
No.
6646);
INTERVENTION,
ALLOWED
IN
PROCEEDINGS
FOR
DISQUALIFICATION
EVEN
AFTER
ELECTION
IF
THERE
HAS
BEEN
NO
FINAL
JUDGMENT
RENDERED;
CASE
AT
BAR.
Private
respondent
argues
that
petitioner
has
neither
legal
interest
in
the
matter
in
litigation
nor
an
interest
to
protect
because
he
is
"a
defeated
candidate
for
the
vice-mayoralty
post
of
Makati
City
[who]
cannot
be
proclaimed
as
the
Vice-Mayor
of
Makati
City
even
if
the
private
respondent
be
ultimately
disqualified
by
final
and
executory
judgment."
The
flaw
in
this
argument
is
it
assumes
that,
at
the
time
petitioner
sought
to
intervene
in
the
proceedings
before
the
COMELEC,
there
had
already
been
a
proclamation
of
the
results
of
the
election
for
the
vice
mayoralty
contest
for
Makati
City,
on
the
basis
of
which
petitioner
came
out
only
second
to
private
respondent.
The
fact,
however,
is
that
there
had
been
no
proclamation
at
that
time.
Certainly,
petitioner
had,
and
still
has,
an
interest
in
ousting
private
respondent
from
the
race
at
the
time
he
sought
to
intervene.
The
rule
in
Labo
vs.
COMELEC,
reiterated
in
several
cases,
only
applies
to
cases
in
which
the
election
of
the
respondent
is
contested,
and
the
question
is
whether
one
who
placed
second
to
the
disqualified
candidate
may
be
declared
the
winner.
In
the
present
case,
at
the
time
petitioner
filed
a
"Motion
for
leave
to
File
Intervention"
on
May
20,
1998,
there
had
been
no
proclamation
of
the
winner,
and
petitioner's
purpose
was
precisely
to
have
private
respondent
disqualified
"from
running
for
[an]
elective
local
position"
under
Section
40(d)
of
R.A.
No.
7160.
If
Ernesto
Mamaril
(who
originally
instituted
the
disqualification
proceedings),
a
registered
voter
of
Makati
City,
was
competent
to
bring
the
action,
so
was
petitioner
since
the
latter
was
a
rival
candidate
for
vice
mayor
of
Makati
City.
Nor
is
petitioner's
interest
in
the
matter
in
litigation
any
less
because
he
filed
a
motion
for
intervention
only
on
May
20,
1998,
after
private
respondent
had
been
shown
to
have
garnered
the
highest
number
of
votes
among
the
candidates
for
vice
mayor.
That
petitioner
had
a
right
to
intervene
at
that
stage
of
the
proceedings
for
the
disqualification
against
private
respondent
is
clear
from
Section
6
of
R.A.
No.
6646,
otherwise
known
as
theElectoral
Reforms
Law
of
1987,
which
provides:
Any
candidate
who
has
been
declared
by
final
judgment
to
be
disqualified
shall
not
be
voted
for,
and
the
votes
cast
for
him
shall
not
be
counted.
If
for
any
reason
a
candidate
is
not
declared
by
final
judgment
before
an
election
to
be
disqualified
and
he
is
voted
for
and
receives
the
winning
number
of
votes
in
such
election,
the
Court
or
Commission
shall
continue
with
the
trial
and
hearing
of
the
action,
inquiry,
or
protest
and,
upon
motion
of
the
complainant
or
any
intervenor,
may
during
the
pendency
thereof
order
the
suspension
of
the
proclamation
of
such
candidate
whenever
the
evidence
of
guilt
is
strong.
Under
this
provision,
intervention
may
be
allowed
in
proceedings
for
disqualification
even
after
election
if
there
has
yet
been
no
final
judgment
rendered.
2.
ID.;
CITIZENSHIP;
DUAL
CITIZENSHIP;
DISTINGUISHED
FROM
DUAL
ALLEGIANCE.
Dual
citizenship
is
different
from
dual
allegiance.
The
former
arises
when,
as
a
result
of
the
concurrent
application
of
the
different
laws
of
two
or
more
states,
a
person
is
simultaneously
considered
a
national
by
the
said
states.
For
instance,
such
a
situation
may
arise
when
a
person
whose
parents
are
citizens
of
a
state
which
adheres
to
the
principle
of
jus
sanguinis
is
born
in
a
state
which
follows
the
doctrine
of
jus
soli.
Such
a
person,
ipso
facto
and
without
any
voluntary
act
on
his
part,
is
concurrently
considered
a
citizen
of
both
states.
Considering
the
citizenship
clause
(Art.
IV)
of
our
Constitution,
it
is
possible
for
the
following
classes
of
citizens
of
the
Philippines
to
posses
dual
citizenship:
(1)
Those
born
of
Filipino
fathers
and/or
mothers
in
foreign
countries
which
follow
the
principle
of
jus
soli;
(2)
Those
born
in
the
Philippines
of
Filipino
mothers
and
alien
fathers
if
by
the
laws
of
their
fathers'
country
such
children
are
citizens
of
that
country;
(3)
Those
who
marry
aliens
if
by
the
laws
of
the
latter's
country
the
former
are
considered
citizens,
unless
by
their
act
or
omission
they
are
deemed
to
have
renounced
Philippine
citizenship.
There
may
be
other
situations
in
which
a
citizen
of
the
Philippines
may,
without
performing
any
act,
be
also
a
citizen
of
another
state;
but
the
above
cases
are
possible
given
the
constitutional
provisions
on
citizenship.
Dual
allegiance,
on
the
other
hand,
refers
to
the
situation
in
which
a
person
simultaneously
owes,
by
some
positive
act,
loyalty
to
two
or
more
states.
While
dual
citizenship
is
involuntary,
dual
allegiance
is
the
result
of
an
individual's
volition.
With
respect
to
dual
allegiance,
Article
IV,
Section
5
of
the
Constitution
provides:
"Dual
allegiance
of
citizens
is
inimical
to
the
national
interest
and
shall
be
dealt
with
by
law."
3.
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
RATIONALE.
In
including
Section
5
in
Article
IV
on
citizenship,
the
concern
of
the
Constitutional
Commission
was
not
with
dual
citizensper
se
but
with
naturalized
citizens
who
maintain
their
allegiance
to
their
countries
of
origin
even
after
their
naturalization.
Hence,
the
phrase
"dual
citizenship"
in
R.A.
No.
7160,
Section
40(d)
and
in
R.A.
No.
7854,
Section
20
must
be
understood
as
referring
to
"dual
allegiance."
Consequently,
persons
with
mere
dual
citizenship
do
not
fall
under
this
disqualification.
Unlike
those
with
dual
allegiance,
who
must,
therefore,
be
subject
to
strict
process
with
respect
to
the
termination
of
their
status,
for
candidates
with
dual
citizenship,
it
should
suffice
if,
upon
the
filing
of
their
certificates
of
candidacy,
they
elect
Philippine
citizenship
to
terminate
their
status
as
persons
with
dual
citizenship
considering
that
their
condition
is
the
unavoidable
consequence
of
conflicting
laws
of
different
states.
As
Joaquin
G.
Bernas,
one
of
the
most
perceptive
members
of
the
Constitutional
Commission,
pointed
out:
"[D]ual
citizenship
is
just
a
reality
imposed
on
us
because
we
have
no
control
of
the
laws
on
citizenship
of
other
countries.
We
recognize
a
child
of
a
Filipino
mother.
But
whether
or
not
she
is
considered
a
citizen
of
another
country
is
something
completely
beyond
our
control."
By
electing
Philippine
citizenship,
such
candidates
at
the
same
time
forswear
allegiance
to
the
other
country
of
which
they
are
also
citizens
and
thereby
terminate
their
status
as
dual
citizens.
It
may
be
that,
from
the
point
of
view
of
the
foreign
state
and
of
its
laws,
such
an
individual
has
not
effectively
renounced
his
foreign
citizenship.
4.
ID.;
ID.;
FILING
OF
THE
CERTIFICATE
OF
CANDIDACY
SUFFICED
TO
RENOUNCE
AMERICAN
CITIZENSHIP;
CASE
AT
BAR.
By
filing
a
certificate
of
candidacy
when
he
ran
for
his
present
post,
private
respondent
elected
Philippine
citizenship
and
in
effect
renounced
his
American
citizenship.
The
filing
of
such
certificate
of
candidacy
sufficed
to
renounce
his
American
citizenship,
effectively
removing
any
disqualification
he
might
have
as
a
dual
citizen.
Thus,
inFrivaldo
vs.
COMELEC
it
was
held:
It
is
not
disputed
that
on
January
20,
1983
Frivaldo
became
an
American.
Would
the
retroactivity
of
his
repatriation
not
effectively
give
him
dual
citizenship,
which
under
Sec.
40
of
the
Local
Government
Code
would
disqualify
him
"from
running
for
any
elective
local
position?"
We
answer
this
question
in
the
negative,
as
there
is
cogent
reason
to
hold
that
Frivaldo
was
really
STATELESS
at
the
time
he
took
said
oath
of
allegiance
and
even
before
that,
when
he
ran
for
governor
in
1988.
In
his
Comment,
Frivaldo
wrote
that
he
"had
long
renounced
and
had
long
abandoned
his
American
citizenship
long
before
May
8,
1995.
At
best,
Frivaldo
was
stateless
in
the
interim
when
he
abandoned
and
renounced
his
US
citizenship
but
before
he
was
repatriated
to
his
Filipino
citizenship."
On
this
point,
we
quote
from
the
assailed
Resolution
dated
December
19,
1995:
"By
the
laws
of
the
United
States,
petitioner
Frivaldo
lost
his
American
citizenship
when
he
took
his
oath
of
allegiance
to
the
Philippine
Government
when
he
ran
for
Governor
in
1988,
in
1992,
and
in
1995.
Every
certificate
of
candidacy
contains
an
oath
of
allegiance
to
the
Philippine
Government."
These
factual
findings
that
Frivaldo
has
lost
his
foreign
nationality
long
before
the
elections
of
1995
have
not
been
effectively
rebutted
by
Lee.
Furthermore,
it
is
basic
that
such
findings
of
the
Commission
are
conclusive
upon
this
Court,
absent
any
showing
of
capriciousness
or
arbitrariness
or
abuse.
Until
the
filing
of
his
certificate
of
candidacy
on
March
21,
1998,
private
respondent
had
dual
citizenship.
The
acts
attributed
to
him
can
be
considered
simply
as
the
assertion
of
his
American
nationality
before
the
termination
of
his
American
citizenship.
What
this
Court
said
in
Aznar
vs.
COMELEC
applies
mutatis
mutandis
to
private
respondent
in
the
case
at
bar:
.
.
.
Considering
the
fact
that
admittedly
Osmea
was
both
a
Filipino
and
an
American,
the
mere
fact
that
he
has
a
Certificate
stating
he
is
an
American
does
not
mean
that
he
is
not
still
a
Filipino.
.
.
[T]he
Certification
that
he
is
an
American
does
not
mean
that
he
is
not
still
a
Filipino,
possessed
as
he
is,
of
both
nationalities
or
citizenships.
Indeed,
there
is
no
express
renunciation
here
of
Philippine
citizenship;
truth
to
tell,
there
is
even
no
implied
renunciation
of
said
citizenship.
When
We
consider
that
the
renunciation
needed
to
lose
Philippine
citizenship
must
be
"express,"
it
stands
to
reason
that
there
can
be
no
such
loss
of
Philippine
citizenship
when
there
is
no
renunciation,
either
"express"
or
"implied."
To
recapitulate,
by
declaring
in
his
certificate
of
candidacy
that
he
is
a
Filipino
citizen;
that
he
is
not
a
permanent
resident
or
immigrant
of
another
country;
that
he
will
defend
and
support
the
Constitution
of
the
Philippines
and
bear
true
faith
and
allegiance
thereto
and
that
he
does
so
without
mental
reservation,
private
respondent
has,
as
far
as
the
laws
of
this
country
are
concerned,
effectively
repudiated
his
American
citizenship
and
anything
which
he
may
have
said
before
as
a
dual
citizen.
On
the
other
hand,
private
respondent's
oath
of
allegiance
to
the
Philippines,
when
considered
with
the
fact
that
he
has
spent
his
youth
and
adulthood,
received
his
education,
practiced
his
profession
as
an
artist,
and
taken
part
in
past
elections
in
this
country,
leaves
no
doubt
of
his
election
of
Philippine
citizenship.
acCITS
D
E
C
I
S
I
O
N
MENDOZA,
J
p:
Petitioner
Ernesto
S.
Mercado
and
private
respondent
Eduardo
B.
Manzano
were
candidates
for
vice
mayor
of
the
City
of
Makati
in
the
May
11,
1998
elections.
The
other
one
was
Gabriel
V.
Daza
III.
The
results
of
the
election
were
as
follows:
Eduardo
B.
Manzano
103,853
Ernesto
S.
Mercado
100,894
Gabriel
V.
Daza
III
54,275
1
The
proclamation
of
private
respondent
was
suspended
in
view
of
a
pending
petition
for
disqualification
filed
by
a
certain
Ernesto
Mamaril
who
alleged
that
private
respondent
was
not
a
citizen
of
the
Philippines
but
of
the
United
States.
In
its
resolution,
dated
May
7,
1998,
2
the
Second
Division
of
the
COMELEC
granted
the
petition
of
Mamaril
and
ordered
the
cancellation
of
the
certificate
of
candidacy
of
private
respondent
on
the
ground
that
he
is
a
dual
citizen
and,
under
40(d)
of
the
Local
Government
Code,
persons
with
dual
citizenship
are
disqualified
from
running
for
any
elective
position.
The
COMELEC's
Second
Division
said:
What
is
presented
before
the
Commission
is
a
petition
for
disqualification
of
Eduardo
Barrios
Manzano
as
candidate
for
the
office
of
Vice-Mayor
of
Makati
City
in
the
May
11,
1998
elections.
The
petition
is
based
on
the
ground
that
the
respondent
is
an
American
citizen
based
on
the
record
of
the
Bureau
of
Immigration
and
misrepresented
himself
as
a
natural-born
Filipino
citizen.
In
his
answer
to
the
petition
filed
on
April
27,
1998,
the
respondent
admitted
that
he
is
registered
as
a
foreigner
with
the
Bureau
of
Immigration
under
Alien
Certificate
of
Registration
No.
B-31632
and
alleged
that
he
is
a
Filipino
citizen
because
he
was
born
in
1955
of
a
Filipino
father
and
a
Filipino
mother.
He
was
born
in
the
United
States,
San
Francisco,
California,
on
September
14,
1955,
and
is
considered
an
American
citizen
under
US
Laws.
But
notwithstanding
his
registration
as
an
American
citizen,
he
did
not
lose
his
Filipino
citizenship.
Judging
from
the
foregoing
facts,
it
would
appear
that
respondent
Manzano
is
both
a
Filipino
and
a
US
citizen.
In
other
words,
he
holds
dual
citizenship.
The
question
presented
is
whether
under
our
laws,
he
is
disqualified
from
the
position
for
which
he
filed
his
certificate
of
candidacy.
Is
he
eligible
for
the
office
he
seeks
to
be
elected?
Under
Section
40(d)
of
the
Local
Government
Code,
those
holding
dual
citizenship
are
disqualified
from
running
for
any
elective
local
position.
WHEREFORE,
the
Commission
hereby
declares
the
respondent
Eduardo
Barrios
Manzano
DISQUALIFIED
as
candidate
for
Vice-Mayor
of
Makati
City.
On
May
8,
1998,
private
respondent
filed
a
motion
for
reconsideration.
3
The
motion
remained
pending
even
until
after
the
election
held
on
May
11,
1998.
Accordingly,
pursuant
to
Omnibus
Resolution
No.
3044,
dated
May
10,
1998,
of
the
COMELEC,
the
board
of
canvassers
tabulated
the
votes
cast
for
vice
mayor
of
Makati
City
but
suspended
the
proclamation
of
the
winner.
On
May
19,
1998,
petitioner
sought
to
intervene
in
the
case
for
disqualification.
4
Petitioner's
motion
was
opposed
by
private
respondent.
The
motion
was
not
resolved.
Instead,
on
August
31,
1998,
the
COMELEC
en
banc
rendered
its
resolution.
Voting
4
to
1,
with
one
commissioner
abstaining,
the
COMELEC
en
banc
reversed
the
ruling
of
its
Second
Division
and
declared
private
respondent
qualified
to
run
for
vice
mayor
of
the
City
of
Makati
in
the
May
11,
1998
elections.
5
The
pertinent
portions
of
the
resolution
of
the
COMELEC
en
banc
read:
As
aforesaid,
respondent
Eduardo
Barrios
Manzano
was
born
in
San
Francisco,
California,
U.S.A.
He
acquired
US
citizenship
by
operation
of
the
United
States
Constitution
and
laws
under
the
principle
of
jus
soli.
He
was
also
a
natural
born
Filipino
citizen
by
operation
of
the
1935
Philippine
Constitution,
as
his
father
and
mother
were
Filipinos
at
the
time
of
his
birth.
At
the
age
of
six
(6),
his
parents
brought
him
to
the
Philippines
using
an
American
passport
as
travel
document.
His
parents
also
registered
him
as
an
alien
with
the
Philippine
Bureau
of
Immigration.
He
was
issued
an
alien
certificate
of
registration.
This,
however,
did
not
result
in
the
loss
of
his
Philippine
citizenship,
as
he
did
not
renounce
Philippine
citizenship
and
did
not
take
an
oath
of
allegiance
to
the
United
States.
It
is
an
undisputed
fact
that
when
respondent
attained
the
age
of
majority,
he
registered
himself
as
a
voter,
and
voted
in
the
elections
of
1992,
1995
and
1998,
which
effectively
renounced
his
citizenship
under
American
law.
Under
Philippine
law,
he
no
longer
had
U.S.
citizenship.
At
the
time
of
the
May
11,
1998
elections,
the
resolution
of
the
Second
Division,
adopted
on
May
7,
1998,
was
not
yet
final.
Respondent
Manzano
obtained
the
highest
number
of
votes
among
the
candidates
for
vice-mayor
of
Makati
City,
garnering
one
hundred
three
thousand
eight
hundred
fifty-three
(103,853)
votes
over
his
closest
rival,
Ernesto
S.
Mercado,
who
obtained
one
hundred
thousand
eight
hundred
ninety-four
(100,894)
votes,
or
a
margin
of
two
thousand
nine
hundred
fifty-nine
(2,959)
votes.
Gabriel
Daza
III
obtained
third
place
with
fifty
four
thousand
two
hundred
seventy-five
(54,275)
votes.
In
applying
election
laws,
it
would
be
far
better
to
err
in
favor
of
the
popular
choice
than
be
embroiled
in
complex
legal
issues
involving
private
international
law
which
may
well
be
settled
before
the
highest
court
(Cf.
Frivaldo
vs.
Commission
on
Elections,
257
SCRA
727).
WHEREFORE,
the
Commission
en
banc
hereby
REVERSES
the
resolution
of
the
Second
Division,
adopted
on
May
7,
1998,
ordering
the
cancellation
of
the
respondent's
certificate
of
candidacy.
We
declare
respondent
Eduardo
Luis
Barrios
Manzano
to
be
QUALIFIED
as
a
candidate
for
the
position
of
vice-mayor
of
Makati
City
in
the
May
11,
1998,
elections.
ACCORDINGLY,
the
Commission
directs
the
Makati
City
Board
of
Canvassers,
upon
proper
notice
to
the
parties,
to
reconvene
and
proclaim
the
respondent
Eduardo
Luis
Barrios
Manzano
as
the
winning
candidate
for
vice-mayor
of
Makati
City.
Pursuant
to
the
resolution
of
the
COMELEC
en
banc,
the
board
of
canvassers,
on
the
evening
of
August
31,
1998,
proclaimed
private
respondent
as
vice
mayor
of
the
City
of
Makati.
cdasia
This
is
a
petition
for
certiorari
seeking
to
set
aside
the
aforesaid
resolution
of
the
COMELEC
en
banc
and
to
declare
private
respondent
disqualified
to
hold
the
office
of
vice
mayor
of
Makati
City.
Petitioner
contends
that
[T]he
COMELEC
en
banc
ERRED
in
holding
that:
A.
Under
Philippine
law,
Manzano
was
no
longer
a
U.S.
citizen
when
he:
1.
He
renounced
his
U.S.
citizenship
when
he
attained
the
age
of
majority
when
he
was
already
37
years
old;
and,
2.
He
renounced
his
U.S.
citizenship
when
he
(merely)
registered
himself
as
a
voter
and
voted
in
the
elections
of
1992,
1995
and
1998.
B.
Manzano
is
qualified
to
run
for
and
or
hold
the
elective
office
of
Vice-Mayor
of
the
City
of
Makati;
C.
At
the
time
of
the
May
11,
1998
elections,
the
resolution
of
the
Second
Division
adopted
on
7
May
1998
was
not
yet
final
so
that,
effectively,
petitioner
may
not
be
declared
the
winner
even
assuming
that
Manzano
is
disqualified
to
run
for
and
hold
the
elective
office
of
Vice-Mayor
of
the
City
of
Makati.
We
first
consider
the
threshold
procedural
issue
raised
by
private
respondent
Manzano
whether
petitioner
Mercado
has
personality
to
bring
this
suit
considering
that
he
was
not
an
original
party
in
the
case
for
disqualification
filed
by
Ernesto
Mamaril
nor
was
petitioner's
motion
for
leave
to
intervene
granted.
I.
PETITIONER'S
RIGHT
TO
BRING
THIS
SUIT
Private
respondent
cites
the
following
provisions
of
Rule
8
of
the
Rules
of
Procedure
of
the
COMELEC
in
support
of
his
claim
that
petitioner
has
no
right
to
intervene
and,
therefore,
cannot
bring
this
suit
to
set
aside
the
ruling
denying
his
motion
for
intervention:
SECTION
1.
When
proper
and
when
may
be
permitted
to
intervene.
Any
person
allowed
to
initiate
an
action
or
proceeding
may,
before
or
during
the
trial
of
an
action
or
proceeding,
be
permitted
by
the
Commission,
in
its
discretion
to
intervene
in
such
action
or
proceeding,
if
he
has
legal
interest
in
the
matter
in
litigation,
or
in
the
success
of
either
of
the
parties,
or
an
interest
against
both,
or
when
he
is
so
situated
as
to
be
adversely
affected
by
such
action
or
proceeding.
xxx
xxx
xxx
SECTION
3.
Discretion
of
Commission.
In
allowing
or
disallowing
a
motion
for
intervention,
the
Commission
or
the
Division,
in
the
exercise
of
its
discretion,
shall
consider
whether
or
not
the
intervention
will
unduly
delay
or
prejudice
the
adjudication
of
the
rights
of
the
original
parties
and
whether
or
not
the
intervenor's
rights
may
be
fully
protected
in
a
separate
action
or
proceeding.
Private
respondent
argues
that
petitioner
has
neither
legal
interest
in
the
matter
in
litigation
nor
an
interest
to
protect
because
he
is
"a
defeated
candidate
for
the
vice-mayoralty
post
of
Makati
City
[who]
cannot
be
proclaimed
as
the
Vice-
Mayor
of
Makati
City
even
if
the
private
respondent
be
ultimately
disqualified
by
final
and
executory
judgment."
The
flaw
in
this
argument
is
it
assumes
that,
at
the
time
petitioner
sought
to
intervene
in
the
proceedings
before
the
COMELEC,
there
had
already
been
a
proclamation
of
the
results
of
the
election
for
the
vice
mayoralty
contest
for
Makati
City,
on
the
basis
of
which
petitioner
came
out
only
second
to
private
respondent.
The
fact,
however,
is
that
there
had
been
no
proclamation
at
that
time.
Certainly,
petitioner
had,
and
still
has,
an
interest
in
ousting
private
respondent
from
the
race
at
the
time
he
sought
to
intervene.
The
rule
in
Labo
v.
COMELEC,
6
reiterated
in
several
cases,
7
only
applies
to
cases
in
which
the
election
of
the
respondent
is
contested,
and
the
question
is
whether
one
who
placed
second
to
the
disqualified
candidate
may
be
declared
the
winner.
In
the
present
case,
at
the
time
petitioner
filed
a
"Motion
for
Leave
to
File
Intervention"
on
May
20,
1998,
there
had
been
no
proclamation
of
the
winner,
and
petitioner's
purpose
was
precisely
to
have
private
respondent
disqualified
"from
running
for
[an]
elective
local
position"
under
40(d)
of
R.A.
No.
7160.
If
Ernesto
Mamaril
(who
originally
instituted
the
disqualification
proceedings),
a
registered
voter
of
Makati
City,
was
competent
to
bring
the
action,
so
was
petitioner
since
the
latter
was
a
rival
candidate
for
vice
mayor
of
Makati
City.
Nor
is
petitioner's
interest
in
the
matter
in
litigation
any
less
because
he
filed
a
motion
for
intervention
only
on
May
20,
1998,
after
private
respondent
had
been
shown
to
have
garnered
the
highest
number
of
votes
among
the
candidates
for
vice
mayor.
That
petitioner
had
a
right
to
intervene
at
that
stage
of
the
proceedings
for
the
disqualification
against
private
respondent
is
clear
from
6
of
R.A.
No.
6646,
otherwise
known
as
the
Electoral
Reforms
Law
of
1987,
which
provides:
Any
candidate
who
has
been
declared
by
final
judgment
to
be
disqualified
shall
not
be
voted
for,
and
the
votes
cast
for
him
shall
not
be
counted.
If
for
any
reason
a
candidate
is
not
declared
by
final
judgment
before
an
election
to
be
disqualified
and
he
is
voted
for
and
receives
the
winning
number
of
votes
in
such
election,
the
Court
or
Commission
shall
continue
with
the
trial
and
hearing
of
the
action,
inquiry,
or
protest
and,
upon
motion
of
the
complainant
or
any
intervenor,
may
during
the
pendency
thereof
order
the
suspension
of
the
proclamation
of
such
candidate
whenever
the
evidence
of
guilt
is
strong.
Under
this
provision,
intervention
may
be
allowed
in
proceedings
for
disqualification
even
after
election
if
there
has
yet
been
no
final
judgment
rendered.
The
failure
of
the
COMELEC
en
banc
to
resolve
petitioner's
motion
for
intervention
was
tantamount
to
a
denial
of
the
motion,
justifying
petitioner
in
filing
the
instant
petition
for
certiorari.
As
the
COMELEC
en
banc
instead
decided
the
merits
of
the
case,
the
present
petition
properly
deals
not
only
with
the
denial
of
petitioner's
motion
for
intervention
but
also
with
the
substantive
issues
respecting
private
respondent's
alleged
disqualification
on
the
ground
of
dual
citizenship.
This
brings
us
to
the
next
question,
namely,
whether
private
respondent
Manzano
possesses
dual
citizenship
and,
if
so,
whether
he
is
disqualified
from
being
a
candidate
for
vice
mayor
of
Makati
City.
II.
DUAL
CITIZENSHIP
AS
A
GROUND
FOR
DISQUALIFICATION
The
disqualification
of
private
respondent
Manzano
is
being
sought
under
40
of
the
Local
Government
Code
of
1991
(R.A.
No.
7160),
which
declares
as
"disqualified
from
running
for
any
elective
local
position:
.
.
.
(d)
Those
with
dual
citizenship."
This
provision
is
incorporated
in
the
Charter
of
the
City
of
Makati.
8
Invoking
the
maxim
dura
lex
sed
lex,
petitioner,
as
well
as
the
Solicitor
General,
who
sides
with
him
in
this
case,
contends
that
through
40(d)
of
theLocal
Government
Code,
Congress
has
"command[ed]
in
explicit
terms
the
ineligibility
of
persons
possessing
dual
allegiance
to
hold
local
elective
office."
To
begin
with,
dual
citizenship
is
different
from
dual
allegiance.
The
former
arises
when,
as
a
result
of
the
concurrent
application
of
the
different
laws
of
two
or
more
states,
a
person
is
simultaneously
considered
a
national
by
the
said
states.
9
For
instance,
such
a
situation
may
arise
when
a
person
whose
parents
are
citizens
of
a
state
which
adheres
to
the
principle
of
jus
sanguinis
is
born
in
a
state
which
follows
the
doctrine
of
jus
soli.
Such
a
person,ipso
facto
and
without
any
voluntary
act
on
his
part,
is
concurrently
considered
a
citizen
of
both
states.
Considering
the
citizenship
clause
(Art.
IV)
of
ourConstitution,
it
is
possible
for
the
following
classes
of
citizens
of
the
Philippines
to
possess
dual
citizenship:
(1)
Those
born
of
Filipino
fathers
and/or
mothers
in
foreign
countries
which
follow
the
principle
of
jus
soli;
(2)
Those
born
in
the
Philippines
of
Filipino
mothers
and
alien
fathers
if
by
the
laws
of
their
fathers'
country
such
children
are
citizens
of
that
country;
(3)
Those
who
marry
aliens
if
by
the
laws
of
the
latter's
country
the
former
are
considered
citizens,
unless
by
their
act
or
omission
they
are
deemed
to
have
renounced
Philippine
citizenship.
There
may
be
other
situations
in
which
a
citizen
of
the
Philippines
may,
without
performing
any
act,
be
also
a
citizen
of
another
state;
but
the
above
cases
are
clearly
possible
given
the
constitutional
provisions
on
citizenship.
Dual
allegiance,
on
the
other
hand,
refers
to
the
situation
in
which
a
person
simultaneously
owes,
by
some
positive
act,
loyalty
to
two
or
more
states.
While
dual
citizenship
is
involuntary,
dual
allegiance
is
the
result
of
an
individual's
volition.
With
respect
to
dual
allegiance,
Article
IV,
5
of
the
Constitution
provides:
"Dual
allegiance
of
citizens
is
inimical
to
the
national
interest
and
shall
be
dealt
with
by
law."
This
provision
was
included
in
the
1987
Constitution
at
the
instance
of
Commissioner
Blas
F.
Ople
who
explained
its
necessity
as
follows:
10
.
.
.
I
want
to
draw
attention
to
the
fact
that
dual
allegiance
is
not
dual
citizenship.
I
have
circulated
a
memorandum
to
the
Bernas
Committee
according
to
which
a
dual
allegiance
and
I
reiterate
a
dual
allegiance
is
larger
and
more
threatening
than
that
of
mere
double
citizenship
which
is
seldom
intentional
and,
perhaps,
never
insidious.
That
is
often
a
function
of
the
accident
of
mixed
marriages
or
of
birth
on
foreign
soil.
And
so,
I
do
not
question
double
citizenship
at
all.
What
we
would
like
the
Committee
to
consider
is
to
take
constitutional
cognizance
of
the
problem
of
dual
allegiance.
For
example,
we
all
know
what
happens
in
the
triennial
elections
of
the
Federation
of
Filipino-Chinese
Chambers
of
Commerce
which
consists
of
about
600
chapters
all
over
the
country.
There
is
a
Peking
ticket,
as
well
as
a
Taipei
ticket.
Not
widely
known
is
the
fact
that
the
Filipino-Chinese
community
is
represented
in
the
Legislative
Yuan
of
the
Republic
of
China
in
Taiwan.
And
until
recently,
the
sponsor
might
recall,
in
Mainland
China
in
the
People's
Republic
of
China,
they
have
the
Associated
Legislative
Council
for
overseas
Chinese
wherein
all
of
Southeast
Asia
including
some
European
and
Latin
countries
were
represented,
which
was
dissolved
after
several
years
because
of
diplomatic
friction.
At
that
time,
the
Filipino-Chinese
were
also
represented
in
that
Overseas
Council.
When
I
speak
of
double
allegiance,
therefore,
I
speak
of
this
unsettled
kind
of
allegiance
of
Filipinos,
of
citizens
who
are
already
Filipinos
but
who,
by
their
acts,
may
be
said
to
be
bound
by
a
second
allegiance,
either
to
Peking
or
Taiwan.
I
also
took
close
note
of
the
concern
expressed
by
some
Commissioners
yesterday,
including
Commissioner
Villacorta,
who
were
concerned
about
the
lack
of
guarantees
of
thorough
assimilation,
and
especially
Commissioner
Concepcion
who
has
always
been
worried
about
minority
claims
on
our
natural
resources.
Dual
allegiance
can
actually
siphon
scarce
national
capital
to
Taiwan,
Singapore,
China
or
Malaysia,
and
this
is
already
happening.
Some
of
the
great
commercial
places
in
downtown
Taipei
are
Filipino-owned,
owned
by
Filipino-Chinese
it
is
of
common
knowledge
in
Manila.
It
can
mean
a
tragic
capital
outflow
when
we
have
to
endure
a
capital
famine
which
also
means
economic
stagnation,
worsening
unemployment
and
social
unrest.
And
so,
this
is
exactly
what
we
ask
that
the
Committee
kindly
consider
incorporating
a
new
section,
probably
Section
5,
in
the
article
on
Citizenship
which
will
read
as
follows:
DUAL
ALLEGIANCE
IS
INIMICAL
TO
CITIZENSHIP
AND
SHALL
BE
DEALT
WITH
ACCORDING
TO
LAW.
In
another
session
of
the
Commission,
Ople
spoke
on
the
problem
of
these
citizens
with
dual
allegiance,
thus:
11
.
.
.
A
significant
number
of
Commissioners
expressed
their
concern
about
dual
citizenship
in
the
sense
that
it
implies
a
double
allegiance
under
a
double
sovereignty
which
some
of
us
who
spoke
then
in
a
freewheeling
debate
thought
would
be
repugnant
to
the
sovereignty
which
pervades
theConstitution
and
to
citizenship
itself
which
implies
a
uniqueness
and
which
elsewhere
in
the
Constitution
is
defined
in
terms
of
rights
and
obligations
exclusive
to
that
citizenship
including,
of
course,
the
obligation
to
rise
to
the
defense
of
the
State
when
it
is
threatened,
and
back
of
this,
Commissioner
Bernas,
is,
of
course,
the
concern
for
national
security.
In
the
course
of
those
debates,
I
think
some
noted
the
fact
that
as
a
result
of
the
wave
of
naturalizations
since
the
decision
to
establish
diplomatic
relations
with
the
People's
Republic
of
China
was
made
in
1975,
a
good
number
of
these
naturalized
Filipinos
still
routinely
go
to
Taipei
every
October
10;
and
it
is
asserted
that
some
of
them
do
renew
their
oath
of
allegiance
to
a
foreign
government
maybe
just
to
enter
into
the
spirit
of
the
occasion
when
the
anniversary
of
the
Sun
Yat-Sen
Republic
is
commemorated.
And
so,
I
have
detected
a
genuine
and
deep
concern
about
double
citizenship,
with
its
attendant
risk
of
double
allegiance
which
is
repugnant
to
our
sovereignty
and
national
security.
I
appreciate
what
the
Committee
said
that
this
could
be
left
to
the
determination
of
a
future
legislature.
But
considering
the
scale
of
the
problem,
the
real
impact
on
the
security
of
this
country,
arising
from,
let
us
say,
potentially
great
numbers
of
double
citizens
professing
double
allegiance,
will
the
Committee
entertain
a
proposed
amendment
at
the
proper
time
that
will
prohibit,
in
effect,
or
regulate
double
citizenship?
Clearly,
in
including
5
in
Article
IV
on
citizenship,
the
concern
of
the
Constitutional
Commission
was
not
with
dual
citizens
per
se
but
with
naturalized
citizens
who
maintain
their
allegiance
to
their
countries
of
origin
even
after
their
naturalization.
Hence,
the
phrase
"dual
citizenship"
in
R.A.
No.
7160,
40(d)
and
in
R.A.
No.
7854,
20
must
be
understood
as
referring
to
"dual
allegiance."
Consequently,
persons
with
mere
dual
citizenship
do
not
fall
under
this
disqualification.
Unlike
those
with
dual
allegiance,
who
must,
therefore,
be
subject
to
strict
process
with
respect
to
the
termination
of
their
status,
for
candidates
with
dual
citizenship,
it
should
suffice
if,
upon
the
filing
of
their
certificates
of
candidacy,
they
elect
Philippine
citizenship
to
terminate
their
status
as
persons
with
dual
citizenship
considering
that
their
condition
is
the
unavoidable
consequence
of
conflicting
laws
of
different
states.
As
Joaquin
G.
Bernas,
one
of
the
most
perceptive
members
of
the
Constitutional
Commission,
pointed
out:
"[D]ual
citizenship
is
just
a
reality
imposed
on
us
because
we
have
no
control
of
the
laws
on
citizenship
of
other
countries.
We
recognize
a
child
of
a
Filipino
mother.
But
whether
or
not
she
is
considered
a
citizen
of
another
country
is
something
completely
beyond
our
control."
12
By
electing
Philippine
citizenship,
such
candidates
at
the
same
time
forswear
allegiance
to
the
other
country
of
which
they
are
also
citizens
and
thereby
terminate
their
status
as
dual
citizens.
It
may
be
that,
from
the
point
of
view
of
the
foreign
state
and
of
its
laws,
such
an
individual
has
not
effectively
renounced
his
foreign
citizenship.
That
is
of
no
moment
as
the
following
discussion
on
40(d)
between
Senators
Enrile
and
Pimentel
clearly
shows:
13
SENATOR
ENRILE.
Mr.
President,
I
would
like
to
ask
clarification
of
line
41,
page
17:
"Any
person
with
dual
citizenship"
is
disqualified
to
run
for
any
elective
local
position.
Under
the
present
Constitution,
Mr.
President,
someone
whose
mother
is
a
citizen
of
the
Philippines
but
his
father
is
a
foreigner
is
a
natural-
born
citizen
of
the
Republic.
There
is
no
requirement
that
such
a
natural
born
citizen,
upon
reaching
the
age
of
majority,
must
elect
or
give
up
Philippine
citizenship.
On
the
assumption
that
this
person
would
carry
two
passports,
one
belonging
to
the
country
of
his
or
her
father
and
one
belonging
to
the
Republic
of
the
Philippines,
may
such
a
situation
disqualify
the
person
to
run
for
a
local
government
position?
SENATOR
PIMENTEL.
To
my
mind,
Mr.
President,
it
only
means
that
at
the
moment
when
he
would
want
to
run
for
public
office,
he
has
to
repudiate
one
of
his
citizenships.
SENATOR
ENRILE.
Suppose
he
carries
only
a
Philippine
passport
but
the
country
of
origin
or
the
country
of
the
father
claims
that
person,
nevertheless,
as
a
citizen?
No
one
can
renounce.
There
are
such
countries
in
the
world.
SENATOR
PIMENTEL.
Well,
the
very
fact
that
he
is
running
for
public
office
would,
in
effect,
be
an
election
for
him
of
his
desire
to
be
considered
as
a
Filipino
citizen.
SENATOR
ENRILE.
But,
precisely,
Mr.
President,
the
Constitution
does
not
require
an
election.
Under
the
Constitution,
a
person
whose
mother
is
a
citizen
of
the
Philippines
is,
at
birth,
a
citizen
without
any
overt
act
to
claim
the
citizenship.
SENATOR
PIMENTEL.
Yes.
What
we
are
saying,
Mr.
President,
is:
Under
the
Gentleman's
example,
if
he
does
not
renounce
his
other
citizenship,
then
he
is
opening
himself
to
question.
So,
if
he
is
really
interested
to
run,
the
first
thing
he
should
do
is
to
say
in
the
Certificate
of
Candidacy
that:
"I
am
a
Filipino
citizen,
and
I
have
only
one
citizenship."
SENATOR
ENRILE.
But
we
are
talking
from
the
viewpoint
of
Philippine
law,
Mr.
President.
He
will
always
have
one
citizenship,
and
that
is
the
citizenship
invested
upon
him
or
her
in
the
Constitution
of
the
Republic.
SENATOR
PIMENTEL.
That
is
true,
Mr.
President.
But
if
he
exercises
acts
that
will
prove
that
he
also
acknowledges
other
citizenships,
then
he
will
probably
fall
under
this
disqualification.
This
is
similar
to
the
requirement
that
an
applicant
for
naturalization
must
renounce
"all
allegiance
and
fidelity
to
any
foreign
prince,
potentate,
state,
or
sovereignty"
14
of
which
at
the
time
he
is
a
subject
or
citizen
before
he
can
be
issued
a
certificate
of
naturalization
as
a
citizen
of
the
Philippines.
InParado
v.
Republic,
15
it
was
held:
[W]hen
a
person
applying
for
citizenship
by
naturalization
takes
an
oath
that
he
renounces
his
loyalty
to
any
other
country
or
government
and
solemnly
declares
that
he
owes
his
allegiance
to
the
Republic
of
the
Philippines,
the
condition
imposed
by
law
is
satisfied
and
complied
with.
The
determination
whether
such
renunciation
is
valid
or
fully
complies
with
the
provisions
of
our
Naturalization
Law
lies
within
the
province
and
is
an
exclusive
prerogative
of
our
courts.
The
latter
should
apply
the
law
duly
enacted
by
the
legislative
department
of
the
Republic.
No
foreign
law
may
or
should
interfere
with
its
operation
and
application.
If
the
requirement
of
the
Chinese
Law
of
Nationality
were
to
be
read
into
our
Naturalization
Law,
we
would
be
applying
not
what
our
legislative
department
has
deemed
it
wise
to
require,
but
what
a
foreign
government
has
thought
or
intended
to
exact.
That,
of
course,
is
absurd.
It
must
be
resisted
by
all
means
and
at
all
cost.
It
would
be
a
brazen
encroachment
upon
the
sovereign
will
and
power
of
the
people
of
this
Republic.
III.
PETITIONER'S
ELECTION
OF
PHILIPPINE
CITIZENSHIP
The
record
shows
that
private
respondent
was
born
in
San
Francisco,
California
on
September
4,
1955,
of
Filipino
parents.
Since
the
Philippines
adheres
to
the
principle
of
jus
sanguinis,
while
the
United
States
follows
the
doctrine
of
jus
soli,
the
parties
agree
that,
at
birth
at
least,
he
was
a
national
both
of
the
Philippines
and
of
the
United
States.
However,
the
COMELEC
en
banc
held
that,
by
participating
in
Philippine
elections
in
1992,
1995,
and
1998,
private
respondent
"effectively
renounced
his
U.S.
citizenship
under
American
law,"
so
that
now
he
is
solely
a
Philippine
national.
Petitioner
challenges
this
ruling.
He
argues
that
merely
taking
part
in
Philippine
elections
is
not
sufficient
evidence
of
renunciation
and
that,
in
any
event,
as
the
alleged
renunciation
was
made
when
private
respondent
was
already
37
years
old,
it
was
ineffective
as
it
should
have
been
made
when
he
reached
the
age
of
majority.
In
holding
that
by
voting
in
Philippine
elections
private
respondent
renounced
his
American
citizenship,
the
COMELEC
must
have
in
mind
349
of
the
Immigration
and
Nationality
Act
of
the
United
States,
which
provided
that
"A
person
who
is
a
national
of
the
United
States,
whether
by
birth
or
naturalization,
shall
lose
his
nationality
by:
.
.
.
(e)
Voting
in
a
political
election
in
a
foreign
state
or
participating
in
an
election
or
plebiscite
to
determine
the
sovereignty
over
foreign
territory."
To
be
sure
this
provision
was
declared
unconstitutional
by
the
U.S.
Supreme
Court
in
Afroyim
v.
Rusk
16
as
beyond
the
power
given
to
the
U.S.
Congress
to
regulate
foreign
relations.
However,
by
filing
a
certificate
of
candidacy
when
he
ran
for
his
present
post,
private
respondent
elected
Philippine
citizenship
and
in
effect
renounced
his
American
citizenship.
Private
respondent's
certificate
of
candidacy,
filed
on
March
27,
1998,
contained
the
following
statements
made
under
oath:
6.
I
AM
A
FILIPINO
CITIZEN
(STATE
IF
"NATURAL-BORN"
OR
"NATURALIZED")
NATURAL-BORN
xxx
xxx
xxx
10.
I
AM
A
REGISTERED
VOTER
OF
PRECINCT
NO.
747-A,
BARANGAY
SAN
LORENZO,
CITY/MUNICIPALITY
OF
MAKATI,
PROVINCE
OF
NCR.
11.
I
AM
NOT
A
PERMANENT
RESIDENT
OF,
OR
IMMIGRANT
TO,
A
FOREIGN
COUNTRY.
12.
I
AM
ELIGIBLE
FOR
THE
OFFICE
I
SEEK
TO
BE
ELECTED.
I
WILL
SUPPORT
AND
DEFEND
THE
CONSTITUTION
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES
AND
WILL
MAINTAIN
TRUE
FAITH
AND
ALLEGIANCE
THERETO;
THAT
I
WILL
OBEY
THE
LAWS,
LEGAL
ORDERS
AND
DECREES
PROMULGATED
BY
THE
DULY
CONSTITUTED
AUTHORITIES
OF
THE
REPUBLIC
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES;
AND
THAT
I
IMPOSE
THIS
OBLIGATION
UPON
MYSELF
VOLUNTARILY,
WITHOUT
MENTAL
RESERVATION
OR
PURPOSE
OF
EVASION.
I
HEREBY
CERTIFY
THAT
THE
FACTS
STATED
HEREIN
ARE
TRUE
AND
CORRECT
OF
MY
OWN
PERSONAL
KNOWLEDGE.
The
filing
of
such
certificate
of
candidacy
sufficed
to
renounce
his
American
citizenship,
effectively
removing
any
disqualification
he
might
have
as
a
dual
citizen.
Thus,
in
Frivaldo
v.
COMELEC
it
was
held:
17
It
is
not
disputed
that
on
January
20,
1983
Frivaldo
became
an
American.
Would
the
retroactivity
of
his
repatriation
not
effectively
give
him
dual
citizenship,
which
under
Sec.
40
of
the
Local
Government
Code
would
disqualify
him
"from
running
for
any
elective
local
position?"
We
answer
this
question
in
the
negative,
as
there
is
cogent
reason
to
hold
that
Frivaldo
was
really
STATELESS
at
the
time
he
took
said
oath
of
allegiance
and
even
before
that,
when
he
ran
for
governor
in
1988.
In
his
Comment,
Frivaldo
wrote
that
he
"had
long
renounced
and
had
long
abandoned
his
American
citizenship-long
before
May
8,
1995.
At
best,
Frivaldo
was
stateless
in
the
interim-when
he
abandoned
and
renounced
his
US
citizenship
but
before
he
was
repatriated
to
his
Filipino
citizenship."
On
this
point,
we
quote
from
the
assailed
Resolution
dated
December
19,
1995:
"By
the
laws
of
the
United
States,
petitioner
Frivaldo
lost
his
American
citizenship
when
he
took
his
oath
of
allegiance
to
the
Philippine
Government
when
he
ran
for
Governor
in
1988,
in
1992,
and
in
1995.
Every
certificate
of
candidacy
contains
an
oath
of
allegiance
to
the
Philippine
Government."
These
factual
findings
that
Frivaldo
has
lost
his
foreign
nationality
long
before
the
elections
of
1995
have
not
been
effectively
rebutted
by
Lee.
Furthermore,
it
is
basic
that
such
findings
of
the
Commission
are
conclusive
upon
this
Court,
absent
any
showing
of
capriciousness
or
arbitrariness
or
abuse.
There
is,
therefore,
no
merit
in
petitioner's
contention
that
the
oath
of
allegiance
contained
in
private
respondent's
certificate
of
candidacy
is
insufficient
to
constitute
renunciation
of
his
American
citizenship.
Equally
without
merit
is
petitioner's
contention
that,
to
be
effective,
such
renunciation
should
have
been
made
upon
private
respondent
reaching
the
age
of
majority
since
no
law
requires
the
election
of
Philippine
citizenship
to
be
made
upon
majority
age.
Finally,
much
is
made
of
the
fact
that
private
respondent
admitted
that
he
is
registered
as
an
American
citizen
in
the
Bureau
of
Immigration
and
Deportation
and
that
he
holds
an
American
passport
which
he
used
in
his
last
travel
to
the
United
States
on
April
22,
1997.
There
is
no
merit
in
this.
Until
the
filing
of
his
certificate
of
candidacy
on
March
21,
1998,
he
had
dual
citizenship.
The
acts
attributed
to
him
can
be
considered
simply
as
the
assertion
of
his
American
nationality
before
the
termination
of
his
American
citizenship.
What
this
Court
said
in
Aznar
vs.
COMELEC
18
applies
mutatis
mutandis
to
private
respondent
in
the
case
at
bar:
.
.
.
Considering
the
fact
that
admittedly
Osmea
was
both
a
Filipino
and
an
American,
the
mere
fact
that
he
has
a
Certificate
stating
he
is
an
American
does
not
mean
that
he
is
not
still
a
Filipino.
.
.
.
[T]he
Certification
that
he
is
an
American
does
not
mean
that
he
is
not
still
a
Filipino,
possessed
as
he
is,
of
both
nationalities
or
citizenships.
Indeed,
there
is
no
express
renunciation
here
of
Philippine
citizenship;
truth
to
tell,
there
is
even
no
implied
renunciation
of
said
citizenship.
When
We
consider
that
the
renunciation
needed
to
lose
Philippine
citizenship
must
be
"express,"
it
stands
to
reason
that
there
can
be
no
such
loss
of
Philippine
citizenship
when
there
is
no
renunciation,
either
"express"
or
"implied."
To
recapitulate,
by
declaring
in
his
certificate
of
candidacy
that
he
is
a
Filipino
citizen;
that
he
is
not
a
permanent
resident
or
immigrant
of
another
country;
that
he
will
defend
and
support
the
Constitution
of
the
Philippines
and
bear
true
faith
and
allegiance
thereto
and
that
he
does
so
without
mental
reservation,
private
respondent
has,
as
far
as
the
laws
of
this
country
are
concerned,
effectively
repudiated
his
American
citizenship
and
anything
which
he
may
have
said
before
as
a
dual
citizen.
On
the
other
hand,
private
respondent's
oath
of
allegiance
to
the
Philippines,
when
considered
with
the
fact
that
he
has
spent
his
youth
and
adulthood,
received
his
education,
practiced
his
profession
as
an
artist,
and
taken
part
in
past
elections
in
this
country,
leaves
no
doubt
of
his
election
of
Philippine
citizenship.
His
declarations
will
be
taken
upon
the
faith
that
he
will
fulfill
his
undertaking
made
under
oath.
Should
he
betray
that
trust,
there
are
enough
sanctions
for
declaring
the
loss
of
his
Philippine
citizenship
through
expatriation
in
appropriate
proceedings.
In
Yu
v.
Defensor-Santiago,
19
we
sustained
the
denial
of
entry
into
the
country
of
petitioner
on
the
ground
that,
after
taking
his
oath
as
a
naturalized
citizen,
he
applied
for
the
renewal
of
his
Portuguese
passport
and
declared
in
commercial
documents
executed
abroad
that
he
was
a
Portuguese
national.
A
similar
sanction
can
be
taken
against
any
one
who,
in
electing
Philippine
citizenship,
renounces
his
foreign
nationality,
but
subsequently
does
some
act
constituting
renunciation
of
his
Philippine
citizenship.
cdasia
WHEREFORE,
the
petition
for
certiorari
is
DISMISSED
for
lack
of
merit.
SO
ORDERED.
Davide,
Jr.,
C.J.,
Romero,
Bellosillo,
Melo,
Puno,
Vitug,
Kapunan,
Quisumbing,
Buena,
Gonzaga-Reyes,
and
Ynares-
Santiago,
JJ.,
concur.
Panganiban
and
Purisima,
JJ.,
are
on
leave.
Pardo,
J.,
took
no
part.
Footnotes
1.Petition,
Rollo,
p.
5.
2.Per
Commissioner
Amado
M.
Calderon
and
concurred
in
by
Commissioners
Julio
F.
Desamito
and
Japal
M.
Guiani.
3.Id.,
Annex
E,
Rollo,
pp.
50-63.
4.Rollo,
pp.
78-83.
5.Per
Chairman
Bernardo
P.
Pardo
and
concurred
in
by
Commissioners
Manolo
B.
Gorospe,
Teresita
Dy-Liaco
Flores,
Japal
M.
Guiani,
and
Luzviminda
G.
Tancangco.
Commissioner
Julio
F.
Desamito
dissented.
6.176
SCRA
1
(1989).
7.Abella
v.
COMELEC,
201
SCRA
253
(1991);
Benito
v.
COMELEC,
235
SCRA
436
(1994);
Aquino
v.
COMELEC,
248
SCRA
400
(1995);
Frivaldo
v.
COMELEC,
257
SCRA
727
(1996).
8.R.A.
No.
7854,
the
Charter
of
the
City
of
Makati,
provides:
"Sec.
20
The
following
are
disqualified
from
running
for
any
elective
position
in
the
city:
.
.
.
(d)
Those
with
dual
citizenship."
9.JOVITO
R.
SALONGA,
PRIVATE
INTERNATIONAL
LAW
166
(1995).
10.Id.,
at
361
(Session
of
July
8,
1986).
11.Id.,
at
233-234
(Session
of
June
25,
1986).
12.1
RECORD
OF
THE
CONSTITUTIONAL
COMMISSION
203
(Session
of
June
23,
1986).
13.Transcript,
pp.
5-6,
Session
of
Nov.
27,
1990.
14.C.A.
No.
473,
12.
15.86
Phil.
340,
343
(1950).
16.387
U.S.
253,
18
L.
Ed.
2d
757
(1967),
overruling
Perez
v.
Brownell,
356
U.S.
2
L.
Ed.
2d
603
(1958).
17.257
SCRA
727,
759-760
(1996).
18.185
SCRA
703,
711
(1990).
See
also
Kawakita
v.
United
States,
343
U.S.
717,
96
L.
Ed.
1249
(1952).
19.169
SCRA
364
(1989).
|||
(Mercado
v.
Manzano,
G.R.
No.
135083,
[May
26,
1999],
367
PHIL
132-153)
EN
BANC
[G.R.
No.
120099.
July
24,
1996.]
EDUARDO
T.
RODRIGUEZ,
petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION
ON
ELECTIONS,
BIENVENIDO
O.
MARQUEZ,
JR.,
respondents.
Marcial
O.T.
Balgos
for
petitioner.
Estelito
P.
Mendoza
for
private
respondent.
SYLLABUS
1.
POLITICAL
LAW;
ELECTIONS;
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
CODE
(R.A.
7160);
DISQUALIFICATION;
"FUGITIVE
FROM
JUSTICE",
DEFINED.
The
instant
petition
dwells
on
that
nagging
issue
of
whether
Rodriguez
is
a
"fugitive
from
justice,"
the
determination
of
which,
as
we
have
directed
the
COMELEC
on
two
(2)
occasions
(in
the
MARQUEZ
Decision
and
in
the
Court's
October
24,
1995
Resolution),
must
conform
to
how
such
term
has
been
defined
by
the
Court
in
the
MARQUEZ
Decision.
To
reiterate,
a
"fugitive
from
justice"
includes
not
only
those
who
flee
after
conviction
to
avoid
punishment
but
likewise
who,
after
being
charged,
flee
to
avoid
prosecution."
The
definition
thus
indicates
that
the
intent
to
evade
is
the
compelling
factor
that
animates
one's
flight
from
a
particular
jurisdiction.
And
obviously,
there
can
only
be
an
intent
to
evade
prosecution
or
punishment
when
there
is
knowledge
by
the
fleeing
subject
of
an
already
instituted
indictment,
or
of
a
promulgated
judgment
of
conviction.
2.
REMEDIAL
LAW;
ACTIONS;
LAW
OF
THE
CASE;
COURT
CANNOT
CRAFT
AN
EXPANDED
DEFINITION
OF
A
"FUGITIVE
FROM
JUSTICE"
DEFINED
IN
ITS
EARLIER
DECISION.
Marquez
and
the
COMELEC
(in
its
"COMMISSION'S
EVALUATION"
as
earlier
quoted)
seem
to
urge
the
Court
to
re-define
"fugitive
from
justice."
They
espouse
the
broader
concept
of
the
term
as
culled
from
foreign
authorities
(mainly
of
U.S.
vintage)
cited
in
the
MARQUEZ
Decision
itself,
i.e.
that
one
becomes
a
"fugitive
from
justice"
by
the
mere
fact
that
he
leaves
the
jurisdiction
where
a
charge
is
pending
against
him,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
the
charge
has
already
been
filed
at
the
time
of
his
flight.
Suffice
it
to
say
that
the
"law
of
the
case"
doctrine
forbids
the
Court
to
craft
an
expanded
re-definition
of
"fugitive
from
justice"
(which
is
at
variance
with
the
MARQUEZ
Decision)
and
proceed
therefrom
in
resolving
the
instant
petition.
To
elaborate,
the
same
parties
(Rodriguez
and
Marquez)
and
issue
(whether
or
not
Rodriguez
is
a
"fugitive
from
justice")
are
involved
in
the
MARQUEZ
Decision
and
the
instant
petition.
The
MARQUEZ
Decision
was
an
appeal
from
EPC
No.
92-28
(the
Marquez'
quo
warranto
petition
before
the
COMELEC).
The
instant
petition
is
also
an
appeal
from
EPC
No.
92-28
although
the
COMELEC
resolved
the
latter
jointly
with
SPA
No.
95-089
(Marquez'
petition
for
the
disqualification
of
Rodriguez).
Therefore,
what
was
irrevocably
established
as
the
controlling
legal
rule
in
the
MARQUEZ
Decision
must
govern
the
instant
petition.
And
we
specifically
refer
to
the
concept
of
"fugitive
from
justice"
as
defined
in
the
main
opinion
in
the
MARQUEZ
Decision
which
highlights
the
significance
of
an
intent
to
evade
but
which
Marquez
and
the
COMELEC,
with
their
proposed
expanded
definition,
seem
to
trivialize.
Besides,
to
re-define
"fugitive
from
justice"would
only
foment
instability
in
our
jurisprudence
when
hardly
has
the
ink
dried
in
the
MARQUEZ
Decision.
3.
POLITICAL
LAW;
ELECTIONS;
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
CODE
(R.A.
7160);
DISQUALIFICATION;
"FUGITIVE
FROM
JUSTICE";
FILING
OF
CHARGES
AT
THE
TIME
OF
FLIGHT,
INDISPENSABLE.
To
summarize,
the
term
"fugitive
from
justice"
as
a
ground
for
the
disqualification
or
ineligibility
of
a
person
seeking
to
run
for
any
elective
local
position
under
Section
40(e)
of
the
Local
Government
Code,
should
be
understood
according
to
the
definition
given
in
the
MARQUEZ
Decision,
to
wit:
"A
'fugitive
from
justice'
includes
not
only
those
who
flee
after
conviction
to
avoid
punishment
but
likewise
those
who,
after
being
charged,
flee
to
avoid
prosecution."
Intent
to
evade
on
the
part
of
a
candidate
must
therefore
be
established
by
proof
that
there
has
already
been
a
conviction
or
at
least,
a
charge
has
already
been
filed,
at
the
time
of
flight.
Not
being
a
"fugitive
from
justice"
under
this
definition,
Rodriguez
cannot
be
denied
the
Quezon
Province
gubernatorial
post.
TORRES,
JR.,
J.,
concurring
opinion:
1.
POLITICAL
LAW;
ELECTION;
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
CODE
(R.A.
7160);
DISQUALIFICATION;
CANDIDATE
WHO
RETURNED
TO
THE
PHILIPPINES
FIVE
MONTHS
BEFORE
THE
FILING
OF
CRIMINAL
CHARGES
IN
THE
UNITED
STATES,
NOT
A
"FUGITIVE
FROM
JUSTICE."
Petitioner
should
not
be
considered
disqualified
or
ineligible
from
assuming
and
performing
the
functions
of
Governor
of
Quezon
Province.
Petitioner
returned
to
the
Philippines
from
the
United
States
on
June
25,
1985
while
the
criminal
complaint
against
him
for
fraudulent
insurance
claims,
grand
theft
and
attempted
grand
theft
of
personal
property
before
the
Municipal
Court
of
Los
Angles,
California
was
filed
almost
5
months
later,
or
on
November
12,
1985.
Verily,
it
cannot
be
said
that
he
fled
to
avoid
prosecution
for
at
the
time
he
left
the
United
States,
there
was
yet
no
case
or
prosecution
to
avoid.
2.
ID.;
ID.;
WHERE
A
CANDIDATE
HAS
RECEIVED
POPULAR
MANDATE,
ALL
POSSIBLE
DOUBTS
SHOULD
BE
RESOLVED
IN
FAVOR
OF
CANDIDATES'
ELIGIBILITY.
Petitioner
appears
to
have
garnered
285,202
votes.
According
to
the
election
results,
petitioner
won
over
private
respondent
by
a
majority
of
140,000
votes
more
or
less.
As
it
is,
to
disqualify
petitioner
on
the
shaky
ground
of
being
a
"fugitive
from
justice"
would
amount
to
disenfranchising
the
electorate
in
whom
sovereignty
resides.
Thus,
where
a
candidate
has
received
popular
mandate,
overwhelmingly
and
clearly
expressed,
all
possible
doubts
should
be
resolved
in
favor
of
the
candidate's
eligibility,
for
the
rule
otherwise
is
to
defeat
the
will
of
the
people.
Above
and
beyond
all,
the
determination
of
the
true
will
of
the
electorate
should
be
paramount.
It
is
their
voice,
not
ours
or
of
anyone
else,
that
must
prevail.
This,
in
essence,
is
the
democracy
we
continue
to
hold
sacred.
VITUG,
J.,
dissenting
opinion:
1.
REMEDIAL
LAW;
ACTIONS;
FORUM-SHOPPING;
ACTIONS
ARE
OF
THE
SAME
NATURE
AND
INVOLVE
IDENTICAL
ISSUES
BETWEEN
THE
PARTIES;
DOES
NOT
APPLY
WHERE
A
PARTY
FILES
DISQUALIFICATION
CASES
FOR
TWO
DIFFERENT
GUBERNATORIAL
TERMS;
CASE
AT
BAR.
Rodriguez
contends
that
the
COMELEC
should
not
have
entertained
the
disqualification
case
(SPA
NO.
95-089)
for
being
an
act
of
"forum-shopping"
on
the
part
of
Marquez.
Clearly,
there
is
no
merit
in
this
submission.
The
general
statement
of
the
prohibition
against
forum-shopping
is
that
a
party
should
not
be
allowed
to
pursue
on
the
same
subject
matter
simultaneous
remedies
in
two
or
more
different
fora
that
can
tend
to
degrade
the
administration
of
justice
by
thusly
trifling
with
the
courts
and
abusing
their
processes.
Forum-shopping
exists
where
the
action
are
the
same
nature
and
involve
identical
transactions,
circumstances,
and
issues
between
the
same
parties.
While
there
is
identity
in
many
respect
between
SPA
No.
95-089
and
EPC
No.
92-28,
the
two
cases,
however,
greatly
differ
in
their
main
aspects.
EPC
No.
92-28
(subject
case
of
G.R.
No.
112889)
is
a
quo
warranto
case
and
involves
petitioner's
gubernatorial
incumbency
for
the
term
1992-1995
while
SPA
No.
95-089
is
disqualification
case
involving
his
candidacy
for
the
1995
local
elections.
2.
POLITICAL
LAW;
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
CODE
OF
1991;
SEC.
40(E)
THEREOF,
NOT
AN
EX
POST
FACTO
LAW
OR
A
BILL
OF
ATTAINDER.
Rodriguez
argues
that
should
Section
40(e)
of
the
Local
Government
Code
of
1991
be
applied
to
him,
it
would
partake
the
nature
of
an
ex
post
facto
law
or
a
bill
of
attainder.
These
terms
have
settled
meanings
in
criminal
law
jurisprudence
that
clearly
have
no
relevance
to
the
case
before
us.
Besides
the
Local
Government
Codetook
effect
01
January
1992,
and
thus
its
application
to
Rodriguez
in
his
gubernatorial
incumbency
that
started
in
mid-1992
and
his
candidacy
for
the
1995
elections
cannot
be
deemed
to
be
retrospective
in
character.
3.
ID.;
ELECTIONS;
OMNIBUS
ELECTION
CODE;
SEVEN
(7)-DAY
PERIOD
TO
RESOLVE
DISQUALIFICATION
CASES,
MERELY
DIRECTORY.
Petitioner
claims
that
the
COMELEC
did
not
have
jurisdiction
to
issue
the
questioned
resolution
on
the
eve
of
the
election
because
the
Omnibus
Election
Code
requires
that
final
decisions
in
disqualification
cases
should
be
rendered
not
later
than
seven
(7)
days
before
the
election.
In
any
case,
the
"seven
days"
stated
in
the
law,
being
evidently
intended
for
administrative
feasibility,
should
be
construed
as
a
mere
directory
rather
than
as
a
mandatory,
provision
of
the
Omnibus
Election
Code.
A
provision
should
be
deemed
to
be
directory
only
when
to
have
it
enforced
strictly
may
cause
more
harm
than
by
disregarding
it.
4.
REMEDIAL
LAW;
SPECIAL
CIVIL
ACTIONS;
CERTIORARI;
DENIAL
BY
COMELEC
OF
MOTION
TO
SUSPEND
HEARING
IN
DISQUALIFICATION
CASE
DUE
TO
PENDENCY
OF
QUO
WARRANTO
CASES,
NOT
A
GRAVE
ABUSE
OF
DISCRETION.
The
next
question
posed
was
whether
or
not
the
COMELEC
gravely
abused
its
discretion
when,
in
the
scheduled
hearing
of
26
April
1995,
it
refused
to
grant
the
motion
of
Rodriguez
for
a
suspension
of
hearing.
Far
from
it,
the
denial
by
COMELEC
would
appear
to
have
been
both
prudent
and
legally
warranted.
The
motion
was
grounded
on
the
pendency
of
G.R.
No.
112889
(the
quo
warranto
case),
whereas,
the
26th
April
1995
hearing
related
to
the
disqualification
case
(SPA
95-089)
for
the
1995
election
that
undoubtedly
had
to
be
resolved
quickly.
The
COMELEC
hardly
had
any
choice
but
to
proceed
with
the
hearing
and,
when
Rodriguez
thereupon
walked
out,
Marquez
was
naturally
allowed
to
present
his
evidence
ex-parte.
Perhaps
realizing
that
the
COMELEC
had
acted
correctly,
petitioner
would
question
the
holding
of
the
26th
April
1995
hearing
by
only
one
member
(Commissioner
Teresita
Flores)
of
the
Second
Division.
Not
only
was
this
matter
not
timely
brought
up
before
the
COMELEC,
but
that
there
would
appear
to
be
no
problem
in
the
delegation
by
the
COMELEC
of
the
mere
reception
of
evidence
to
any
one
of
its
members.
All
the
assailed
resolutions
of
COMELEC
would
indicate
that
the
required
concurrence
of
the
Commissioners
was
given.
The
subsequent
consolidation
of
thequo
warranto
case
with
that
of
the
disqualification
case
(following
our
18th
April
1995
decision
remanding
the
case
to
COMELEC),
and
the
promulgation
of
the
07th
May
1995
consolidated
resolution,
would
also
seem
to
be
in
conformity
with
Rule
3,
Section
9,
of
the
COMELEC
Rules
of
Procedure,
which
reads:
"Sec.
9.
Consolidation
of
cases.
When
an
action
or
proceedings
involves
a
question
of
law
and
fact
which
is
similar
to
or
common
with
that
of
another
action
or
proceeding,
the
same
may
be
consolidated
with
the
action
or
proceeding
bearing
the
lower
docket
number."
Moreover,
a
further
hearing
on
thequo
warranto
case
so
involving,
as
it
does,
petitioner's
now
expired
incumbency,
would
be
unnecessary
and
a
futile
effort.
5.
POLITICAL
LAW;
ELECTIONS;
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
CODE
(R.A.
7160);
DISQUALIFICATION;
"FUGITIVE
FROM
JUSTICE";
CONGRESS,
IN
THE
ABSENCE
OF
CLEAR
LEGISLATIVE
INTENT,
MUST
HAVE
INTENDED
THE
ORDINARY
CONNOTATION
OF
THE
TERM
TO
PREVAIL;
TERM
REFERS
TO
ONE
WHO,
HAVING
COMMITTED
OR
BEING
ACCUSED
OF
HAVING
COMMITTED
A
CRIME
IN
ONE
JURISDICTION
CAN
NOT
BE
FOUND
THEREIN,
OR
IS
ABSENT
FOR
ANY
REASON
FROM
THAT
JURISDICTION.
There
is
a
dearth
of
authorities
on
the
proper
and
legal
connotation
of
the
phrase
"fugitive
from
justice."
Neither
the
law
(Republic
Act
No.
7160,
also
known
as
the
Local
Government
Code)
here
in
question
nor
the
deliberations
in
Congress
give
much
clue
to
the
legislative
intent.
The
phrase
has
been
used
in
various
contexts
although
it
is
in
extradition
cases
where
it
appears
to
have
acquired
a
prevalent
usage.
It
is
evident
enough
though,
in
my
view,
that
Congress,
not
having
provided
otherwise,
must
have
intended
the
ordinary
connotation
of
the
term
to
prevail.
So
taken,
it
might
be
understood
as
referring
to
one
who,
having
committed
or
being
accused
of
having
committed
a
crime
in
one
jurisdiction,
cannot
be
found
therein
or
isabsent
for
any
reason
from
the
jurisdiction
that
thereby
forestalls
criminal
justice
from
taking
its
due
course.
The
issue
is
largely
a
factual
matter
and
in
that
determination,
the
motive
or
reason
for
his
plight
need
not
be
inquired
into.
Animus
fugere
may
be
significant
but
it
is
not
essential
and
what
matters
is
notwhy
he
leaves
but
the
fact
that
he
leaves,
for
it
should
not
be
unreasonable
to
assume
that
he
was
not
unaware
of
his
own
prior
deeds
or
misdeeds.
As
so
conceptualized,
the
import
of
the
term
is
more
congruent
than
variant
with
what
has
heretofore
been
essayed
to
be,
in
fact,
its
common
usage.
Indeed,
unlike
the
U.S.
courts
which
are
yet
detained
by
the
conditions
expressed
in
both
their
fundamental
and
statutory
laws,
the
pertinent
provision
of
our
ownLocal
Government
Code
contains
no
further
circumscription
other
than
by
its
bare
and
simple
mandate
that
a
"fugitive
from
justice
in
criminal
or
non-political
cases
here
or
abroad"
shall
be
"disqualified
from
running
for
any
elective
local
position."
The
law
has
provided
no
further
provisos
and
no
saving
clauses.
When
there
is
no
obscurity
or
ambiguity
in
an
enabling
law,
it
must,
we
have
said
in
the
related
case
of
Marquez
vs.
Comelec,
be
merely
made
to
apply
as
it
is
so
written.
This
Court
is
not
at
liberty
either
to
question
the
wisdom
of
the
law,
let
alone
to
detract
from
it,
or
to
itself
legislate
material
parameters
when
there
are
none
that
statutorily
exist.
6.
REMEDIAL
LAW;
EVIDENCE;
FINDINGS
OF
FACTS
OF
THE
COMELEC
SUPPORTED
BY
SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE,
UPHELD
ON
APPEAL;
CASE
AT
BAR.
I
now
come
to
the
final
question
of
whether
or
not
substantial
evidence
has
been
adduced
to
support
the
factual
findings
of
the
COMELEC
and,
corollarily,
whether
or
not
petitioner
has
been
duly
accorded
full
opportunity
to
present
before
the
COMELEC
his
own
evidence
to
disprove
the
assertions
of
private
respondent.
It
may
be
recalled
that,
following
the
denial
of
the
motion
of
Rodriguez
to
postpone
the
scheduled
26th
April
1995
hearing,
the
COMELEC
continued,
because
of
the
proximity
of
the
May
1995
elections,
with
its
reception
of
the
evidence
(despite
the
walk-
out
thereupon
staged
by
Rodriguez
and
his
counsel).
Duly
received
in
evidence
included
an
authenticated
copy
of
the
warrant
of
arrest,
dated
12
November
1985,
on
respondent
(Exh.
A-2)
issued
by
the
Municipal
Court
of
the
County
of
Los
Angeles,
State
of
California,
U.S.A.,
in
connection
with
a
criminal
complaint
filed
against
him
in
Criminal
Case
No.
A774567,
entitled
"People
of
the
State
vs.
Imelda
O.
Rodriguez
and
Eduardo
T.
Rodriguez
for
the
crimes
of
presenting
Fraudulent
Insurance
Claims,
Grand
Theft
of
Personal
Property
and
Attempted
Grand
Theft
of
Personal
Property,
"
and
an
authenticated
copy
of
the
felony
complaint
(Exh.
A-10
to
A-15
inclusive),
showing
that
the
respondent
was
charged
criminally
on
ten
(10)
counts.
The
petitioner
and
his
counsel
walked
out
from
the
proceedings.
Certainly,
the
thesis
that
petitioner
was
denied
due
process
would
be
totally
unacceptable;
he
himself
brushed
it
aside.
7.
ID.;
COURTS;
FREE
TO
LOOK
INTO
AND
RECEIVE
EVIDENCE
ON
REGULARITY
OF
PROCEEDINGS
IN
FOREIGN
JURISDICTION
AFFECTING
FILIPINOS.
While
it
may
generally
be
said
that
the
possible
outcome
or
truth
of
an
indictment
need
not
necessarily
be
an
issue
in
ascertaining
whether
or
not
one
is
afugitive
from
justice,
when,
however,
the
accusation
is
lodged
with
and
an
arrest
is
ordered
by
a
foreign
court
or
agency
we
might
also
assure
ourselves
as
a
matter
of
principle
that,
in
the
process
of
sanctioning
in
effect
an
act
of
a
foreign
government,
we
do
not
thereby
abandon
our
own
basic
sense
of
equity
and
fair
play.
There
cannot
thus
be
any
serious
doubt
that,
when
assailed
or
in
doubt,
the
courts
are
free
to
look
into,
and
receive
evidence
on,
the
legitimacy
and
regularity
of
the
proceedings
in
that
foreign
jurisdiction.
D
E
C
I
S
I
O
N
FRANCISCO,
J
p:
Petitioner
Eduardo
T.
Rodriguez
and
private
respondent
Bienvenido
O.
Marquez,
Jr.
(Rodriguez
and
Marquez,
for
brevity)
were
protagonists
for
the
gubernatorial
post
of
Quezon
Province
in
the
May
1992
elections.
Rodriguez
won
and
was
proclaimed
duly-elected
governor.
Marquez
challenged
Rodriguez'
victory
via
petition
for
quo
warranto
before
the
COMELEC
(EPC
No.
92-28).
Marquez
revealed
that
Rodriguez
left
the
United
States
where
a
charge,
filed
on
November
12,
1985,
is
pending
against
the
latter
before
the
Los
Angeles
Municipal
Court
for
fraudulent
insurance
claims,
grand
theft
and
attempted
grand
theft
of
personal
property.
Rodriguez
is
therefore
a
"fugitive
from
justice"
which
is
a
ground
for
his
disqualification/ineligibility
under
Section
40(e)
of
the
Local
Government
Code
(R.A.
7160),
so
argued
Marquez.
The
COMELEC
dismissed
Marquez'
quo
warranto
petition
(EPC
No.
92-28)
in
a
resolution
of
February
2,
1993,
and
likewise
denied
a
reconsideration
thereof.
Marquez
challenged
the
COMELEC
dismissal
of
EPC
No.
92-28
before
this
Court
via
petition
for
certiorari,
docketed
as
G.R.
No.
112889.
The
crux
of
said
petition
is
whether
Rodriguez
is
a
"fugitive
from
justice"
as
contemplated
by
Section
40(e)
of
the
Local
Government
Code
based
on
the
alleged
pendency
of
a
criminal
charge
against
him
(as
previously
mentioned).
In
resolving
that
Marquez
petition
(112889),
the
Court
in
"Marquez,
Jr.
vs.
COMELEC"
promulgated
on
April
18,
1995,
now
appearing
in
Volume
243,
page
538
of
the
SCRA
and
hereinafter
referred
to
as
the
MARQUEZ
Decision,
declared
that:
".
.
.
,'fugitive
from
justice'
includes
not
only
those
who
flee
after
conviction
to
avoid
punishment
but
likewise
those
who,
after
being
charged,
flee
to
avoid
prosecution.
This
definition
truly
finds
support
from
jurisprudence
(.
.
.),
and
it
may
be
so
conceded
as
expressing
the
general
and
ordinary
connotation
of
the
term."
1
Whether
or
not
Rodriguez
is
a
"fugitive
from
justice"
under
the
definition
thus
given
was
not
passed
upon
by
the
Court.
That
task
was
to
devolve
on
the
COMELEC
upon
remand
of
the
case
to
it,
with
the
directive
to
proceed
therewith
with
dispatch
conformably
with
the
MARQUEZ
Decision.
Rodriguez
sought
a
reconsideration
thereof.
He
also
filed
an
"Urgent
Motion
to
Admit
Additional
Argument
in
Support
of
the
Motion
for
Reconsideration"
to
which
was
attached
a
certification
from
the
Commission
on
Immigration
showing
that
Rodriguez
left
the
US
on
June
25,
1985
roughly
five
(5)
months
prior
to
the
institution
of
the
criminal
complaint
filed
against
him
before
the
Los
Angeles
court.
The
Court
however
denied
a
reconsideration
of
the
MARQUEZ
Decision.
In
the
May
8,
1995
election,
Rodriguez
and
Marquez
renewed
their
rivalry
for
the
same
position
of
governor.
This
time,
Marquez
challenged
Rodriguez'
candidacy
via
petition
for
disqualification
before
the
COMELEC,
based
principally
on
the
same
allegation
that
Rodriguez
is
a
"fugitive
from
justice."
This
petition
for
disqualification
(SPA
No.
95-089)
was
filed
by
Marquez
on
April
11,
1995
when
Rodriguez'
petition
for
certiorari
(112889)
from
where
the
April
18,
1995
MARQUEZ
Decision
sprung
was
still
then
pending
before
the
Court.
On
May
7,
1995
and
after
the
promulgation
of
the
MARQUEZ
Decision,
the
COMELEC
promulgated
a
Consolidated
Resolution
for
EPC
No.
92-28
(quo
warranto
case)
and
SPA
No.
95-089
(disqualification
case).
In
justifying
a
joint
resolution
of
these
two
(2)
cases,
the
COMELEC
explained
that:
1.
EPC
No.
92-28
and
SPA
No.
95-089
are
inherently
related
cases;
2.
the
parties,
facts
and
issue
involved
are
identical
in
both
cases;
3.
the
same
evidence
is
to
be
utilized
in
both
cases
in
determining
the
common
issue
of
whether
Rodriguez
is
a
"fugitive
from
justice";
4.
on
consultation
with
the
Commission
En
Banc,
the
Commissioners
unanimously
agreed
that
a
consolidated
resolution
of
the
two
(2)
cases
is
not
procedurally
flawed.
Going
now
into
the
meat
of
that
Consolidated
Resolution,
the
COMELEC,
allegedly
having
kept
in
mind
the
MARQUEZ
Decision
definition
of
"fugitive
from
justice",
found
Rodriguez
to
be
one.
Such
finding
was
essentially
based
on
Marquez'
documentary
evidence
consisting
of
1.
an
authenticated
copy
of
the
November
12,
1995
warrant
of
arrest
issued
by
the
Los
Angeles
municipal
court
against
Rodriguez,
and
2.
an
authenticated
copy
of
the
felony
complaint
which
the
COMELEC
allowed
to
be
presented
ex-parte
after
Rodriguez
walked-out
of
the
hearing
of
the
case
on
April
26,
1995
following
the
COMELEC's
denial
of
Rodriguez'
motion
for
postponement.
With
the
walk-out,
the
COMELEC
considered
Rodriguez
as
having
waived
his
right
to
disprove
the
authenticity
of
Marquez'
aforementioned
documentary
evidence.
The
COMELEC
thus
made
the
following
analysis:
"The
authenticated
documents
submitted
by
petitioner
(Marquez)
to
show
the
pendency
of
a
criminal
complaint
against
the
respondent
(Rodriguez)
in
the
Municipal
Court
of
Los
Angeles,
California,
U.S.A.,
and
the
fact
that
there
is
an
outstanding
warrant
against
him
amply
proves
petitioner's
contention
that
the
respondent
is
a
fugitive
from
justice.
The
Commission
cannot
look
with
favor
on
respondent's
defense
that
long
before
the
felony
complaint
was
allegedly
filed,
respondent
was
already
in
the
Philippines
and
he
did
not
know
of
the
filing
of
the
same
nor
was
he
aware
that
he
was
being
proceeded
against
criminally.
In
a
sense,
thru
this
defense,
respondent
implicitly
contends
that
he
cannot
be
deemed
a
fugitive
from
justice,
because
to
be
so,
one
must
be
aware
of
the
filing
of
the
criminal
complaint,
and
his
disappearance
in
the
place
where
the
long
arm
of
the
law,
thru
the
warrant
of
arrest,
may
reach
him
is
predicated
on
a
clear
desire
to
avoid
and
evade
the
warrant.
This
allegation
in
the
Answer,
however,
was
not
even
fortified
with
any
attached
document
to
show
when
he
left
the
United
States
and
when
he
returned
to
this
country,
facts
upon
which
the
conclusion
of
absence
of
knowledge
about
the
criminal
complaint
may
be
derived.
On
the
contrary,
the
fact
of
arrest
of
respondent's
wife
on
November
6,
1985
in
the
United
States
by
the
Fraud
Bureau
investigators
in
an
apartment
paid
for
respondent
in
that
country
can
hardly
rebut
whatever
presumption
of
knowledge
there
is
against
the
respondent."
2
And
proceeding
therefrom,
the
COMELEC,
in
the
dispositive
portion,
declared:
"WHEREFORE,
considering
that
respondent
has
been
proven
to
be
fugitive
from
justice,
he
is
hereby
ordered
disqualified
or
ineligible
from
assuming
and
performing
the
functions
of
Governor
of
Quezon
Province.
Respondent
is
ordered
to
immediately
vacate
said
office.
Further,
he
is
hereby
disqualified
from
running
for
Governor
for
Quezon
Province
in
the
May
8,
1995
elections.
Lastly,
his
certificate
of
candidacy
for
the
May
8,
1995
elections
is
hereby
set
aside."
At
any
rate,
Rodriguez
again
emerged
as
the
victorious
candidate
in
the
May
8,
1995
election
for
the
position
of
governor.
On
May
10
and
11,
1995,
Marquez
filed
urgent
motions
to
suspend
Rodriguez'
proclamation
which
the
COMELEC
granted
on
May
11,
1995.
The
Provincial
Board
of
Canvassers
nonetheless
proclaimed
Rodriguez
on
May
12,
1995.
The
COMELEC
Consolidated
Resolution
in
EPC
No.
92-28
and
SPA
No.
95-089
and
the
May
11,
1995
Resolution
suspending
Rodriguez'
proclamation
thus
gave
rise
to
the
filing
of
the
instant
petition
for
certiorari
(G.R.
No.
120099)
on
May
16,
1995.
On
May
22,
1995,
Marquez
filed
an
"Omnibus
Motion
To
Annul
The
Proclamation
Of
Rodriguez,
To
Proclaim
Marquez
And
To
Cite
The
Provincial
Board
of
Canvassers
in
Contempt"
before
the
COMELEC
(in
EPC
No.
92-28
and
SPA
No.
95-089).
Acting
on
Marquez'
omnibus
motion,
the
COMELEC,
in
its
Resolution
of
June
23,
1995,
nullified
Rodriguez'
proclamation
and
ordered
certain
members
of
the
Quezon
Province
Provincial
Board
of
Canvassers
to
explain
why
they
should
not
be
cited
in
contempt
for
disobeying
the
poll
body's
May
11,
1995
Resolution
suspending
Rodriguez'
proclamation.
But
with
respect
to
Marquez'
motion
for
his
proclamation,
the
COMELEC
deferred
action
until
after
this
Court
has
resolved
the
instant
petition
(G.R.
No.
120099).
Rodriguez
filed
a
motion
to
admit
supplemental
petition
to
include
the
aforesaid
COMELEC
June
23,
1995
Resolution,
apart
from
the
May
7
and
May
11,
1995
Resolutions
(Consolidated
Resolution
and
Order
to
suspend
Rodriguez'
proclamation,
respectively).
As
directed
by
the
Court,
oral
arguments
were
had
in
relation
to
the
instant
petition
(G.R.
No.
120099)
on
July
13,
1995.
Marquez,
on
August
3,
1995,
filed
an
"Urgent
Motion
For
Temporary
Restraining
Order
Or
Preliminary
Injunction"
which
sought
to
restrain
and
enjoin
Rodriguez
"from
exercising
the
powers,
functions
and
prerogatives
of
Governor
of
Quezon
.
.
."
Acting
favorably
thereon,
the
Court
in
a
Resolution
dated
August
8,
1995
issued
a
temporary
restraining
order.
Rodriguez'
"Urgent
Motion
To
Lift
Temporary
Restraining
Order
And/Or
For
Reconsideration"
was
denied
by
the
Court
in
an
August
15,
1995
Resolution.
Another
similar
urgent
motion
was
later
on
filed
by
Rodriguez
which
the
Court
also
denied.
In
a
Resolution
dated
October
24,
1995,
the
Court
".
.
.
RESOLVED
to
DIRECT
the
Chairman
of
the
Commission
on
Elections
('COMELEC')
to
designate
a
Commissioner
or
a
ranking
official
of
the
COMELEC
to
RECEIVE
AND
EVALUATE
such
legally
admissible
evidence
as
herein
petitioner
Eduardo
Rodriguez
may
be
minded
to
present
by
way
of
refuting
the
evidence
heretofore
submitted
by
private
respondent
Bienvenido
Marquez,
Sr.,
or
that
which
can
tend
to
establish
petitioner's
contention
that
he
does
not
fall
within
the
legal
concept
of
a
'fugitive
from
justice.'
Private
respondent
Marquez
may
likewise,
if
he
so
desires,
introduce
additional
and
admissible
evidence
in
support
of
his
own
position.
The
provisions
of
Sections
3
to
10,
Rule
33,
of
the
Rules
of
Court
may
be
applied
in
the
reception
of
the
evidence.
The
Chairman
of
the
COMELEC
shall
have
the
proceedings
completed
and
the
corresponding
report
submitted
to
this
Court
within
thirty
(30)
days
from
notice
hereof."
The
COMELEC
complied
therewith
by
filing
before
the
Court,
on
December
26,
1995,
a
report
entitled
"EVIDENCE
OF
THE
PARTIES
and
COMMISSION'S
EVALUATION"
wherein
the
COMELEC,
after
calibrating
the
parties'
evidence,
declared
that
Rodriguez
is
NOT
a
"fugitive
from
justice"
as
defined
in
the
main
opinion
of
the
MARQUEZ
Decision,
thus
making
a
180-degree
turnaround
from
its
finding
in
the
Consolidated
Resolution.
In
arriving
at
this
new
conclusion,
the
COMELEC
opined
that
intent
to
evade
is
a
material
element
of
the
MARQUEZ
Decision
definition.
Such
intent
to
evade
is
absent
in
Rodriguez'
case
because
evidence
has
established
that
Rodriguez
arrived
in
the
Philippines
(June
25,
1985)
long
before
the
criminal
charge
was
instituted
in
the
Los
Angeles
Court
(November
12,
1985).
But
the
COMELEC
report
did
not
end
there.
The
poll
body
expressed
what
it
describes
as
its
"persistent
discomfort"
on
whether
it
read
and
applied
correctly
the
MARQUEZ
Decision
definition
of
"fugitive
from
justice".
So
as
not
to
miss
anything,
we
quote
the
COMELEC's
observations
in
full:
".
.
.
The
main
opinion's
definition
of
a
'fugitive
from
justice
'includes
not
only
those
who
flee
after
conviction
to
avoid
punishment
but
also
those
who,
after
being
charged,
flee
to
avoid
prosecution.'
It
proceeded
to
state
that:
This
definition
truly
finds
support
from
jurisprudence
(Philippine
Law
Dictionary
Third
Edition,
p.
399
by
F.B.
Moreno;
Black's
Law
Dictionary,
Sixth
Edition,
p.
671;
King
v.
Noe,
244
SC
344;
137
SE
2d
102,
103;
Hughes
v.
Pflanz,
138
Federal
Reporter
980;
Tobin
v.
Casaus,
275
Pacific
Reporter
2d
p.
792),
and
it
may
be
so
conceded
as
expressing
the
general
and
ordinary
connotation
of
the
term.
But
in
the
majority
of
the
cases
cited,
the
definition
of
the
term
'fugitive
from
justice'
contemplates
other
instances
not
explicitly
mentioned
in
the
main
opinion.
Black's
Law
Dictionary
begins
the
definition
of
the
term
by
referring
to
a
'fugitive
from
justice'
as:
(A)
person,
who,
having
committed
a
crime,
flees
from
jurisdiction
of
the
court
where
crime
was
committed
or
departs
from
his
usual
place
of
abode
and
conceals
himself
within
the
district.
.
.
.
Then,
citing
King
v.
Noe,
the
definition
continues
and
conceptualizes
a
'fugitive
from
justice'
as:
.
.
.
a
person
who,
having
committed
or
been
charged
with
a
crime
in
one
state,
has
left
its
jurisdiction
and
is
found
within
the
territory
of
another
when
it
is
sought
to
subject
him
to
the
criminal
process
of
the
former
state.
(our
emphasis)
In
Hughes
v.
Pflanz,
the
term
was
defined
as:
a
person
who,
having
committed
within
a
state
a
crime,
when
sought
for,
to
be
subjected
to
criminal
process,
is
found
within
the
territory
of
another
state.
Moreno's
Philippine
Law
Dictionary,
5th
Ed.
considers
the
term
as
an:
expression
which
refers
to
one
having
committed,
or
being
accused,
of
a
crime
in
one
jurisdiction
and
is
absent
for
any
reason
from
that
jurisdiction.
Specifically,
one
who
flees
to
avoid
punishment
.
.
.
(Emphasis
ours)
From
the
above
rulings,
it
can
be
gleaned
that
the
objective
facts
sufficient
to
constitute
flight
from
justice
are:
(a)
a
person
committed
a
'crime'
or
has
been
charged
for
the
commission
thereof;
and
(b)
thereafter,
leaves
the
jurisdiction
of
the
court
where
said
crime
was
committed
or
his
usual
place
of
abode.
Filing
of
charges
prior
to
flight
is
not
always
an
antecedent
requirement
to
label
one
a
'fugitive
from
justice'.
Mere
commission
of
a
'crime'
without
charges
having
been
filed
for
the
same
and
flight
subsequent
thereto
sufficiently
meet
the
definition.
Attention
is
directed
at
the
use
of
the
word
'crime'
which
is
not
employed
to
connote
guilt
or
conviction
for
the
commission
thereof.
Justice
Davide's
separate
opinion
in
G.R.
No.
112889
elucidates
that
the
disqualification
for
being
a
fugitive
does
not
involve
the
issue
of
the
presumption
of
innocence,
the
reason
for
disqualification
being
that
a
person
'was
not
brought
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
court
because
he
had
successfully
evaded
arrest;
or
if
he
was
brought
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
court
and
was
tried
and
convicted,
he
has
successfully
evaded
service
of
sentence
because
he
had
jumped
bail
or
escaped.
The
disqualification
then
is
based
on
his
'flight
from
justice'.
Other
rulings
of
the
United
States
Supreme
Court
further
amplify
the
view
that
intent
and
purpose
for
departure
is
inconsequential
to
the
inquiry.
The
texts,
which
are
persuasive
in
our
jurisdiction,
are
more
unequivocal
in
their
pronouncements.
In
King
v.
US
(144
F.
2nd
729),
citing
Roberts
v.
Reilly
(116
US
80)
the
United
States
Supreme
Court
held:
.
.
.
it
is
not
necessary
that
the
party
should
have
left
the
state
or
the
judicial
district
where
the
crime
is
alleged
to
have
been
committed,
after
an
indictment
found,
or
for
the
purpose
of
avoiding
an
anticipated
prosecution,
but
that,
having
committed
a
crime
within
a
state
or
district,
he
has
left
and
is
found
in
another
jurisdiction
(emphasis
supplied)
Citing
State
v.
Richter
(37
Minn.
436),
the
Court
further
ruled
in
unmistakable
language:
The
simple
fact
that
they
(person
who
have
committed
crime
within
a
state)
are
not
within
the
state
to
answer
its
criminal
process
when
required
renders
them,
in
legal
intendment,
fugitives
from
justice.
THEREFORE,
IT
APPEARS
THAT
GIVEN
THE
AUTHORITIES
CITED
IN
G.R.
NO.
112889,
THE
MERE
FACT
THAT
THERE
ARE
PENDING
CHARGES
IN
THE
UNITED
STATES
AND
THAT
PETITIONER
RODRIGUEZ
IS
IN
THE
PHILIPPINES
MAKE
PETITIONER
A
'FUGITIVE
FROM
JUSTICE.'
From
the
foregoing
discussions,
the
determination
of
whether
or
not
Rodriguez
is
a
fugitive
from
justice
hinges
on
whether
or
not
Rodriguez'
evidence
shall
be
measured
against
the
two
instances
mentioned
in
the
main
opinion,
or
is
to
be
expanded
as
to
include
other
situations
alluded
to
by
the
foreign
jurisprudence
cited
by
the
Court.
In
fact,
the
spirited
legal
fray
between
the
parties
in
this
case
focused
on
each
camp's
attempt
to
construe
the
Court's
definition
so
as
to
fit
or
to
exclude
petitioner
within
the
definition
of
a
'fugitive
from
justice'.
Considering,
therefore,
the
equally
valid
yet
different
interpretations
resulting
from
the
Supreme
Court
decision
in
G.R.
No.
112889,
the
Commission
deems
it
most
conformable
to
said
decision
to
evaluate
the
evidence
in
light
of
the
varied
constructions
open
to
it
and
to
respectfully
submit
the
final
determination
of
the
case
to
the
Honorable
Supreme
Court
as
the
final
interpreter
of
the
law."
The
instant
petition
dwells
on
that
nagging
issue
of
whether
Rodriguez
is
a
"fugitive
from
justice",
the
determination
of
which,
as
we
have
directed
the
COMELEC
on
two
(2)
occasions
(in
the
MARQUEZ
Decision
and
in
the
Court's
October
24,
1995
Resolution),
must
conform
to
how
such
term
has
been
defined
by
the
Court
in
the
MARQUEZ
Decision.
To
reiterate,
a
"fugitive
from
justice":
".
.
.
includes
not
only
those
who
flee
after
conviction
to
avoid
punishment
but
likewise
who,
after
being
charged,
flee
to
avoid
prosecution."
The
definition
thus
indicates
that
the
intent
to
evade
is
the
compelling
factor
that
animates
one's
flight
from
a
particular
jurisdiction.
And
obviously,
there
can
only
be
an
intent
to
evade
prosecution
or
punishment
when
there
is
knowledge
by
the
fleeing
subject
of
an
already
instituted
indictment,
or
of
a
promulgated
judgment
of
conviction.
Rodriguez'
case
just
cannot
fit
in
this
concept.
There
is
no
dispute
that
his
arrival
in
the
Philippines
from
the
US
on
June
25,
1985,
as
per
certifications
issued
by
the
Bureau
of
Immigration
dated
April
27
3
and
June
26
of
1995,
4
preceded
the
filing
of
the
felony
complaint
in
the
Los
Angeles
Court
on
November
12,
1985
and
of
the
issuance
on
even
date
of
the
arrest
warrant
by
that
same
foreign
court,
by
almost
five
(5)
months.
It
was
clearly
impossible
for
Rodriguez
to
have
known
about
such
felony
complaint
and
arrest
warrant
at
the
time
he
left
the
US,
as
there
was
in
fact
no
complaint
and
arrest
warrant
much
less
conviction
to
speak
of
yet
at
such
time.
What
prosecution
or
punishment
then
was
Rodriguez
deliberately
running
away
from
with
his
departure
from
the
US?
The
very
essence
of
being
a
"fugitive
from
justice"
under
the
MARQUEZ
Decision
definition,
is
just
nowhere
to
be
found
in
the
circumstances
of
Rodriguez.
With
that,
the
Court
gives
due
credit
to
the
COMELEC
in
having
made
the.
same
analysis
in
its
".
.
.
COMMISSION'S
EVALUATION".
There
are,
in
fact,
other
observations
consistent
with
such
analysis
made
by
the
poll
body
that
are
equally
formidable
so
as
to
merit
their
adoption
as
part
of
this
decision,
to
wit:
"It
is
acknowledged
that
there
was
an
attempt
by
private
respondent
to
show
Rodriguez'
intent
to
evade
the
law.
This
was
done
by
offering
for
admission
a
voluminous
copy
of
an
investigation
report
(Exhibits
I
to
I-17
and
J
to
J-87
inclusive)
on
the
alleged
crimes
committed
which
led
to
the
filing
of
the
charges
against
petitioner.
It
was
offered
for
the
sole
purpose
of
establishing
the
fact
that
it
was
impossible
for
petitioner
not
to
have
known
of
said
investigation
due
to
its
magnitude.
Unfortunately,
such
conclusion
misleads
because
investigations
of
this
nature,
no
matter
how
extensive
or
prolonged,
are
shrouded
with
utmost
secrecy
to
afford
law
enforcers
the
advantage
of
surprise
and
effect
the
arrest
of
those
who
would
be
charged.
Otherwise,
the
indiscreet
conduct
of
the
investigation
would
be
nothing
short
of
a
well-publicized
announcement
to
the
perpetrators
of
the
imminent
filing
of
charges
against
them.
And
having
been
forewarned,
every
effort
to
sabotage
the
investigation
may
be
resorted
to
by
its
intended
objects.
But
if
private
respondent's
attempt
to
show
Rodriguez'
intent
to
evade
the
law
at
the
time
he
left
the
United
States
has
any
legal
consequence
at
all,
it
will
be
nothing
more
than
proof
that
even
private
respondent
accepts
that
intent
to
evade
the
law
is
a
material
element
in
the
definition
of
a
fugitive.
"The
circumstantial
fact
that
it
was
seventeen
(17)
days
after
Rodriguez'
departure
that
charges
against
him
were
filed
cannot
overturn
the
presumption
of
good
faith
in
his
favor.
The
same
suggests
nothing
more
than
the
sequence
of
events
which
transpired.
A
subjective
fact
as
that
of
petitioner's
purpose
cannot
be
inferred
from
the
objective
data
at
hand
in
the
absence
of
further
proof
to
substantiate
such
claim.
In
fact,
the
evidence
of
petitioner
Rodriguez
sufficiently
proves
that
his
compulsion
to
return
to
the
Philippines
was
due
to
his
desire
to
join
and
participate
vigorously
in
the
political
campaigns
against
former
President
Ferdinand
E.
Marcos.
For
indeed,
not
long
after
petitioner's
arrival
in
the
country,
the
upheaval
wrought
by
the
political
forces
and
the
avalanche
of
events
which
occurred
resulted
in
one
of
the
more
colorful
events
in
Philippine
history.
The
EDSA
Revolution
led
to
the
ouster
of
former
Pres.
Marcos
and
precipitated
changes
in
the
political
climate.
And
being
a
figure
in
these
developments,
petitioner
Rodriguez
began
serving
his
home
province
as
OIC-Board
Member
of
the
Sangguniang
Panlalawigan
ng
Quezon
in
1986.
Then,
he
was
elected
Governor
in
1988
and
continues
to
be
involved
in
politics
in
the
same
capacity
as
re-
elected
Governor
in
1992
and
the
disputed
re-election
in
1995.
Altogether,
these
landmark
dates
hem
in
for
petitioner
a
period
of
relentless,
intensive
and
extensive
activity
of
varied
political
campaigns
first
against
the
Marcos
government,
then
for
the
governorship.
And
serving
the
people
of
Quezon
province
as
such,
the
position
entails
absolute
dedication
of
one's
time
to
the
demands
of
the
office.
"Having
established
petitioner's
lack
of
knowledge
of
the
charges
to
be
filed
against
him
at
the
time
he
left
the
United
States,
it
becomes
immaterial
under
such
construction
to
determine
the
exact
time
when
he
was
made
aware
thereof.
While
the
law,
as
interpreted
by
the
Supreme
Court,
does
not
countenance
flight
from
justice
in
the
instance
that
a
person
flees
the
jurisdiction
of
another
state
after
charges
against
him
or
a
warrant
for
his
arrest
was
issued
or
even
in
view
of
the
imminent
filing
and
issuance
of
the
same,
petitioner's
plight
is
altogether
a
different
situation.
When,
in
good
faith,
a
person
leaves
the
territory
of
a
state
not
his
own,
homeward
bound,
and
learns
subsequently
of
charges
filed
against
him
while
in
the
relative
peace
and
service
of
his
own
country,
the
fact
that
he
does
not
subject
himself
to
the
jurisdiction
of
the
former
state
does
not
qualify
him
outright
as
a
fugitive
from
justice.
"The
severity
of
the
law
construed
in
the
manner
as
to
require
of
a
person
that
he
subject
himself
to
the
jurisdiction
of
another
state
while
already
in
his
country
or
else
be
disqualified
from
office,
is
more
apparent
when
applied
in
petitioner's
case.
The
criminal
process
of
the
United
States
extends
only
within
its
territorial
jurisdiction.
That
petitioner
has
already
left
said
country
when
the
latter
sought
to
subject
him
to
its
criminal
process
is
hardly
petitioner's
fault.
In
the
absence
of
an
intent
to
evade
the
laws
of
the
United
States,
petitioner
had
every
right
to
depart
therefrom
at
the
precise
time
that
he
did
and
to
return
to
the
Philippines.
No
justifiable
reason
existed
to
curtail
or
fetter
petitioner's
exercise
of
his
right
to
leave
the
United
States
and
return
home.
Hence,
sustaining
the
contrary
proposition
would
be
to
unduly
burden
and
punish
petitioner
for
exercising
a
right
as
he
cannot
be
faulted
for
the
circumstances
that
brought
him
within
Philippine
territory
at
the
time
he
was
sought
to
be
placed
under
arrest
and
to
answer
for
charges
filed
against
him.
"Granting,
as
the
evidence
warrants,
that
petitioner
Rodriguez
came
to
know
of
the
charges
only
later,
and
under
his
circumstances,
is
there
a
law
that
requires
petitioner
to
travel
to
the
United
States
and
subject
himself
to
the
monetary
burden
and
tedious
process
of
defending
himself
before
the
country's
courts?
"It
must
be
noted
that
moral
uprightness
is
not
a
standard
too
far-reaching
as
to
demand
of
political
candidate
the
performance
of
duties
and
obligations
that
are
supererogatory
in
nature.
We
do
not
dispute
that
an
alleged
'fugitive
from
justice'
must
perform
acts
in
order
not
to
be
so
categorized.
Clearly,
a
person
who
is
aware
of
the
imminent
filing
of
charges
against
him
or
of
the
same
already
filed
in
connection
with
acts
he
committed
in
the
jurisdiction
of
a
particular
state,
is
under
an
obligation
not
to
flee
said
place
of
commission.
However,
as
in
petitioner's
case,
his
departure
from
the
United
States
may
not
place
him
under
a
similar
obligation.
His
subsequent
knowledge
while
in
the
Philippines
and
non-submission
to
the
jurisdiction
of
the
former
country
does
not
operate
to
label
petitioner
automatically
a
fugitive
from
justice.
As
he
was
a
public
officer
appointed
and
elected
immediately
after
his
return
to
the
country,
petitioner
Rodriguez
had
every
reason
to
devote
utmost
priority
to
the
service
of
his
office.
He
could
not
have
gone
back
to
the
United
States
in
the
middle
of
his
term
nor
could
he
have
traveled
intermittently
thereto
without
jeopardizing
the
interest
of
the
public
he
serves.
To
require
that
of
petitioner
would
be
to
put
him
in
a
paradoxical
quandary
where
he
is
compelled
to
violate
the
very
functions
of
his
office."
However,
Marquez
and
the
COMELEC
(in
its
"COMMISSION'S
EVALUATION"
as
earlier
quoted)
seem
to
urge
the
Court
to
re-
define
"fugitive
from
justice".
They
espouse
the
broader
concept
of
the
term
as
culled
from
foreign
authorities
(mainly
of
U.S.
vintage)
cited
in
the
MARQUEZ
Decision
itself,
i.e.,
that
one
becomes
a
"fugitive
from
justice"
by
the
mere
fact
that
he
leaves
the
jurisdiction
where
a
charge
is
pending
against
him,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
the
charge
has
already
been
filed
at
the
time
of
his
flight.
Suffice
it
to
say
that
the
"law
of
the
case"
doctrine
forbids
the
Court
to
craft
an
expanded
re-definition
of
"fugitive
from
justice"
(which
is
at
variance
with
theMARQUEZ
Decision)
and
proceed
therefrom
in
resolving
the
instant
petition.
The
various
definitions
of
that
doctrine
have
been
laid
down
in
People
v.
Pinuila,
103
Phil.
992,
999,
to
wit:
"'Law
of
the
case'
has
been
defined
as
the
opinion
delivered
on
a
former
appeal.
More
specifically,
it
means
that
whatever
is
once
irrevocably
established
as
the
controlling
legal
rule
of
decision
between
the
same
parties
in
the
same
case
continues
to
be
the
law
of
the
case,
whether
correct
on
general
principles
or
not,
so
long
as
the
facts
on
which
such
decision
was
predicated
continue
to
be
the
facts
of
the
case
before
the
court."
(21
C.J.S.
330)
"It
may
be
stated
as
a
rule
of
general
application
that,
where
the
evidence
on
a
second
or
succeeding
appeal
is
substantially
the
same
as
that
on
the
first
or
preceding
appeal,
all
matters,
questions,
points,
or
issues
adjudicated
on
the
prior
appeal
are
the
law
of
the
case
on
all
subsequent
appeals
and
will
not
be
considered
or
readjudicated
therein."
(5
C.J.S.
1267)
"In
accordance
with
the
general
rule
stated
in
Section
1821,
where,
after
a
definite
determination,
the
court
has
remanded
the
cause
for
further
action
below,
it
will
refuse
to
examine
question
other
than
those
arising
subsequently
to
such
determination
and
remand,
or
other
than
the
propriety
of
the
compliance
with
its
mandate;
and
if
the
court
below
has
proceeded
in
substantial
conformity
to
the
directions
of
the
appellate
court,
its
action
will
not
be
questioned
on
a
second
appeal.
"As
a
general
rule
a
decision
on
a
prior
appeal
of
the
same
case
is
held
to
be
the
law
of
the
case
whether
that
decision
is
right
or
wrong,
the
remedy
of
the
party
deeming
himself
aggrieved
being
to
seek
a
rehearing."
(5
C.J.S.
1276-77).
"Questions
necessarily
involved
in
the
decision
on
a
former
appeal
will
be
regarded
as
the
law
of
the
case
on
a
subsequent
appeal,
although
the
questions
are
not
expressly
treated
in
the
opinion
of
the
court,
as
the
presumption
is
that
all
the
facts
in
the
case
bearing
on
the
point
decided
have
received
due
consideration
whether
all
or
none
of
them
are
mentioned
in
the
opinion."
(5
C.J.S.
1286-87).
To
elaborate,
the
same
parties
(Rodriguez
and
Marquez)
and
issue
(whether
or
not
Rodriguez
is
a
"fugitive
from
justice")
are
involved
in
the
MARQUEZ
Decision
and
the
instant
petition.
The
MARQUEZ
Decision
was
an
appeal
from
EPC
No.
92-28
(the
Marquez'
quo
warranto
petition
before
the
COMELEC).
The
instant
petition
is
also
an
appeal
from
EPC
No.
92-28
although
the
COMELEC
resolved
the
latter
jointly
with
SPA
No.
95-089
(Marquez'
petition
for
the
disqualification
of
Rodriguez).
Therefore,
what
was
irrevocably
established
as
the
controlling
legal
rule
in
the
MARQUEZ
Decision
must
govern
the
instant
petition.
And
we
specifically
refer
to
the
concept
of
"fugitive
from
justice"
as
defined
in
the
main
opinion
in
the
MARQUEZ
Decision
which
highlights
the
significance
of
an
intent
to
evade
but
which
Marquez
and
the
COMELEC,
with
their
proposed
expanded
definition,
seem
to
trivialize.
Besides,
to
re-define
"fugitive
from
justice"
would
only
foment
instability
in
our
jurisprudence
when
hardly
has
the
ink
dried
in
the
MARQUEZ
Decision.
To
summarize,
the
term
"fugitive
from
justice"
as
a
ground
for
the
disqualification
or
ineligibility
of
a
person
seeking
to
run
for
any
elective
local
position
under
Section
40(e)
of
the
Local
Government
Code,
should
be
understood
according
to
the
definition
given
in
the
MARQUEZ
Decision,
to
wit:
"A
'fugitive
from
justice'
includes
not
only
those
who
flee
after
conviction
to
avoid
punishment
but
likewise
those
who,
after
being
charged,
flee
to
avoid
prosecution."
(Emphasis
ours.)"
Intent
to
evade
on
the
part
of
a
candidate
must
therefore
be
established
by
proof
that
there
has
already
been
a
conviction
or
at
least,
a
charge
has
already
been
filed,
at
the
time
of
flight.
Not
being
a
"fugitive
from
justice"
under
this
definition,
Rodriguez
cannot
be
denied
the
Quezon
Province
gubernatorial
post.
WHEREFORE,
in
view
of
the
foregoing,
the
instant
petition
is
hereby
GRANTED
and
the
assailed
Resolutions
of
the
COMELEC
dated
May
7,
1995
(Consolidated
Resolution),
May
11,
1995
(Resolution
suspending
Rodriguez'
proclamation)
and
June
23,
1995
(Resolution
nullifying
Rodriguez'
proclamation
and
ordering
the
Quezon
Province
Provincial
Board
of
Canvassers
to
explain
why
they
should
not
be
cited
in
contempt)
are
SET
ASIDE.
SO
ORDERED.
Romero,
Melo,
Puno,
Kapunan,
Hermosisima,
Jr.,
and
Panganiban,
JJ
.,
concur.
Bellosillo,
J
.,
is
on
leave.
Separate
Opinions
TORRES,
JR.,
J
.,
concurring:
Although
I
entertain
no
illusion
of
absolute
certainty,
as
to
whether
or
not
the
petitioner
in
the
above-entitled
case
is
a
"fugitive
from
justice"
within
the
purview
of
Section
40
paragraph
(e)
of
Republic
Act
No.
7160
of
the
Local
Government
Code
of
1991,
and
which
would
result
to
a
disqualification
for
any
elective
local
position,
I,
however,
share
the
view
of
my
distinguished
colleague,
Mr.
Justice
Ricardo
J.
Francisco,
that
petitioner
Eduardo
T.
Rodriguez,
is
not
a"fugitive
from
justice."
Petitioner
should
not
be
considered
disqualified
or
ineligible
from
assuming
and
performing
the
functions
of
Governor
of
Quezon
Province.
Petitioner
returned
to
the
Philippines
from
the
United
States
on
June
25,
1985
while
the
criminal
complaint
against
him
for
fraudulent
insurance
claims,
grand
theft
and
attempted
grand
theft
of
personal
property
before
the
Municipal
Court
of
Los
Angeles,
California
was
filed
almost
5
months
later,
or
on
November
12,
1985.
Verily,
it
cannot
be
said
that
he
fled
to
avoid
prosecution
for
at
the
time
he
left
the
United
States,
there
was
yet
no
case
or
prosecution
to
avoid.
It
would
not
be
reasonable
to
assume
that
he
returned
to
the
Philippines
aware
that
he
has
committed
some
transgressions
of
law
or
that
he
was
anticipating
the
filing
of
the
complaint.
To
assume
that
he
was
not
unaware
of
his
own
prior
misdeeds
is
tantamount
to
presuming
his
guilt.
That
petitioner
did
not
know
of
the
imminent
filing
of
charges
against
him
and
that
he
did
not
flee
to
avoid
prosecution
are
bolstered
by
the
facts
that:
1.)
he
returned
to
the
United
States
twice:
on
August
14
and
October
7
of
the
same
year
but
arrived
in
the
Philippines
on
October
26
likewise
in
the
same
year;
2.)
he
left
his
wife
in
the
United
States;
and
3.)
his
wife
was
later
on
arrested
for
the
same
charges.
Had
petitioner
been
aware
of
the
imminent
filing
of
charges
against
him,
he
would
never
have
returned
to
the
United
States
and
he
would
not
have
left
his
wife
in
there.
Petitioner
is
a
citizen
of
this
country.
Why
should
he
not
come
home?
Coming
home
to
the
Philippines
was
the
most
natural
act
of
the
petitioner,
who
happens
to
maintain
his
residence
in
the
country.
The
fact
that
he
remains
here
even
after
he
was
formally
accused
cannot
be
construed
as
an
indication
of
an
intent
to
flee,
there
being
no
compelling
reason
for
him
to
go
to
the
United
States
and
face
his
accusers.
On
the
contrary,
it
is
his
official
duty,
as
an
incumbent
Governor
of
Quezon,
to
remain
in
the
country
and
perform
his
duties
as
the
duly
elected
public
official.
In
her
report
entitled
"Evidence
of
the
Parties
and
Commission's
Evaluation,"
Commissioner
Teresita
Dy-Liacco
Flores
aptly
pointed
out:
".
.
.
When,
in
good
faith,
a
person
leaves
the
territory
of
a
state
not
his
own,
homeward
bound,
and
learns
subsequently
of
charges
filed
against
him
while
in
the
relative
peace
and
service
of
his
own
country,
the
fact
that
he
does
not
subject
himself
to
the
jurisdiction
of
the
former
state
does
not
qualify
him
outright
as
a
fugitive
from
justice.
"The
severity
of
the
law
construed
in
the
manner
as
to
require
of
a
person
that
he
subject
himself
to
the
jurisdiction
of
another
state
while
already
in
his
country
or
else
be
disqualified
from
office,
is
more
apparent
when
applied
in
petitioner's
case.
The
criminal
process
of
the
United
States
extends
only
within
its
territorial
jurisdiction.
That
petitioner
has
already
left
said
country
when
the
latter
sought
to
subject
him
to
its
criminal
process
is
hardly
petitioner's
fault.
In
the
absence
of
an
intent
to
evade
the
laws
of
the
United
Sates,
petitioner
had
every
right
to
depart
therefrom
at
the
precise
time
that
he
did
and
to
return
to
the
Philippines.
No
justifiable
reason
existed
to
curtail
or
fetter
petitioner's
exercise
of
his
right
to
leave
the
United
States
and
return
home.
Hence,
sustaining
the
contrary
proposition
would
be
to
unduly
burden
and
punish
petitioner
for
exercising
a
right
as
he
cannot
be
faulted
for
the
circumstances
that
brought
him
within
Philippine
territory
at
the
time
he
was
sought
to
be
placed
under
arrest
and
to
answer
for
charges
against
him.
Granting,
as
the
evidence
warrants,
that
petitioner
Rodriguez
came
to
know
of
the
charges
only
later,
and
under
his
circumstances,
is
there
a
law
that
requires
petitioner
to
travel
to
the
United
States
and
subject
himself
to
the
monetary
burden
and
tedious
process
of
defending
himself
before
the
country's
courts?"
1
This
Court
cannot
be
oblivious
of
the
fact
that
the
provision
disqualifying
fugitives
from
justice
in
criminal
or
non-political
cases
here
or
abroad
was
allegedly
tailored
to
affect
petitioner.
The
provision
is
short
of
saying
that
Eduardo
Rodriguez
is
disqualified.
As
I
trace
the
legislative
history
of
the
subject
provision,
I
find
that
the
principal
sponsor
of
the
Local
Government
Code,
Aquilino
O.
Pimentel,
Jr.,
then
a
Senator
and
Chairman
of
the
Senate
Committee
on
Local
Government
commented
on
this,
in
his
book
"The
Local
Government
Code
of
1991,"
thus:
"5.
Fugitives
Disqualified.
Persons
fleeing
from
local
or
foreign
justice
in
criminal
or
non-political
cases
are
likewise
disqualified
from
local
government
elective
positions.
This
particular
disqualification
was
a
House
of
Representatives
innovation.
This
was
a
'camaraderie'
provision
proposed
by
the
House
because
a
congressman
of
a
southern
Tagalog
province
had
intended
to
run
for
governor
against
an
incumbent
who
had
reportedly
fled
from
U.S.
justice".2
(Emphasis
supplied)
To
borrow
the
language
of
former
Chief
Justice
Moran
in
his
dissent
in
Torres
vs.
Tan
Chim,
69
Phil.
518,
535:
".
.
.
when
this
Court
continues
to
uphold
a
ruling
known
to
be
erroneous,
with
no
plausible
excuse
therefor
but
public
acquiescence
therein,
it
may
soon
find
itself
compelled
to
make
more
mistakes
in
an
effort
to
justify
the
previous
ones.
We
may
thus
be
building
one
error
upon
another
until,
by
their
accumulation,
we
shall
come
to
a
point
when
going
further
would
be
perilous
and
turning
backward
impossible."
To
rule
in
favor
of
private
respondent
is
to
license
a
wrongdoing
to
succeed
and
injustice
to
prevail
In
applying
a
law,
the
facts
and
circumstances
obtaining
in
the
particular
case
must
be
taken
into
consideration.
In
the
case
at
bar,
the
following
circumstances
must
be
taken
into
consideration:
that
petitioner
was
not
aware
of
the
imminent
filing
of
charges
against
him;
the
same
was
filed
after
he
has
returned
home;
it
is
impractical
and
unjust
to
require
petitioner
to
subject
himself
to
the
jurisdiction
of
the
United
States
while
already
in
this
country
or
else
be
disqualified
from
office;
and
that
the
subject
provision
appears
to
have
been
a
'camaraderie
provision'
proposed
by
the
House
for
the
sake
of
private
respondent
who
was
then
a
Congressman.
In
Marquez
vs.
COMELEC
(243
SCRA
538),
this
court
held
that:
Art.
73
of
the
Rules
and
Regulations
Implementing
the
Local
Government
Code
of
1991
is
an
inordinate
and
undue
circumscription
of
the
law,
to
the
extent
that
it
confines
the
term
"fugitive
from
justice"
to
refer
only
to
a
person
(the
fugitive)
"who
has
been
convicted
by
final
judgment."
Said
ruling
notwithstanding,
the
court
must
not
insist
that
petitioner
is
still
a
fugitive
by
the
mere
fact
that
there
are
pending
charges
against
the
petitioner
in
the
United
States
and
that
petitioner
Rodriguez
is
in
the
Philippines.
It
was
Justice
Oliver
Wendel
Holmes
who
said
that
"A
word
is
not
a
crystal,
transparent
and
unchanged,
it
is
the
skin
of
a
living
thought
and
may
vary
greatly
in
color
and
content
according
to
the
circumstances
and
the
time
in
which
it
is
used."
3
"Fugitive
from
justice"
must
be
given
a
meaning
in
the
instant
case
having
regard
to
"the
circumstances
and
the
time
it
is
used."
Philosophers
and
jurists
have
tried
unsuccessfully
at
an
exact
definition
of
such
an
abstruse
term
as
justice.
Unfortunately,
whether
in
the
metaphysical
sense
or
otherwise,
the
question
of
justice
is
still
unanswered
as
it
was
albeit
characterized
by
secular
skepticism.
If
the
question
is
asked:
What
standard
of
justice
should
we
enforce?
The
American
sense
of
justice
or
the
Philippine
sense
of
justice?
Undoubtedly,
the
forum
in
which
it
is
raised
should
be
controlling.
By
way
only
of
hypothesis,
if
an
American
flees
to
escape
from
Philippine
Laws
to
the
United
States,
may
we
enforce
in
the
United
States
our
standard
of
justice
based
on
Philippine
Law?
I
am
tempted
to
ask
these
questions
considering
our
zealousness
to
solve
legal
problems
in
the
light
of
laws
obtaining
in
the
United
States.
At
any
rate,
an
accused
charged
with
a
crime
in
the
Philippines
cannot
be
a
candidate
and
at
the
same
time
flee
from
prosecution.
Once
he
goes
campaigning
his
opponent
would
have
him
arrested.
For
this
and
the
reasons
above
discussed,
the
provision
on
disqualification
of
fugitive
from
justice,
being
unnecessary
and
serving
only
to
undermine
one's
constitutional
right
to
equal
access
to
opportunities
for
public
service,
4
should
even
be
scantily
considered.
Finally,
petitioner
appears
to
have
garnered
285,202
votes.
According
to
the
election
results,
petitioner
won
over
private
respondent
by
a
majority
of
140,
000
votes
more
or
less.
As
it
is,
to
disqualify
petitioner
on
the
shaky
ground
of
being
a
"fugitive
from
justice"
would
amount
to
disenfranchising
the
electorate
in
whom
sovereignty
resides.
5
Learned
Hand,
had
this
to
say:
"Hand
preached
that
the
security
of
liberty
was
too
important
to
be
left
entirely
to
the
judges:
'(I)t
is
the
voters,
speaking
through
their
delegates,
who
have
the
final
word
and
the
final
responsibility;
and
.
.
.
in
the
end
it
is
they
and
they
alone
who
can
and
will
preserve
our
liberties,
if
preserved
they
are
to
be.'"
6
This
is
a
populist
judicial
response.
Thus,
where
a
candidate
has
received
popular
mandate,
overwhelmingly
and
clearly
expressed,
all
possible
doubts
should
be
resolved
in
favor
of
the
candidate's
eligibility,
for
to
rule
otherwise
is
to
defeat
the
will
of
the
people.
7
Above
and
beyond
all,
the
determination
of
the
true
will
of
the
electorate
should
be
paramount.
It
is
their
voice,
not
ours
or
of
anyone
else,
that
must
prevail.
This,
in
essence,
is
the
democracy
we
continue
to
hold
sacred.
8
I
vote
to
grant
the
petition.
VITUG,
J
.,
dissenting:
Let
me
not,
in
writing
this
dissenting
opinion,
be
so
misunderstood
as
stating
that
I
am
opposed
to
the
doctrine
of
stare
decisis
et
non
quieta
movere
or
to
the
consequences
of
the
rule
on
the
"law
of
the
case,"
let
alone
to
create,
to
borrow
the
phrase
used
by
the
majority,
"instability
in
our
jurisprudence."
But
what
I
would
really
dread
is
when
I
might,
wittingly
or
unwittingly,
misconceive
the
pronouncements
made
by
the
Court
or,
worse,
be
completely
out
of
context
therefrom.
I
should
also
like
to
point
out
that
the
dissent
in
no
way
necessarily
implies
an
acceptance
on
the
sapience
of
the
law
here
in
question;
I
realize
that
the
Court
has
no
prerogative
to
either
sustain
or
reject
a
law
on
that
basis
alone.
I
find
it
helpful
to
first
narrate
the
antecedents
of
the
case
now
before
us.
For
some
time
now,
Eduardo
Rodriguez
and
Bienvenido
Marquez,
Jr.,
have
been
at
loggerheads
on
the
issue
of
whether
or
not
Rodriguez
is
a
"fugitive
from
justice"
and
thereby
disqualified
under
the
law
to
run
for,
or
to
hold
on
to,
an
elective
local
office.
The
contenders
have
for
the
fourth
time
1
pleaded
for
the
intervention
of
this
Court.
This
time,
in
a
special
civil
action
for
certiorari,
with
a
prayer
for
the
issuance
of
a
writ
of
preliminary
mandatory/prohibitory
injunction,
Rodriguez
seeks
the
annulment
of
the
07th
and
11th
May
1995
resolutions
(infra)
of
the
Commission
on
Elections
("COMELEC").
There
being
other
matters
that
have
come
up
during
the
pendency
of
this
petition,
Rodriguez
has
now
also
moved
for
the
admission
of
his
supplemental
petition
and
a
second
supplemental
petition
to
call
attention
to
certain
developments,
including
a
23rd
June
1995
resolution
of
the
COMELEC
which
he
now
likewise
assails.
The
various
settings
that
led
to
the
promulgation
by
the
COMELEC
of
its
assailed
resolutions
might
be
condensed
thusly:
Rodriguez,
the
proclaimed
Governor
of
Quezon
Province
after
the
May
1992
elections,
was
named
respondent
by
Marquez,
a
defeated
candidate
for
the
same
post,
in
a
quo
warranto
petition,
docketed
EPC
No.
92-28
(hereinafter
so
referred
to
as
the
quo
warranto
case),
instituted
before
the
COMELEC.
Rodriguez
was
said
to
be
a
fugitive
from
justice
and
thereby
disqualified
under
Section
40(e)
of
the
Local
Government
Code
from
holding
on
to
the
elective
local
office.
The
COMELEC
dismissed
the
petition
for
quo
warranto
on
the
ground
that
petitioner
had
not
been
convicted
by
final
judgment.
Private
respondent
thereupon
filed
a
petition
for
certiorari
with
this
Court
(docketed
G.R.
No.
112889).
2
On
15
March
1995
(while
G.R.
No.
112889
was
still
then
pending
consideration
by
the
Court),
Marquez
and
Rodriguez
filed
their
respective
certificates
of
candidacy,
this
time
for
the
May
1995
elections,
for
the
governorship
of
Quezon.
Upon
learning
of
the
re-election
bid
of
Rodriguez,
Marquez
lost
no
time
in
filing
(on
11
April
1995)
with
the
COMELEC
a
petition
to
disqualify
Rodriguez
and
for
the
cancellation
of
the
latter's
certificate
of
candidacy.
Docketed
SPA
No.
95-089
(hereinafter
so
referred
to
as
the
disqualification
case),
the
petition
was
assigned
to
the
Second
Division
of
the
COMELEC.
Marquez
disclosed
to
the
COMELEC
the
pendency
of
G.R.
No.
112889
but
explained
that
the
two
cases
were
different
in
that
G.R.
No.
112889
had
sought
to
oust
petitioner
from
office
for
the
term
1992-1995
while
SPA
No.
95-089
was
aimed
at
disqualifying
petitioner
from
running
for
a
new
term
(1995-1998).
Rodriguez
was
summoned
by
the
Second
Division
of
the
COMELEC
and
required
to
file
his
answer
to
the
petition.
The
disqualification
case
was
set
for
hearing
on
25
April
1995.
Meanwhile,
on
18
April
1995,
this
Court
rendered
a
decision
in
G.R.
No.
112889
reversing
and
setting
aside
the
resolution
of
the
COMELEC
which
dismissed
the
petition
for
quo
warranto
and
directed
the
COMELEC
"to
proceed
and
resolve
the
case
with
dispatch."
On
even
date,
Rodriguez
filed
with
this
Court
in
G.R.
No.
112889
an
"Urgent
Manifestation
and
Motion"
for
the
dismissal
G.R.
No.
112889
asseverating
that
the
filing
of
SPA
No.
95-089
meant
forum-shopping
on
the
part
of
Marquez.
Unaware
(presumably)
of
the
18th
April
1995
decision
of
this
Court,
Rodriguez
filed,
on
21
April
1995,
with
the
COMELEC
(Second
Division)
in
the
disqualification
case
(SPA
No.
95-089)
a
"Motion
to
Nullify
Summons
and
to
Reconsider
Notice
of
Hearing"
praying
for
the
dismissal
of
the
case
in
view
of
the
pendency
with
this
Court
of
G.R.
No.
112889.
He
filed
an
"Answer
Ex-Abundante
Cautela"
claiming,
among
other
things,
that
he
was
already
in
the
Philippines
at
the
time
the
complaint
was
filed
against
him
in
Los
Angeles,
California.
In
three
separate
pleadings,
Rodriguez
insisted
on
the
nullification
of
the
summons,
the
reconsideration
of
the
notice
of
hearing
and
the
dismissal
of
SPA
No.
95-089.
The
scheduled
25th
April
1995
hearing
on
the
disqualification
case
was
re-set
to
26
April
1995.
Still
claiming
to
be
in
cognizant
of
this
Court's
decision
in
G.R.
No.
112889,
Rodriguez
filed,
on
25
April
1995,
an
urgent
motion
for
the
issuance
of
a
writ
of
preliminary
injunction
to
restrain
the
COMELEC
from
hearing
SPA
No.
95-089,
arguing
that,
since
SPA
No.
95-089
was
also
based
on
the
facts
as
those
that
related
to
G.R.
No.
112889,
its
filing
constituted
forum-shopping
and
could
pre-empt
G.R.
No.
112889.
The
hearing
on
the
disqualification
case
(SPA
No.
95-089),
re-scheduled
for
26
April
1995
by
the
Second
Division
of
the
COMELEC,
3
went
through.
Rodriguez
moved
to
suspend
the
proceedings
so
citing,
as
the
ground
therefor,
his
urgent
motion
for
preliminary
injunction
in
G.R.
No.
112889.
The
COMELEC
(Second
Division),
however,
denied
his
motion,
as
well
as
his
subsequent
motion
for
time
to
file
a
motion
for
reconsideration,
because
of
the
proximity
of
the
elections.
Failing
to
have
the
proceedings
held
in
abeyance,
Rodriguez
walked
out
of
the
hearing.
Marquez
then
submitted
and
offered
in
evidence
the
authenticated
copies
of
the
felony
complaint
and
warrant
of
arrest
against
Rodriguez
issued
on
12
November
1985,
by
the
Municipal
Court
of
Los
Angeles
Judicial
District,
County
of
Los
Angeles,
State
of
California,
U.S.A.,
and
some
other
records
of
said
court.
On
27
April
1995,
it
might
be
mentioned
parenthetically,
Rodriguez
moved
for
the
reconsideration
of
this
Court's
decision
of
18
April
1995
in
G.R.
No.
112889.
It
was
now
the
turn
of
Rodriguez
to
file
with
this
Court
a
petition
for
certiorari,
prohibition,
and
mandamus.
The
petition,
entitled
"Eduardo
T.
Rodriguez
vs.
Commission
on
Elections,
et
al.,"
and
docketed
G.R.
No.
119807,
asked
the
Court
to
enjoin
the
COMELEC
from
proceeding
with
SPA
No.
95-089.
The
petition
was
dismissed
by
the
Court,
in
its
04
May
1995
minute
resolution,
since
it
found
no
grave
abuse
of
discretion
on
the
part
of
the
COMELEC.
Meanwhile,
in
G.R.
No.
112889,
Rodriguez
filed
an
"Urgent
Motion
to
Admit
Additional
Argument
in
Support
of
the
Motion
for
Reconsideration"
attaching
thereto
a
certification
from
the
Commission
on
Immigration
purporting
to
show
that
he
had
left
the
United
States
on
25
June
1985
before
the
felony
complaint
against
him
was
instituted
before
the
Los
Angeles
court.
The
following
day,
or
on
03
May
1995,
he
also
filed
with
the
COMELEC
(Second
Division),
a
"Motion
to
Admit
Position
Paper
Ex
Abundante
Cautela
Showing
that
Respondent
is
Not
a
Fugitive
From
Justice
As
Defined
in
the
Supreme
Court
Decision
of
April
18,
1995
in
G.R.
No.
112889,"
arguing
that
the
decision
in
G.R.
No.
112889
would
not
apply
to
him
because
he
arrived
in
the
Philippines
five
(5)
months
before
the
filing
of
the
felony
charges
against
him.
The
COMELEC
(Second
Division),
in
its
06
May
1995
resolution,
denied
the
motion.
On
07
May
1995,
or
one
day
before
the
scheduled
1995
elections,
the
COMELEC
promulgated
its
first
assailed
consolidated
resolution
in
EPC
No.
92-28
and
SPA
No.
95-089
which
read:
"WHEREFORE,
considering
that
respondent
(Eduardo
Rodriguez)
has
been
proven
to
be
fugitive
from
justice,
he
is
hereby
ordered
disqualified
or
ineligible
from
assuming
and
performing
the
functions
of
Governor
of
Quezon
Province.
Respondent
is
ordered
to
immediately
vacate
said
office.
Further,
he
is
hereby
disqualified
from
running
for
Governor
for
Quezon
Province
in
the
May
8,
1995
elections.
Lastly,
his
certificate
of
candidacy
for
the
May
8,
1995
elections
is
hereby
set
aside."
4
(Emphasis
supplied)
On
10
and
11
May
1995,
Marquez
filed
urgent
motions
to
suspend
the
proclamation
of
Rodriguez.
The
COMELEC
favorably
acted
on
the
motions
as
it
so
issued,
on
11
May
1995,
a
resolution
where
it
ruled
to
suspend,
among
other
candidates,
the
proclamation
of
Rodriguez
who
was
ordered
disqualified
in
SPA
No.
95-089.
Notwithstanding
the
11th
May
1995
resolution,
however,
Rodriguez,
who
would
appear
to
have
garnered
285,202
votes,
was
proclaimed
winner
on
12
May
1995
by
the
Provincial
Board
of
Canvassers
of
Quezon.
On
22
May
1995,
Marquez
went
to
the
COMELEC
and
filed
in
SPA
No.
95-089
and
EPC
No.
92-28
an
"Omnibus
Motion
to
Annul
the
Proclamation
of
Rodriguez,
to
Proclaim
Marquez
and
to
cite
the
Provincial
Board
of
Canvassers
in
Contempt."
On
16
May
1995,
Rodriguez
filed
the
present
petition
for
certiorari
captioned:
"For:
REVIEW
OF
EPC
No.
92-28
and
SPA
No.
95-089
of
the
Commission
on
Elections
and
for
NULLIFICATION
OF
COMELEC
Resolution
dated
11
May
1995
with
a
prayer
for
the
issuance
of
a
WRIT
OF
PRELIMINARY
MANDATORY/PROHIBITORY
INJUNCTION."
An
urgent
motion
to
admit
a
supplemental
petition
was
filed
on
18
May
1995
by
petitioner
stating
that
he
had
been
furnished
with
a
copy
of
a
certificate
of
canvass
of
votes
and
of
his
proclamation
by
the
Provincial
Board
of
Canvassers.
On
29
May
1995,
Rodriguez
thereupon
renewed
his
prayer,
through
a
motion,
for
the
issuance
of
a
temporary
restraining
order
and
to
declare
the
COMELEC
and
Marquez
in
contempt
of
court.
Back
to
the
omnibus
motion
of
Marquez
in
SPA
No.
95-089
and
EPC
No.
92-28,
the
COMELEC,
in
its
23rd
June
1995
resolution,
annulled
and
set
aside
the
proclamation
of
Rodriguez
for
being
null
and
void
ab
initio.
It
also
gave
the
Vice-Chairman
and
Member-Secretary
of
the
Provincial
Board
of
Canvassers
of
Quezon
Province
ten
(10)
days
within
which
to
explain
why
they
should
not
be
cited
in
contempt
for
disobedience
or
resistance
to
the
lawful
order
of
the
COMELEC
particularly
its
"order
to
suspend
proclamation."
On
the
motion
seeking
the
proclamation
of
Marquez,
the
COMELEC
chose
to
have
the
matter
considered
by
it
only
"once
the
Supreme
Court
(would
have)
resolved
the
case
of
Eduardo
T.
Rodriguez
v.
COMELEC
(in),
G.R.
No.
120099"
(the
instant
petition).
This
action
by
the
COMELEC
prompted
Rodriguez
to
file
his
motion
to
admit
a
second
supplemental
petition
in
order
to
include
the
23rd
June
1995
resolution,
in
addition
to
the
07th
and
11th
May
resolutions,
of
the
COMELEC,
among
the
disputed
issuances.
Petitioner
submits
several
reasons
for
the
allowance
and
grant
of
his
petition.
Rodriguez
contends
that
the
COMELEC
should
not
have
entertained
the
disqualification
case
(SPA
No.
95-089)
for
being
an
act
of
'forum-shopping'
on
the
part
of
Marquez.
Clearly,
there
is
no
merit
in
this
submission.
The
general
statement
of
the
prohibition
against
forum-shopping
is
that
a
party
should
not
be
allowed
to
pursue
on
the
same
subject
matter
simultaneous
remedies
in
two
or
more
different
fora
5
that
can
tend
to
degrade
the
administration
of
justice
by
thusly
trifling
with
the
courts
and
abusing
their
processes.
6
Forum-shopping
exists
where
the
actions
are
of
the
same
nature
and
involve
identical
transactions,
circumstances,
and
issues
between
the
same
parties.
7
While
there
is
identity
in
many
respects
between
SPA
No.
95-089
and
EPC
No.
92-28,
the
two
cases,
however,
greatly
differ
in
their
main
aspects.
EPC
No.
92-28
(subject
case
of
G.R.
No.
112889)
is
a
quo
warranto
case
and
involves
petitioner's
gubernatorial
incumbency
for
the
term
1992-1995
while
SPA
No.
95-
089
is
a
disqualification
case
involving
his
candidacy
for
the
1995
local
elections.
Rodriguez
argues
that
should
Section
40(e)
of
the
Local
Government
Code
of
1991
be
applied
to
him,
it
would
partake
the
nature
of
an
ex
post
facto
8
law
or
a
bill
of
attainder.
9
These
terms
have
settled
meanings
in
criminal
law
jurisprudence
that
clearly
have
no
relevance
to
the
case
before
us.
Besides,
the
Local
Government
Code
took
effect
on
01
January
1992,
and
thus
its
application
to
Rodriguez
in
his
gubernatorial
incumbency
that
started
in
mid-1992
and
his
candidacy
for
the
1995
elections
cannot
be
deemed
to
be
retrospective
in
character.
Petitioner
claims
that
the
COMELEC
did
not
have
jurisdiction
to
issue
the
questioned
resolution
on
the
eve
of
the
election
because
the
Omnibus
Election
Code
requires
that
final
decisions
in
disqualification
cases
should
be
rendered
not
later
than
seven
(7)
days
before
the
election.
Section
72
of
the
Omnibus
Election
Code,
that
petitioner
refers
to,
provides:
"SEC.
72.
Effects
of
disqualification
cases
and
priority.
The
Commission
and
the
courts
shall
give
priority
to
cases
of
disqualification
by
reason
of
violation
of
this
Act
to
the
end
that
a
final
decision
shall
be
rendered
not
later
than
seven
days
before
the
election
in
which
the
disqualification
is
sought."
(Emphasis
supplied).
The
instant
case
calls
for
the
governance
not
of
the
Omnibus
Election
Code
but
of
the
Local
Government
Code
(specifically
Section
40[e]
thereof).
In
any
case,
the
"seven
days"
stated
in
the
law,
being
evidently
intended
for
administrative
feasibility,
should
be
construed
as
a
mere
directory,
rather
than
as
a
mandatory,
provision
of
the
Omnibus
Election
Code.
A
provision
should
be
deemed
to
be
directory
only
when
to
have
it
enforced
strictly
may
cause
more
harm
than
by
disregarding
it.
10
The
next
question
posed
was
whether
or
not
the
COMELEC
gravely
abused
its
discretion
when,
in
the
scheduled
hearing
of
26
April
1995,
it
refused
to
grant
the
motion
of
Rodriguez
for
a
suspension
of
hearing.
Far
from
it,
the
denial
by
COMELEC
would
appear
to
have
been
both
prudent
and
legally
warranted.
The
motion
was
grounded
on
the
pendency
of
G.R.
No.
112889
(the
quo
warranto
case),
whereas,
the
26th
April
1995
hearing
related
to
the
disqualification
case
(SPA
95-089)
for
the
1995
election
that
undoubtedly
had
to
be
resolved
quickly.
The
COMELEC
hardly
had
any
choice
but
to
proceed
with
the
hearing
and,
when
Rodriguez
thereupon
walked
out,
Marquez
was
naturally
allowed
to
present
his
evidence
ex-parte.
Perhaps
realizing
that
the
COMELEC
had
acted
correctly,
petitioner
would
question
the
holding
of
the
26th
April
1995
hearing
by
only
one
member
(Commissioner
Teresita
Flores)
of
the
Second
Division.
11Not
only
was
this
matter
not
timely
brought
up
before
the
COMELEC,
but
that
there
would
appear
to
be
no
problem
in
the
delegation
by
the
COMELEC
of
the
mere
reception
of
evidence
to
any
one
of
its
members.
All
the
assailed
resolutions
of
COMELEC
would
indicate
that
the
required
concurrence
of
the
Commissioners
was
given.
The
subsequent
consolidation
of
the
quo
warranto
case
with
that
of
the
disqualification
case
(following
our
18th
April
1995
decision
remanding
the
case
to
COMELEC),
and
the
promulgation
of
the
07th
May
1995
consolidated
resolution,
would
also
seem
to
be
in
conformity
with
Rule
3,
Section
9,
of
the
COMELEC
Rules
of
Procedure,
which
reads:
"Sec.
9.
Consolidation
of
cases.
When
an
action
or
proceeding
involves
a
question
of
law
and
fact
which
is
similar
to
or
common
with
that
of
another
action
or
proceeding,
the
same
may
be
consolidated
with
the
action
or
proceeding
bearing
the
lower
docket
number."
Moreover,
a
further
hearing
on
the
quo
warranto
case
so
involving,
as
it
does,
petitioner's
now
expired
incumbency,
would
be
unnecessary
and
a
futile
effort.
The
pivotal
issue
then
is
whether
or
not
petitioner
falls
under
the
term
"fugitive
from
justice"
but,
unlike
its
precursor
case
in
G.R.
No.
112889
which
has
been
confined
to
the
question
of
whether
or
not
a
conviction
by
final
judgment
of
a
person
at
large
is
essential
before
he
can
be
considered
a
"fugitive
from
justice,"
12
this
time,
however,
the
Court
is
asked
to
pass
upon
petitioner's
assertion
that
he
cannot
be
considered
a
"fugitive
from
justice"
since
he
already
has
been
in
the
Philippines
months
prior
to
the
filing
of
the
charges
against
him
before
the
United
States
court
in
November
1985.
He
cites
a
certification
from
the
Commission
of
Immigration
of
his
arrival
in
the
country
on
25
June
1985.
The
Solicitor-General,
on
his
part,
maintains
that
the
evidence
presented
by
Marquez
is
still
wanting.
He
states
that
the
evidence
thus
far
submitted
would
only
show
"(1)
that
ten
(10)
charges
of
presenting
fraudulent
insurance
claims,
grand
theft
of
personal
property,
and
attempted
grand
theft
of
personal
property
were
filed
against
petitioner
before
the
Municipal
Court
of
the
County
of
Los
Angeles,
State
of
California,
U.S.A.,
in
November,
1985;
"(2)
that
on
November
12,
1985,
a
warrant
of
arrest
was
issued
against
petitioner;
and
"(3)
that
petitioner's
wife,
Imelda
Gener
Rodriguez,
was
arrested
for
the
same
charges
on
November
6,
1985."
13
which,
collectively,
would
appear
to
be
"too
insubstantial"
and
inadequate
to
establish
that
Rodriguez
has,
in
fact,
fled
to
avoid
prosecution.
He
opines
that
".
.
.
The
COMELEC
can
not
simply
ignore
the
fact
that
the
then
Bureau
of
Immigration
had
issued
a
certification
that
on
June
25,
1985,
petitioner
returned
to
the
Philippines
from
the
United
States.
This
certification
is
already
on
record,
having
been
submitted
by
petitioner
ex
abundante
cautela
following
COMELEC's
refusal
to
consider
the
same
because
of
petitioner's
walkout
from
the
hearing
on
April
26,
1995.
According
to
the
election
results,
petitioner
won
over
private
respondent
by
a
majority
of
140,000
votes
more
or
less.
This
manifestation
of
the
People's
will
can
not
just
be
ignored
without
conducting
a
thorough
hearing
to
determine
whether
the
person
they
had
overwhelmingly
voted
for
is
really
disqualified
from
presenting
himself
to
them
for
election."14
I
thus
perceive
the
Solicitor
General
as
now
also
saying
that
an
intention
to
evade
punishment
or
prosecution
is
an
element
of
the
term
"fugitive
from
justice."
Verily,
there
is
a
dearth
of
authorities
on
the
proper
and
legal
connotation
of
the
phrase
"fugitive
from
justice."
Neither
the
law
(Republic
Act
No.
7160,
also
known
as
the
Local
Government
Code)
15
here
in
question
nor
the
deliberations
in
Congress
give
much
clue
to
the
legislative
intent.
The
phrase
has
been
used
in
various
contexts
although
it
is
in
extradition
cases
where
it
appears
to
have
acquired
a
prevalent
usage.
One
leading
situation
was
that
of
Roberts
vs.
Reilly,
16
decided
by
the
United
States
Supreme
Court,
which
involved
the
application
of
Article
4,
Section
2,
of
the
United
States
Constitution
17
and
Section
5278
18
of
the
Revised
Statutes
of
the
United
States
implementing
the
Constitutional
provision.
William
Roberts
was
indicted
for
grand
larceny
in
the
first
degree
in
the
State
of
New
York.
He
was
subsequently
held
in
the
State
of
Georgia
by
Philip
Reilly,
who
claimed
to
be
an
agent
of
the
State
of
New
York
and
acting
by
virtue
of
an
executive
warrant
issued
by
the
Governor
of
Georgia
on
a
requisition
from
the
Governor
of
New
York,
reciting
that
Roberts
had
been
indicted
in
the
State
of
New
York
and
was
a
fugitive
from
justice
of
the
latter
State.
In
considering
the
specific
question
on
whether
or
not
the
person
demanded
was
a
fugitive
from
justice,
the
tribunal
held:
"To
be
(regarded)
a
fugitive
from
justice,
.
.
.
,
it
is
not
necessary
that
the
party
charged
should
have
left
the
State
in
which
the
crime
is
alleged
to
have
been
committed,
after
an
indictment
found,
or
for
the
purpose
of
avoiding
a
prosecution
anticipated
or
begun,
but
simply
that,
having
within
a
State
committed
that
which
by
its
laws
constitutes
a
crime,
when
he
is
sought
to
be
subjected
to
its
criminal
process
to
answer
for
his
offense,
he
has
left
its
jurisdiction
and
is
found
within
the
territory
of
another."
The
ruling
was
repeated
in
Appleyard
v.
Massachusetts,
19
itself
to
be
later
reiterated
in
a
number
of
other
cases,
20
where
Arthur
Appleyard
was
indicted
for
the
crime
of
grand
larceny,
first
degree,
alleged
to
have
been
committed
in
the
county
of
Erie,
New
York.
Although
a
warrant
for
his
arrest
was
issued,
Appleyard
was
not
apprehended
because
he
had
moved
out
from
that
State.
He
was
eventually
arrested
by
virtue
of
a
warrant
issued
by
the
Governor
of
Massachusetts.
Appleyard
then
applied
for
a
writ
of
habeas
corpus
to
the
supreme
judicial
council
of
Massachusetts
which,
after
hearing,
denied
the
application.
He,
again,
applied
to
the
Circuit
Court
of
the
United
States
for
a
writ
of
habeas
corpus
which
effort
likewise
proved
futile.
Appleyard
interposed
an
appeal
to
the
U.S.
Supreme
Court.
He
restated
his
previous
contention
before
the
lower
courts
that
he
could
not
be
deemed
to
be
a
fugitive
from
justice
because
he
was
unaware
when
leaving
New
York
that
he
had
at
any
time
violated
its
criminal
laws.
That
Court
held:
".
.
.
This
contention
cannot
be
sustained;
indeed,
it
could
not
be
sustained
without
materially
impairing
the
efficacy
of
the
constitutional
and
statutory
provisions
relating
to
fugitives
from
justice.
An
alleged
fugitive
may
believe
that
he
has
not
committed
any
crime
against
the
laws
of
the
state
in
which
he
is
indicted,
and
yet,
according
to
the
laws
of
such
state,
as
administered
by
its
judicial
tribunals,
he
may
have
done
so,
and
his
belief
or
want
of
belief
may
be
without
foundation
in
law.
It
is
the
province
of
the
courts
of
New
York
to
declare
what
its
laws
are,
and
to
determine
whether
particular
acts
on
the
part
of
an
alleged
offender
constitute
a
crime
under
such
laws.
The
constitutional
provision
that
a
person
charged
with
crime
against
the
laws
of
a
state,
and
who
flees
from
its
justice,
must
be
delivered
up
on
proper
demand,
is
sufficiently
comprehensive
to
embrace
any
offense,
whatever
its
nature,
which
the
state,
consistently
with
the
Constitution
and
laws
of
the
United
States,
may
have
made
a
crime
against
its
laws.
Kentucky
v.
Dennison,
24
How.
66,
69,
16
L.
ed.
717;
Ex
parte
Reggel,
114
U.S.
642,
650,
29
L.
ed.
250,
252,
5
Sup.
Ct.
Rep.
1148.
So
that
the
simple
inquiry
must
be
whether
the
person
whose
surrender
is
demanded
is
in
fact
a
fugitive
from
justice,
not
whether
he
consciously
fled
from
justice
in
order
to
avoid
prosecution
for
the
crime
with
which
he
is
charged
by
the
demanding
state.
A
person
charged
by
indictment
or
by
affidavit
before
a
magistrate
with
the
commission
within
a
state
of
a
crime
covered
by
its
laws,
and
who,
after
the
date
of
the
commission
of
such
crime,
leaves
the
state,
no
matter
for
what
purpose
or
with
what
motive,
nor
under
what
belief,
becomes,
from
the
time
of
such
leaving,
and
within
the
meaning
of
the
Constitution
and
the
laws
of
the
United
States,
a
fugitive
from
justice,
.
.
."
Most
U.S.
State
courts
would
appear
to
be
similarly
minded.
21
21a
The
rulings
heretofore
cited
cannot
be
here
controlling,
of
course,
and
divergent
views
can
still
be
expressed
on
the
precise
import
of
the
phrase
"fugitive
from
justice."
It
is
evident
enough
though,
in
my
view,
that
Congress,
not
having
provided
otherwise,
must
have
intended
the
ordinary
connotation
of
the
term
to
prevail.
So
taken,
it
might
be
understood
as
referring
to
one
who,
having
committed
or
being
accused
of
having
committed
a
crime
in
one
jurisdiction,
cannot
be
found
therein
22
or
is
absent
for
any
reason
from
that
jurisdiction
23
that
thereby
forestalls
criminal
justice
from
taking
its
due
course.
The
issue
is
largely
a
factual
matter
and
in
that
determination,
the
motive
or
reason
for
his
plight
need
not
be
inquired
into.
Animus
fugere
may
be
significant
but
it
is
not
essential
and
what
matters
is
not
why
he
leaves
but
the
fact
that
he
leaves,
for
it
should
not
be
unreasonable
to
assume
that
he
was
not
unaware
of
his
own
prior
deeds
or
misdeeds.
As
so
conceptualized,
the
import
of
the
term
is
more
congruent
than
variant
with
what
has
heretofore
been
essayed
to
be,
in
fact,
its
common
usage.
Indeed,
unlike
the
U.S.
courts
which
are
yet
detained
by
the
conditions
expressed
in
both
their
fundamental
and
statutory
laws,
the
pertinent
provision
of
our
own
Local
Government
Code
contains
no
further
circumscription
other
than
by
its
bare
and
simple
mandate
that
a
"fugitive
from
justice
in
criminal
or
non-political
cases
here
or
abroad"
shall
be
"disqualified
from
running
for
any
elective
local
position."
24
The
law
has
provided
no
further
provisos
and
no
saving
clauses.
When
there
is
no
obscurity
or
ambiguity
in
an
enabling
law,
it
must,
we
have
said
in
the
related
case
ofMarquez
vs.
Comelec,
25
be
merely
made
to
apply
as
it
is
so
written.
This
Court
is
not
at
liberty
either
to
question
the
wisdom
of
the
law,
let
alone
to
detract
from
it,
or
to
itself
legislate
material
parameters
when
there
are
none
that
statutorily
exist.
I
now
come
to
the
final
question
of
whether
or
not
substantial
evidence
has
been
adduced
to
support
the
factual
findings
of
the
COMELEC
and,
corollarily,
whether
or
not
petitioner
has
been
duly
accorded
full
opportunity
to
present
before
the
COMELEC
his
own
evidence
to
disprove
the
assertions
of
private
respondent.
It
may
be
recalled
that,
following
the
denial
of
the
motion
of
Rodriguez
to
postpone
the
scheduled
26th
April
1995
hearing,
the
COMELEC
continued,
because
of
the
proximity
of
the
May
1995
elections,
with
its
reception
of
the
evidence
(despite
the
walk-
out
thereupon
staged
by
Rodriguez
and
his
counsel).
Duly
received
in
evidence
included
an
authenticated
copy
of
the
warrant
of
arrest,
dated
12
November
1985,
on
respondent
(Exh.
A-2)
issued
by
the
Municipal
Court
of
the
County
of
Los
Angeles,
State
of
California,
U.S.A.,
in
connection
with
a
criminal
complaint
filed
against
him
in
Criminal
Case
No.
A774567,
entitled
"People
of
the
State
vs.
Imelda
O.
Rodriguez
and
Eduardo
T.
Rodriguez
for
the
crimes
of
presenting
Fraudulent
Insurance
Claims,
Grand
Theft
of
Personal
Property
and
Attempted
Grand
Theft
of
Personal
Property,"
and
an
authenticated
copy
of
the
felony
complaint
(Exh.
A-10
to
A-15
inclusive),
showing
that
the
respondent
was
charged
criminally
on
ten
(10)
counts.
Concluding
on
the
documentary
evidence
adduced
before
it,
the
COMELEC
said:
"The
authenticated
documents
submitted
by
petitioner
to
show
the
pendency
of
a
criminal
complaint
against
the
respondent
in
the
Municipal
Court
of
Los
Angeles,
California,
U.S.A.,
and
the
fact
that
there
is
an
outstanding
warrant
against
him
amply
proves
petitioner's
contention
that
the
respondent
is
afugitive
from
justice."
26
The
petitioner
and
his
counsel
walked
out
from
the
proceedings.
Certainly,
the
thesis
that
petitioner
was
denied
due
process
would
be
totally
unacceptable;
he
himself
brushed
it
aside.
But
while
there
might
be
no
sympathy
for
his
action
that
ordinarily
should
have
prevented
him
from
any
further
opportunity,
the
Court,
nevertheless,
aptly
recognized
that
the
controversy
was
solely
not
between
the
private
parties
herein,
but
one
imbued
with
public
interest,
involving
no
less
than
the
highest
office
in
the
province
of
Quezon
and
so,
inevitably,
a
concern
also
of
its
people.
Accordingly,
the
Court,
besides
having
set
the
case
for
the
reception
of
oral
argument
on
13
July
1995,
likewise
passed,
on
24
October
1995,
the
following
resolution;
thus
"Deliberating
on
the
special
civil
action
for
certiorari
with
prayer
for
preliminary
injunction
and
restraining
order,
along
with
the
comment
thereon
filed
by
the
Solicitor
General,
as
well
as
the
other
subsequent
pleadings
submitted
by
the
parties
in
support
of
their
respective
submissions,
and
considering,
further,
the
oral
arguments
of
the
parties
during
the
13th
July
1995
hearing
of
this
case,
the
Court
RESOLVED
to
DIRECT
the
Chairman
of
the
Commission
on
Elections
('COMELEC')
to
designate
a
Commissioner
or
a
ranking
official
of
the
COMELEC
to
RECEIVE
AND
EVALUATE
such
legally
admissible
evidence
as
herein
petitioner
Eduardo
Rodriguez
may
be
minded
to
present
by
way
of
refuting
the
evidence
heretofore
submitted
by
private
respondent
Bienvenido
Marquez,
Sr.,
or
that
which
can
tend
to
establish
petitioner's
contention
that
he
does
not
fall
within
the
legal
concept
of
a
'fugitive
from
justice.'
Private
respondent
Marquez
may
likewise,
if
he
so
desires,
introduce
additional
and
admissible
evidence
in
support
of
his
own
position.
The
provisions
of
Sections
3
to
10,
Rule
33,
of
the
Rules
of
Court
may
be
applied
in
the
reception
of
the
evidence.
The
Chairman
of
the
COMELEC
shall
have
the
proceedings
completed
and
the
corresponding
report
submitted
to
this
Court
within
thirty
(30)
days
from
notice
hereof."
27
While
it
may
generally
be
said
that
the
possible
outcome
or
truth
of
an
indictment
need
not
necessarily
be
an
issue
in
ascertaining
whether
or
not
one
is
afugitive
from
justice,
when,
however,
the
accusation
is
lodged
with
and
an
arrest
is
ordered
by
a
foreign
court
or
agency
we
might
also
assure
ourselves
as
a
matter
of
principle
that,
in
the
process
of
sanctioning
in
effect
an
act
of
a
foreign
government,
we
do
not
thereby
abandon
our
own
basic
sense
of
equity
and
fair
play.
There
cannot
thus
be
any
serious
doubt
that,
when
assailed
or
in
doubt,
the
courts
are
free
to
look
into,
and
receive
evidence
on,
the
legitimacy
and
regularity
of
the
proceedings
in
that
foreign
jurisdiction.
In
the
report
submitted
by
the
Commission
on
Elections,
28
entitled
"Evidence
of
the
Parties
and
Commission's
Evaluation,"
received
by
the
Court
on
26
December
1995,
the
matters
adduced
by
petitioner
focused
on
what
had
already
been
asseverated
in
his
petition,
i.e.,
that
he
was
already
in
the
Philippines
prior
to
the
filing
of
the
charges
against
him
before
the
United
States
court
in
November
of
1985
and
that
his
return
to
the
country
was
not
intended
to
avoid
prosecution.
Neither
party
brought
up
any
question
on
the
legitimacy
and
regularity
of
the
proceedings
before
the
foreign
court
that
led
to
the
issuance
of
the
warrants
of
arrest.
I
quote
the
pertinent
portions
of
the
report:
"EVIDENCE
"Petitioner
Rodriguez
presented
the
following
witnesses:
"1.
Atty.
Cipriano
Farrales
Legal
Officer
of
the
Bureau
of
Immigration
and
Deportation
"2.
Menardo
Manglo
"3.
Former
Supreme
Court
Justice
Abraham
Sarmiento
"4.
Ex-Senator
Aquilino
Pimentel,
Jr.
"5.
Ex-Senator
Agapito
Aquino
"6.
Atty.
Geronimo
Reyes,
Jr.
"7.
Atty.
Roberto
Avio
"8.
Mr.
Heberto
Buenafe
"9.
Former
Senate
President
Jovito
Salonga
"10.
Former
Secretary
of
the
Department
of
Labor
and
Employment
Augusto
Sanchez
"11.
Mr.
Euclides
Abcede
and
"12.
Eduardo
Rodriguez.
"The
testimonies
of
Former
Supreme
Court
Justice
Abraham
Sarmiento,
former
Senator
Aquilino
Pimentel,
Jr.,
former
Senator
Agapito
Aquino,
Former
Labor
Secretary
Augusto
Sanchez
and
former
Senator
Jovito
Salonga
collectively
emphasized
that
petitioner
Eduardo
Rodriguez
was
one
of
the
active
participants
in
the
political
movement
against
the
late
President
Ferdinand
E.
Marcos.
They
went
to
Hongkong
on
August
9,
1985
as
a
group,
together
with
petitioner
Eduardo
Rodriguez,
in
order
to
meet
a
political
exile,
Raul
Daza,
who
had
then
a
pending
warrant
of
arrest
issued
by
a
Regional
Trial
Court
of
Quezon
City.
The
purpose
of
the
trip
was
to
provide
Mr.
Raul
Daza,
another
prominent
opposition
figure
during
the
Marcos
regime,
some
form
of
protective
company
during
his
return
to
the
country
on
August
12,
1985.
To
the
political
opposition
then,
it
was
a
big
event
that
enjoyed
media
bash
particularly
in
the
August
12,
1985
issue
of
the
Bulletin
Today
and
in
the
August
19,
1985
issue
of
the
Mr.
and
Ms.
Magazine.
"Mr.
Geronimo
Reyes
testified
that
he
knows
petitioner
Rodriguez
as
a
co-exile
from
the
Marcos
regime
in
Los
Angeles,
USA.
Reyes
was
the
organizer
and
president
of
Wilshire
Walking
Corp.
composed
of
Filipino
residents
in
Los
Angeles.
Petitioner
Rodriguez
became
a
member
thereof.
Rodriguez
returned
to
the
Philippines
about
July
1985
and
returned
to
Los
Angeles
in
August
of
the
same
year.
That
was
the
last
time
they
saw
each
other
in
the
US.
Either
on
November
11
or
12,
1985,
a
certain
Johnny
Reveche,
brother-in-
law
of
petitioner
Rodriguez,
called
him
to
the
former's
home
at
Beard
Ave.,
Northridge,
California
to
discuss
the
matter
of
the
arrest
and
detention
of
Mrs.
Imelda
Rodriguez,
wife
of
petitioner
Rodriguez,
who
had
just
been
bailed
out.
His
assistance
was
requested
because
he
had
been
practicing
law
in
California.
While
Mr.
Reyes,
Imelda
Rodriguez
and
Mr.
Reveche
were
discussing
the
case,
Mr.
Reveche
called
Mr.
Reyes
to
the
phone
where
the
latter
found
out
that
Rodriguez
was
on
the
other
end
calling
him
from
the
Philippines.
The
caller
requested
Mr.
Reyes
to
render
all
the
necessary
assistance
to
Mrs.
Rodriguez
because
petitioner
was
unable
to
be
with
her
as
he
was
then
in
the
Philippines
and
deep
in
the
political
campaign.
"Atty.
Roberto
Avio,
resident
of
Macalelon,
Quezon
and
former
chairman
of
the
United
Nationalists
Democratic
Organization
(UNIDO),
Macalelon
Chapter,
testified
that
sometime
in
May
1985,
former
Mayor
Eduardo
T.
Rodriguez
returned
from
the
United
States
and
sent
his
personal
driver
to
witness'
residence
to
inform
the
latter
that
Rodriguez
would
be
meeting
him
in
the
first
week
of
June
1985
at
Macalelon,
Quezon.
In
the
meeting
held
as
scheduled,
Rodriguez
intimated
that
he
(Rodriguez)
was
tasked
by
Ex-Senator
Salonga
to
reactivate
and
reorganize
the
Liberal
Party
in
the
Bondoc
Peninsula
area.
However,
Atty.
Avio
declined
Rodriguez's
invitation
to
join
the
reorganization
as
he
was
then
already
committed
to
the
UNIDO
as
the
local
chairman.
Rodriguez
requested
another
meeting
after
consulting
with
other
former
Liberal
Party
stalwarts.
Said
meeting
transpired
on
the
last
week
of
July
1985
where
Rodriguez,
made
aware
of
the
improbability
of
reactivating
the
Liberal
Party
due
to
the
affiliation
of
most
of
the
party's
former
members
with
the
UNIDO,
expressed
willingness
to
join
the
UNIDO.
Rodriguez
took
his
oath
of
allegiance
on
October
1985.
Thereafter,
he
actively
participated
in
the
political
campaigns
of
the
UNIDO
candidates
in
the
presidential
snap
elections
and
congressional
elections
resulting
in
his
appointment
as
OIC-Board
Member
of
the
Sangguniang
Panlalawigan
ng
Quezon
in
1986
and
his
election
as
Provincial
Governor
of
Quezon
in
1988.
"Heberto
Buenafe's
testimony
corroborated
these
allegations,
specifically
stating
that
sometime
in
July
and
August
of
1985,
Buenafe
had
occasion
to
meet
Rodriguez
and
that
in
matters
of
party
dispute
regarding
the
leadership
of
the
UNIDO
in
Lucena
City,
the
latter
was
often
consulted
as
he
(Rodriguez)
was
then
designated
as
party
representative
of
the
Liberal
Party
by
Senator
Salonga
immediately
after
his
arrival
in
the
Philippines
in
May
1985.
Likewise,
Mr.
Euclides
Abcede's
testimony
attested
to
the
fact
that
in
line
with
his
activities
as
an
active
opposition
campaigner,
Abcede
met
Rodriguez
in
Macalelon,
Quezon
sometime
in
June
1985.
"Mr.
Menardo
Manglo
is
the
arrival
and
departure
verifier
of
the
Bureau
of
Immigration.
He
certified
the
authenticity
of
the
Bureau
of
Immigration
Arrival
and
Departure
Reports
of
June
1985,
August
1985,
August
1986,
September
1986,
July
1987,
June
1988,
July
1989
and
August
1990
(Exhibits
5
to
5-G,
inclusive)
wherein
the
name
Eduardo
T.
Rodriguez
appears.
On
cross-examination,
witness
testified
that
said
exhibits
were
computer
print-outs
supplied
to
the
Bureau
of
Immigration
by
the
PAL
Computer
Center.
"Atty.
Cipriano
Farrales,
legal
officer
of
the
Bureau
of
Immigration,
testified
that
the
certification
issued
by
the
Bureau
relative
to
the
departure
and
arrival
of
Rodriguez
in
the
Philippines
issued
by
Commissioner
Lopez
was
genuine
and
authentic
(Exhibits
1
and
2).
"Herein
petitioner
Rodriguez'
testimony
denied
the
allegation
that
he
falls
within
the
Supreme
Court's
definition
of
a
'fugitive
from
justice'
which
includes
'those
who,
after
being
charged,
flee
to
avoid
prosecution.'
Specifically,
Rodriguez
averred:
"b)
I
arrived
in
the
Philippines
from
the
United
States
of
America
on
June
25,
1985,
5
months
prior
the
filing
of
the
alleged
charges
against
me
on
November
12,
1985.
Obviously,
I
did
not
flee
from
the
United
States
of
America
to
avoid
prosecution.
At
the
time
that
I
left
the
United
States,
there
were
no
charges
against
me.
No
warrant
of
arrest
has
been
issued
against
my
person.
Under
the
facts,
it
could
not
be
said
that
I
fled
from
the
United
States
to
avoid
prosecution.
.
.
.
"On
the
query
as
to
whether
or
not
he
returned
to
the
United
States
between
June
25,
1985
and
November
12,
1985,
petitioner
Rodriguez
responded
that
he
went
back
twice,
viz,
on
August
14,
1985
and
October
7,
1985
(see
also
passport,
Exhibit
14).
He
testified
that
he
left
Los
Angeles
on
October
26,
1985
and,
as
per
certification
issued
by
the
Bureau
of
Immigration
(Exhibit
2),
arrived
in
the
Philippines
on
the
same
date.
From
that
time,
Rodriguez
never
returned
to
Los
Angeles.
After
the
conclusion
of
the
oral
testimonies,
the
following
documentary
evidence
were
offered
by
petitioner
Rodriguez
and
were
admitted.
"1.
Civil
Service
Commission
Form
No.
1,
Job
Description
of
Cipriano
Farrales
(Exhibit
1)
"2.
Certification
from
the
Bureau
of
Immigration
(Exhibit
2)
"3.
Affidavit
of
Abraham
Sarmiento
(Exhibit
3
with
Annexes
A
and
B,
Bulletin
Today
and
Mr.
and
Ms.
Magazine
news
reports)
"4.
Affidavit
of
Aquilino
Pimentel,
Jr.
(Exhibit
4
with
Annexes
A
and
B,
Bulletin
Today
and
Mr.
and
Ms.
Magazine
news
reports)
"5.
Arrival
and
Departure
Report
of
the
Bureau
of
Immigration
(Exhibit
5
to
5-D,
inclusive)
"6.
Affidavit
of
Agapito
Aquino
(Exhibit
6
with
Annexes
A
and
B,
Bulletin
Today
and
Mr.
and
Ms.
Magazine
news
reports)
"7.
Affidavit
of
Geronimo
Reyes,
Jr.
(Exhibit
7)
"8.
Affidavit
of
Roberto
Avio
(Exhibit
8)
"9.
Affidavit
of
Heberto
Buenafe
(Exhibit
9)
"10.
Affidavit
of
Jovito
Salonga
(Exhibit
10)
"11.
Affidavit
of
Augusto
Sanchez
(Exhibit
11)
"12.
Affidavit
of
Euclides
Abcede
(Exhibit
12)
"13.
Affidavit
of
Eduardo
T.
Rodriguez
(Exhibit
13)
"14.
Xerox
copy
of
Rodriguez's
passport
(Exhibit
14
with
submarkings,
14-A
to
14-D,
inclusive)
"Respondent
Marquez
submitted
the
following
documentary
evidence:
"1.
Affidavit
of
Bienvenido
Marquez
(Exhibit
E)
"2.
Affidavit
of
Mr.
Casiano
Pasumbal
(Exhibit
F)
"3.
Certificate
of
Death
of
Gloria
Magayanes
Gener,
mother-in-law
of
petitioner
(Exhibit
G)
with
the
alleged
signature
of
Rodriguez
as
informant
(Exhibit
G-1)
"4.
Certificate
of
Death
of
Imelda
Gener
Rodriguez,
spouse
of
petitioner
(Exhibit
H)
with
the
alleged
signature
of
Rodriguez
as
informant
(Exhibit
H-1)
"As
regards
other
documentary
evidence
offered,
the
investigation
report
consisting
of
Exhibits
I
to
I-17
and
J
to
J-87
which
was
sought
admission
by
respondent
Marquez,
was
excluded
by
the
presiding
Commissioner
because
of
irrelevancy
to
the
purpose
for
which
it
was
offered.
The
undersigned
so
ruled
due
to
respondent's
failure
to
identify
the
nexus
between
the
documents
sought
to
be
admitted
and
the
inference
that
in
view
of
the
same,
petitioner
would
have
known
of
the
imminent
filing
of
charges
against
him."
29
From
the
"Discussion"
portion
of
its
report,
it
would
appear
to
me
that
the
COMELEC,
like
the
majority
of
my
colleagues,
proceeded
under
the
impression
that
the
Court
in
G.R.
No.
112889
had
considered
intent
to
evade
the
law
to
be
a
material
element
in
the
definition
of
"fugitive
from
justice."
The
COMELEC
understandably
thereby
felt
compelled
to
conclude
that
petitioner,
there
being
no
clear
evidence
of
any
intention
on
his
part
to
evade
the
law
at
the
time
he
left
the
United
States,
was
not
a
fugitive
from
justice.
However,
as
heretofore
so
pointed
out,
the
sole
and
basic
issue
in
G.R.
No.
112889
was
whether
or
not
a
conviction
by
final
judgment
of
the
person
at
large
was
essential
before
he
could
be
considered
a
fugitive
from
justice.
That
question
clearly
arose
when
theOversight
Committee
which
was
convened
by
the
President,
conformably
with
Section
533
of
Republic
Act
7160,
to
formulate
the
appropriate
rules
and
regulations
necessary
for
the
efficient
and
effective
implementation
of
the
provisions
of
the
Local
Government
Code,
came
out
with
its
Article
73
that
provided:
"Art.
73.
Disqualifications.
The
following
persons
shall
be
disqualified
from
running
for
any
elective
local
position;
"(a)
.
.
.
"(e)
Fugitives
from
justice
in
criminal
or
non-political
cases
here
or
abroad.
Fugitive
from
justice
refers
to
a
person
who
has
been
convicted
by
final
judgment."
(Emphasis
supplied.)
The
court
in
G.R.
No.
112889
naturally
opined
that
the
above
provision
"to
the
extent
that
it
confine(d)
the
term
fugitive
from
justice
to
refer
only
to
a
person
(the
fugitive)
.
.
.
convicted
by
final
judgment
(was)
an
inordinate
and
undue
circumscription
of
the
law."
The
Court
had
to
likewise
concede
to
the
Solicitor
General
when
he
then
said
that
the
term
"includes
not
only
those
who
flee
after
conviction
to
avoid
punishment
but
likewise
those
who,
after
being
charged,
flee
to
avoid
prosecution"
for,
certainly,
the
statement
was
not
incorrect.
But
what
indeed,
could
be
perplexing
was
how
it
could
be
possible
for
the
Court's
ruling
in
G.R.
No.
112889
to
be
so
misconstrued
as
to
supposedly
convey
any
idea
of
exclusivity
or
preclusivity
that,
to
begin
with,
was
not
even
considered
at
the
time.
There
should
be
nothing
erroneous,
in
my
view,
when
COMELEC
did
ultimately
come
up
with
its
own
concluding
observation
that
"the
mere
fact
that
there
are
pending
charges
in
the
United
States
and
that
petitioner
Rodriguez
is
in
the
Philippines
make
petitioner
a
fugitive
from
justice."
And
so
I
hold,
in
resume,
as
follows:
That
1.
The
filing
with
the
COMELEC
of
the
disqualification
case
in
SPA
No.
95-089
was
not
an
act
of
forum
shopping
on
the
part
of
herein
private
respondent
Marquez.
2.
Section
40(e)
of
the
Local
Government
Code
of
1991
did
not
partake
of
an
ex
post
facto
law
or
a
bill
of
attainder.
3.
Section
40(e)
of
the
Local
Government
Code,
not
Section
72
of
the
Omnibus
Election
Code,
should
govern.
4.
The
COMELEC
did
not
abuse
its
discretion
in
denying
herein
petitioner's
motion
for
a
suspension
of
hearing
in
SPA
Case
No.
95-089
and
in
allowing
herein
private
respondent
to
present
his
evidence
ex-parte,
considering
its
close
proximity
to
the
1995
elections.
5.
In
consolidating
EPC
No.
92-28
(the
quo
warranto
case)
and
SPA
No.
95-089
(the
disqualification
case),
the
COMELEC
acted
in
conformity
with
its
Rules
of
Procedure.
6.
Given
the
factual
settings
and
the
circumstances,
I
must
conclude
that
petitioner
is
a
"fugitive
from
justice"
within
the
intent
and
meaning
of
Section
40(e)
of
the
Local
Government
Code
of
1991.
WHEREFORE,
I
vote
for
the
DISMISSAL
of
the
petition.
Narvasa
C
.
J
.,
Padilla,
Regalado,
Davide
Jr.,
and
Mendoza,
JJ
.,
concur.
Footnotes
1.243
SCRA
538,
542.
2.COMELEC
Consolidated
Resolution,
Rollo,
pp.
95-96.
3.Rollo,
p.
164.
4.Rollo,
p.
476.
TORRES,
JR.,
J.,
concurring:
1.Report
of
the
Commission,
p.
12.
2.Commissioner
Maambong's
Concurring
Opinion
that
petitioner
is
not
fugitive
from
justice,
p.
9.
3.Towne
vs.
Eismer,
245
U.S.
418.
4.Art.
II,
Sec.
26
(State
Policies)
of
the
1987
Constitution
provides:
"The
state
shall
guarantee
equal
access
to
opportunities
for
public
service,
and
prohibit
political
dynasties
as
may
be
defined
by
law."
5.Labo
vs.
Commission
on
Elections,
G.R.
No.
105384,
July
3,
1992.
6.Learned
Hand,
A
Plea
for
the
Open
Mind
and
Free
Discussion,
in
True
Spirit
of
Liberty,
274.
7.Avelino
vs.
Rosales,
CA-G.R.
No.
88-R,
September
5,
1952,
48,
O.G.
5308;
The
Law
on
Elections
by
Jaime
Opinion
and
Ruben
Agpalo,
1987
ed.,
p.
57.).
8.Mentang
vs.
Commission
on
Elections,
G.R.
No.
110347,
February
4,
1994.
VITUG,
J.,
dissenting:
1.The
first
case
was
G.R.
No.
105310,
entitled,
"Bienvenido
Marquez,
Jr.
vs.
Eduardo
Rodriguez,"
the
second
case
was
G.R.
No.
112889
entitled,
"Bienvenido
Marquez,
Jr.
v.
Eduardo
Rodriguez,"
the
third
case
was
G.R.
No.
119807
entitled,
"Eduardo
Rodriguez
v.
COMELEC,
et
al.,"
and
now,
the
case
at
bench,
G.R.
No.
120099.
2.In
its
decision,
dated
18
April
1995,
the
Court
sustained
Marquez
in
contending
that
conviction
was
not
a
requirement
of
the
disqualifying
law
and
thereby
remanded
the
case
for
further
proceedings.
3.Rodriguez
alleged
that
when
SPA
No.
95-089
was
called
for
hearing
by
the
Second
Division
of
the
respondent
Commission
on
26
April
1995
at
two
o'clock
in
the
afternoon,
there
was
no
quorum.
Only
Commissioner
Teresita
D.L.
Flores
was
present.
He
alleged
that
since
Presiding
Commissioner
of
the
Second
Division,
Remedios
Salazar-Fernando
and
Manolo
Gorospe
were
not
present,
how
was
it
possible
for
a
single
Commissioner
to
constitute
a
quorum
for
the
transaction
of
the
business
of
the
Second
Division.
4.Rollo,
p.
97.
5.People
vs.
Court
of
Appeals,
101
SCRA
450.
6.Victronics
Computer,
Inc.
vs.
Regional
Trial
Court,
Branch
63,
Makati,
217
SCRA
517.
7.R.
Transport
Corporation
vs.
Laguesma,
227
SCRA
826.
8.To
be
ex
post
facto,
the
law
must:
(1)
refer
to
criminal
matters;
(2)
be
retroactive
in
its
application;
and
(3)
to
the
prejudice
of
the
accused.
(Isagani
A.
Cruz,
Constitutional
Law,
1989
ed.,
p.
244)
9.A
bill
of
attainder
is
a
legislative
fiat
that
inflicts
punishment
without
trial
(People
vs.
Carlos,
78
Phil.
535),
its
essence
being
the
substitution
of
legislative
fiat
for
a
judicial
determination
of
guilt
(Cruz,
supra,
pp.
246-247).
10.See
Marcelino
vs.
Cruz,
121
SCRA
51.
11.The
two
other
members
were
Commissioners
Remedios
Fernando
and
Manolo
Gorospe.
12.The
Court,
in
response,
said
in
its
decision
of
18
April
1995
that
conviction
was
not
indispensable,
albeit
some
reservations
expressed
by
the
ponente.
13.Rollo,
p.
413.
14.Rollo,
p.
466.
15.Sec.
40.Disqualifications.
The
following
persons
are
disqualified
from
running
for
any
elective
local
position:
xxx
xxx
xxx
(e)
Fugitive
from
justice
in
criminal
or
non-political
cases
here
or
abroad(.)
16.116
U.S.
80,
29
Led.
544.
17.A
person
charged
in
any
state
with
treason,
felony,
or
other
crime,
who
shall
flee
from
justice
and
be
found
in
another
state,
shall
on
demand
of
the
executive
authority
of
the
state
from
with
he
fled,
be
delivered
up,
to
be
removed
to
the
state
having
jurisdiction
of
the
crime
(Art.
4,
Sec.
2).
18.Whenever
the
executive
authority
of
any
state
or
territory
demands
any
person
as
a
fugitive
from
justice,
of
the
executive
authority
of
any
state
or
territory
to
which
such
person
has
fled,
and
produces
a
copy
of
an
indictment
found
or
an
affidavit
made
before
a
magistrate
of
any
state
or
territory,
charging
the
person
demanded
with
having
committed
treason,
felony,
or
other
crime,
certified
as
authentic
by
the
governor
or
chief
magistrate
of
the
state
or
territory
from
whence
the
person
so
charged
has
fled,
it
shall
be
the
duty
of
the
executive
authority
of
the
state
or
territory
to
which
such
person
has
fled
to
cause
him
to
be
arrested
and
secured,
and
to
cause
notice
of
the
arrest
to
be
given
to
the
executive
authority
making
such
demand,
or
to
the
agent
of
such
authority
appointed
to
receive
the
fugitive,
and
to
cause
the
fugitive
to
be
delivered
to
such
agent
when
he
shall
appear.
(See
U.S.
Comp.
St.
1901,
P.
3597).
19.203
U.S.
222,
51
Led.
161.
20.Illinois
ex
rel.
McNichols
v.
Pease,
207
U.S.
100,
52,
L.
ed.
121;
Biddinger
v.
Police
Commissioners,
245
U.S.
128,
62,
L
ed.
193;
Hogan
v.
O'neill,
255
U.S.
52,
65
L
ed.
497.
21.The
U.S.
Supreme
Court
in
Appleyard
went
cursorily
through
a
number
of
such
cases
(hereunder
re-arranged
for
convenience)
thusly:
"In
Kingsbury's
Case,
106
Mass.
223,
227,
228,
the
contention
of
the
fugitive
from
justice
was
that,
as
she
went
into
the
demanding
state
and
returned
to
her
home
in
the
other
state
before
the
alleged
crime
was
known,
she
could
not
be
deemed
to
have
fled
from
justice.
But
the
court
said:
'The
material
facts
are,
that
the
prisoner
is
charged
with
a
crime
in
the
manner
prescribed,
and
has
gone
beyond
the
jurisdiction
of
the
state,
so
that
there
has
been
no
reasonable
opportunity
to
prosecute
him
after
the
facts
were
known.
The
fact
in
this
case,
that
she
returned
to
her
permanent
home,
cannot
be
material
.
.
.
It
is
sufficient
that
the
crime
of
larceny
has
been
properly
charged,
and
that
the
prisoner
is
a
fugitive,
and
a
requisition
has
been
properly
made.'
"In
State
ex
rel.
Burner
v.
Richter,
37
Minn,
436,
438,
35
N.W.
9,
the
contention
was
that
to
constitute
a
fugitive
from
justice
a
person
must
have
left
the
state
where
the
crime
was
committed
for
the
purpose
of
escaping
the
legal
consequences
of
his
crime.
Referring
to
Roberts
v.
Reilly,
above
cited,
as
authoritative
and
binding,
and
as
in
accordance
with
is
own
views,
the
supreme
court
of
Minnesota
well
said:
'The
sole
purpose
of
this
statute,
and
of
the
constitutional
provision
which
it
was
designed
to
carry
into
effect,
was
to
secure
the
return
of
persons
who
had
committed
crime
within
one
state,
and
had
left
it
before
answering
the
demands
of
justice.
The
important
thing
is
not
their
purpose
in
leaving,
but
the
fact
that
they
had
left,
and
hence
were
beyond
the
reach
of
the
process
of
the
state
where
the
crime
was
committed.
Whether
the
motive
for
leaving
was
to
escape
prosecution
or
something
else,
their
return
to
answer
the
charges
against
them
is
equally
within
the
spirit
and
purpose
of
the
statute;
and
the
simple
fact
that
they
are
not
within
the
state
to
answer
its
criminal
process,
when
required,
renders
them,
in
legal
intendment,
fugitives
from
justice,
regardless
of
their
purpose
in
leaving.'
"In
re
Voorhees,
32
N.J.L.
141,
150,
the
Court
said:
'A
person
who
commits
a
crime
within
a
state,
and
withdraws
himself
from
such
jurisdiction
without
waiting
to
abide
the
consequences
of
such
act,
must
be
regarded
as
a
fugitive
from
the
justice
of
the
state
whose
laws
he
has
infringed.
Any
other
construction
would
not
only
be
inconsistent
with
good
sense
and
with
the
obvious
import
of
the
word
to
be
interpreted
in
the
context
in
which
it
stands,
but
would
likewise
destroy,
for
most
practical
purposes,
the
efficacy
of
the
entire
constitutional
provision.'
"In
ex
parte
Swearingen,
13
S.C.
74,
80,
the
court
held
that
the
terms
'fugitive
from
justice'
were
intended
to
embrace
not
only
a
case
where
a
party,
after
committing
a
crime,
actually
flees,
in
the
literal
sense
of
that
term,
from
the
state
where
such
crime
was
committed,
but
also
a
case
where
a
citizen
of
one
state,
who,
within
the
territorial
limits
of
another
state,
commits
a
crime,
and
then
simply
returns
to
his
own
home.
The
object
of
the
Constitution
was
to
enable
a
state
whose
laws
had
been
violated,
to
secure
the
arrest
of
the
person
charged
with
such
violation,
even
though
such
person
might
be
beyond
the
reach
of
the
ordinary
process
of
such
state.
"In
re
Mohr,
73
Ala.
503,
512,
49
Am.
Rep.
63,
the
court,
referring
to
the
words
in
the
Constitution,
'who
shall
flee
from
justice
and
be
found
in
another
state,'
said:
'There
is
a
difference
of
opinion
as
to
what
must
be
the
exact
nature
of
this
flight
on
the
part
of
the
criminal,
but
the
better
view,
perhaps,
is
that
any
person
is
a
fugitive
within
the
purview
of
the
Constitution,
'who
goes
into
a
state,
commits
a
crime,
and
then
returns
home.'
"In
Hibler
v.
State,
43
Tex.
197,
201,
the
court
said:
'The
words
'fugitive
from
justice'
as
used
in
this
connection,
must
not
be
understood
in
a
literal
sense,
but
in
reference
to
the
subject-matter,
considering
the
general
object
of
the
Constitution
and
laws
of
the
United
States
in
relation
thereto.
A
person
who
commits
a
crime
in
one
state,
for
which
he
is
indicted,
and
departs
therefrom,
and
is
found
in
another
state,
may
well
be
regarded
as
a
fugitive
from
justice
in
the
sense
in
which
it
is
here
used."
22.See
Black's
Law
Dictionary.
23.See
Webster's
Third
New
International
Dictionary.
24.Sec.
40(e),
R.A.
7160.
25.G.R.
No.
112889,
18
April
1995.
26.Rollo,
pp.
95-96.
27.Rollo,
pp.
536-537.
28.Signed
by
Hon.
Teresita
Dy-Liaco
Flores,
writing
for
the
Commission,
concurred
in
by
Hon.
Bernardo
P.
Pardo,
Chairman.
Hon.
Julio
F.
Desamito,
Commissioner,
Hon.
Graduacion
A.
Reyes-Claravall,
Commissioner,
Hon.
Manolo
B.
Gorospe,
Commissioner,
and
separately
concurred
in
by
Hon.
Regalado
E.
Maambong,
Commissioner,
and
Hon.
Remedios
A.
Salazar-Fernando,
Commissioner.
29.Evidence
of
the
Parties
and
Commission's
Evaluation,
pp.
4-9.
|||
(Rodriguez
v.
COMELEC,
G.R.
No.
120099,
[July
24,
1996],
328
PHIL
624-682)
EN
BANC
[G.R.
No.
154512.
November
12,
2002.]
VICTORINO
DENNIS
M.
SOCRATES,
Mayor
of
Puerto
Princesa
City,
petitioner,
vs.
THE
COMMISSION
ON
ELECTIONS,
THE
PREPARATORY
RECALL
ASSEMBLY
(PRA)
of
Puerto
Princesa
City,
PRA
Interim
Chairman
Punong
Bgy.
MARK
DAVID
HAGEDORN,
PRA
Interim
Secretary
Punong
Bgy.
BENJAMIN
JARILLA,
PRA
Chairman
and
Presiding
Officer
Punong
Bgy.
EARL
S.
BUENVIAJE
and
PRA
Secretary
Punong
Bgy.
CARLOS
ABALLA,
JR.,
respondents.
[G.R.
No.
154683.
November
12,
2002.]
VICENTE
S.
SANDOVAL,
JR.,
petitioner,
vs.
THE
COMMISSION
ON
ELECTIONS,
respondent.
[G.R.
Nos.
155083-84.
November
12,
2002.]
MA.
FLORES
P.
ADOVO,
MERCY
E.
GILO
and
BIENVENIDO
OLLAVE,
SR.,
petitioners,
vs.
THE
COMMISSION
ON
ELECTIONS,
and
EDWARD
S.
HAGEDORN,
respondents.
Stephen
V.
Jaromay
for
petitioners.
George
Erwin
M.
Garcia,
Dela
Cruz
Albano
&
Associates
and
M.M.
Lazaro
&
Associates
for
E.S.
Hagedorn.
The
Solicitor
General
for
public
respondent.
Edwin
B.
Gastanes
for
petitioner
in
G.R.
No.
154512.
Aristotle
Q.
Sarmiento
for
petitioner
in
G.R.
No.
154683.
SYNOPSIS
Out
of
the
528
members
of
the
then
incumbent
barangay
officials
of
Puerto
Princesa,
312
convened
themselves
into
a
Preparatory
Recall
Assembly
(PRA)
to
initiate
the
recall
of
then
Puerto
Princesa
Mayor
Victorino
Dennis
Socrates.
The
PRA
passed
Resolution
No.
01-02,
which
declared
their
loss
of
confidence
inSocrates
and
called
for
his
recall.
Thereafter,
the
COMELEC
scheduled
the
campaign
period
and
the
recall
election.
Mr.
Edward
M.
Hagedorn
filed
his
certificate
of
candidacy
and
eventually
won
the
recall
election.
The
issues
involved
in
these
consolidated
petitions
are:
(1)
whether
the
COMELEC
committed
grave
abuse
of
discretion
in
giving
due
course
to
the
recall
resolution
and
in
scheduling
the
recall
election
for
mayor
in
Puerto
Princesa;
and
(2)
whether
Hagedorn
was
qualified
to
run
for
mayor
despite
serving
three
consecutive
full
terms
immediately
prior
to
recall
election.
The
Supreme
Court
ruled
that
it
is
bound
by
the
findings
of
fact
of
the
COMELEC
on
matters
within
its
competence
and
expertise
unless
the
findings
were
patently
erroneous,
which
was
not
present
in
the
case
at
bar.
Therefore,
there
was
no
grave
abuse
of
discretion
committed
by
the
COMELEC
in
upholding
the
validity
of
the
Recall
Resolution
and
in
scheduling
the
recall
election.
The
Court
lifted
the
temporary
restraining
order
enjoining
the
proclamation
of
the
winning
candidate
for
mayor
in
the
recall
election
in
Puerto
Princesa.
According
to
the
Court,
what
the
Constitution
prohibits
is
an
immediate
reelection
for
a
fourth
term
following
three
consecutive
terms.
A
recall
election
mid-way
in
a
term
following
the
third
consecutive
term
is
a
subsequent
election
but
not
an
immediate
re-election
after
the
third
term.
SYLLABUS
1.
POLITICAL
LAW;
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
CODE;
ELECTIVE
LOCAL
OFFICIALS;
THREE-TERM
LIMIT;
CONSTRUED.
The
three-term
limit
rule
for
elective
local
officials
is
found
in
Section
8,
Article
X
of
the
Constitution.
This
three-term
limit
rule
is
reiterated
in
Section
43
(b)
of
RA
No.
7160,
otherwise
known
as
the
Local
Government
Code.
These
constitutional
and
statutory
provisions
have
two
parts.
The
first
part
provides
that
an
elective
local
official
cannot
serve
for
more
than
three
consecutive
terms.
The
clear
intent
is
that
only
consecutive
terms
count
in
determining
the
three-term
limit
rule.
The
second
part
states
that
voluntary
renunciation
of
office
for
any
length
of
time
does
not
interrupt
the
continuity
of
service.
The
clear
intent
is
that
involuntary
severance
from
office
for
any
length
of
time
interrupts
continuity
of
service
and
prevents
the
service
before
and
after
the
interruption
from
being
joined
together
to
form
a
continuous
service
or
consecutive
terms.
After
three
consecutive
terms,
an
elective
local
official
cannot
seek
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.
Any
subsequent
election,
like
a
recall
election,
is
no
longer
covered
by
the
prohibition
for
two
reasons.
First,
a
subsequent
election
like
a
recall
election
is
no
longer
an
immediate
reelection
after
three
consecutive
terms.
Second,
the
intervening
period
constitutes
an
involuntary
interruption
in
the
continuity
of
service.
Clearly,
what
theConstitution
prohibits
is
an
immediate
reelection
for
a
fourth
term
following
three
consecutive
terms.
The
Constitution,
however,
does
not
prohibit
a
subsequent
reelection
for
a
fourth
term
as
long
as
the
reelection
is
not
immediately
after
the
end
of
the
third
consecutive
term.
A
recall
election
mid-way
in
the
term
following
the
third
consecutive
term
is
a
subsequent
election
but
not
an
immediate
reelection
after
the
third
term.
Neither
does
the
Constitutionprohibit
one
barred
from
seeking
immediate
reelection
to
run
in
any
other
subsequent
election
involving
the
same
term
of
office.
What
the
Constitutionprohibits
is
a
consecutive
fourth
term.
The
debates
in
the
Constitutional
Commission
evidently
show
that
the
prohibited
election
referred
to
by
the
framers
of
the
Constitution
is
the
immediate
reelection
after
the
third
term,
not
any
other
subsequent
election.
DHTECc
2.
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
INTERRUPTION
IN
THE
CONTINUITY
OF
SERVICE
MUST
BE
INVOLUNTARY;
APPLICATION
IN
CASE
AT
BAR.
In
Lonzanida
v.
Comelec,
the
Court
had
occasion
to
explain
interruption
of
continuity
of
service
in
this
manner:
".
.
.
The
second
sentence
of
the
constitutional
provision
under
scrutiny
states,
"Voluntary
renunciation
of
office
for
any
length
of
time
shall
not
be
considered
as
an
interruption
in
the
continuity
of
service
for
the
full
term
for
which
he
was
elected."
The
clear
intent
of
the
framers
of
the
constitution
to
bar
any
attempt
to
circumvent
the
three-term
limit
by
a
voluntary
renunciation
of
office
and
at
the
same
time
respect
the
people's
choice
and
grant
their
elected
official
full
service
of
a
term
is
evident
in
this
provision.
Voluntary
renunciation
of
a
term
does
not
cancel
the
renounced
term
in
the
computation
of
the
three-term
limit;
conversely,
involuntary
severance
from
office
for
any
length
of
time
short
of
the
full
term
provided
by
law
amounts
to
an
interruption
of
continuity
of
service.
.
.
.
."
In
Hagedorn's
case,
the
nearly
15-month
period
he
was
out
of
office,
although
short
of
a
full
term
of
three
years,
constituted
an
interruption
in
the
continuity
of
his
service
as
mayor.
The
Constitution
does
not
require
the
interruption
or
hiatus
to
be
a
full
term
of
three
years.
The
clear
intent
is
that
interruption
"for
any
length
of
time,"
as
long
as
the
cause
is
involuntary,
is
sufficient
to
break
an
elective
local
official's
continuity
of
service.
3.
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
RECALL
ELECTION;
WINNER
THEREOF
COULD
NOT
BE
CREDITED
WITH
FULL
TERM
FOR
THE
PURPOSE
OF
COUNTING
CONSECUTIVENESS
OF
THE
ELECTIVE
OFFICIAL'S
TERM
OF
OFFICE.
We
held
in
Adormeo
that
the
period
an
elective
local
official
is
out
of
office
interrupts
the
continuity
of
his
service
and
prevents
his
recall
term
from
being
stitched
together
as
a
seamless
continuation
of
his
previous
two
consecutive
terms.
In
the
instant
case,
we
likewise
hold
that
the
nearly
15
months
Hagedorn
was
out
of
office
interrupted
his
continuity
of
service
and
prevents
his
recall
term
from
being
stitched
together
as
a
seamless
continuation
of
his
previous
three
consecutive
terms.
The
only
difference
between
Adormeo
and
the
instant
case
is
the
time
of
the
interruption.
In
Adormeo,
the
interruption
occurred
after
the
first
two
consecutive
terms.
In
the
instant
case,
the
interruption
happened
after
the
first
three
consecutive
terms.
In
both
cases,
the
respondents
were
seeking
election
for
a
fourth
term.
In
Adormeo,
the
recall
term
of
Talaga
began
only
from
the
date
he
assumed
office
after
winning
the
recall
election.
Talaga's
recall
term
did
not
retroact
to
include
the
tenure
in
office
of
his
predecessor.
If
Talaga's
recall
term
was
made
to
so
retroact,
then
he
would
have
been
disqualified
to
run
in
the
2001
elections
because
he
would
already
have
served
three
consecutive
terms
prior
to
the
2001
elections.
One
who
wins
and
serves
a
recall
term
does
not
serve
the
full
term
of
his
predecessor
but
only
the
unexpired
term.
The
period
of
time
prior
to
the
recall
term,
when
another
elective
official
holds
office,
constitutes
an
interruption
in
continuity
of
service.
Clearly,
Adormeo
established
the
rule
that
the
winner
in
the
recall
election
cannot
be
charged
or
credited
with
the
full
term
of
three
years
for
purposes
of
counting
the
consecutiveness
of
an
elective
official's
terms
in
office.
4.
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
THE
UNEXPIRED
TERM
IS
IN
ITSELF
ONE
TERM
FOR
PURPOSE
OF
THREE-TERM
LIMIT.
The
concept
of
term
limits
is
in
derogation
of
the
sovereign
will
of
the
people
to
elect
the
leaders
of
their
own
choosing.
Term
limits
must
be
construed
strictly
to
give
the
fullest
possible
effect
to
the
sovereign
will
of
the
people.
As
this
Court
aptly
stated
in
Borja,
Jr.
v.
Comelec:
"Thus,
a
consideration
of
the
historical
background
of
Art.
X,
8
of
theConstitution
reveals
that
the
members
of
the
Constitutional
Commission
were
as
much
concerned
with
preserving
the
freedom
of
choice
of
the
people
as
they
were
with
preventing
the
monopolization
of
political
power.
Indeed,
they
rejected
a
proposal
put
forth
by
Commissioner
Edmundo
F.
Garcia
that
after
serving
three
consecutive
terms
or
nine
years
there
should
be
no
further
reelection
for
local
and
legislative
officials.
Instead,
they
adopted
the
alternative
proposal
of
Commissioner
Christian
Monsod
that
such
officials
be
simply
barred
from
running
for
the
same
position
in
the
succeeding
election
following
the
expiration
of
the
third
consecutive
term.
Monsod
warned
against
'prescreening
candidates
[from]
whom
the
people
will
choose'
as
a
result
of
the
proposed,
absolute
disqualification,
considering
that
the
draft
constitution
contained
provisions
'recognizing
people's
power.'"
A
necessary
consequence
of
the
interruption
of
continuity
of
service
is
the
start
of
a
new
term
following
the
interruption.
An
official
elected
in
recall
election
serves
the
unexpired
term
of
the
recalled
official.
This
unexpired
term
is
in
itself
one
term
for
purposes
of
counting
the
three-term
limit.
PUNO,
J.,
concurring
opinion:
1.
POLITICAL
LAW;
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
CODE;
ELECTIVE
LOCAL
OFFICIALS;
THREE-TERM
LIMIT;
CONDITIONS
FOR
DISQUALIFICATIONS
AS
A
RESULT
THEREOF.
In
the
recent
case
of
Adormeo
vs.
COMELEC,
et
al.,
we
ruled
that
a
mayor
who
assumed
office
via
a
recall
election
and
served
the
unexpired
portion
of
the
mayoralty
term
is
not
considered
to
have
served
a
full
term
for
purposes
of
applying
the
three-term
limit.
.
.
.
Citing
the
Borja
and
Lonzanida
rulings,
we
ruled
that
Talaga,
Jr.
was
not
disqualified
as
the
two
conditions
for
disqualifications,
namely
(1)
the
elective
official
concerned
was
elected
for
three
consecutive
terms
in
the
same
post
and
(2)
he
has
fully
served
three
consecutive
terms,
were
not
met.
We
did
not
consider
Talaga
Jr.'s
service
of
the
unexpired
portion
of
Tagarao's
term
as
service
of
a
full
term
for
purposes
of
the
three
term
limit.
We
also
ruled
that
he
did
not
serve
for
three
consecutiveterms
as
there
was
a
break
in
his
service
when
he
lost
to
Tagarao
in
the
1998
elections.
EHTISC
2.
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
PRINCIPAL
REASONS
FOR
THE
ENACTMENT
THEREOF,
CONSTRUED.
The
deliberations
of
the
ConCom
and
the
ruling
case
law
of
Borja,
Lonzanida
and
Adormeo
show
that
there
are
two
principal
reasons
for
the
three
term
limit
for
elective
local
officials:
(1)
to
prevent
political
dynasties
perpetuated
by
the
undue
advantage
of
the
incumbent
and
(2)
to
broaden
the
choice
of
the
people
by
allowing
candidates
other
than
the
incumbent
to
serve
the
people.
Likewise
evident
in
the
deliberations
is
the
effort
to
balance
between
two
interests,
namely,
the
prevention
of
political
dynasties
and
broadening
the
choice
of
the
people
on
the
one
hand,
and
respecting
the
freedom
of
choice
and
voice
of
the
people,
on
the
other;
thus,
the
calibration
between
perpetual
disqualification
after
three
consecutive
terms
as
proposed
by
Commissioner
Garcia,
and
setting
a
limit
on
immediate
reelection
and
providing
for
a
hibernation
period.
In
all
three
cases
Borja,
Lonzanida
and
Adormeo
we
ruled
that
the
"term"
referred
to
in
the
three
term
limit
is
service
of
a
full
term
of
three
years
for
elective
local
officials.
This
ruling
furthers
the
intent
of
the
ConCom
to
prevent
political
dynasties
as
it
is
the
service
of
consecutive
full
terms
that
makes
service
continuous
and
which
opens
the
gates
to
political
dynasties
limiting
the
people's
choice
of
leaders.
In
the
words
of
Commissioner
Ople,
".
.
.
we
want
to
prevent
future
situations
where,
as
a
result
of
continuous
service
and
frequent
reelections,
officials
from
the
President
down
to
the
municipal
mayor
tend
to
develop
a
proprietary
interest
in
their
positions
and
to
accumulate
those
powers
and
perquisites
that
permit
them
to
stay
on
indefinitely
or
to
transfer
these
posts
to
members
of
their
families
in
a
subsequent
election.
I
think
that
is
taken
care
of
because
we
put
a
gap
on
the
continuity
or
unbroken
service
of
all
of
these
officials."
Thus,
ConCom
set
the
limit
on
consecutive
full
terms
to
no
more
than
three.
Otherwise
stated,
it
is
afourth
consecutive
full
term
that
is
prohibited.
3.
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
WHAT
IS
PROHIBITED
IS
THE
SERVICE
OF
A
FOURTH
CONSECUTIVE
FULL
TERM
AS
CONTEMPLATED
BY
LAW.
Even
a
textual
analysis
of
Art.
X,
Sec.
8
will
yield
the
interpretation
that
what
is
prohibited
is
the
service
of
a
fourth
consecutive
full
term.
Petitioners
are
correct
in
foisting
the
view
that
"term"
is
a
fixed
and
definite
period
of
time
prescribed
by
law
or
the
Constitution
during
which
the
public
officer
may
claim
to
hold
office
as
a
right.
It
is
a
fixed
and
definite
period
of
time
to
hold
office,
perform
its
functions,
and
enjoy
its
privileges
and
emoluments
until
the
expiration
of
the
period.
In
ascertaining
what
"term"
means
for
elective
local
officials,
the
Constitution
itself
provides
in
Art.
X,
Sec.
8
that
it
means
a
fixed,
definite,
and
full
period
of
three,
years,
viz:
"Sec.
8.
The
term
of
office
of
elective
local
officials,
except
barangay
officials,
which
shall
be
determined
by
law,
shall
be
three
years.
.
.
"
Although
one
or
more
persons
may
discharge
the
duties
of
the
office
during
this
fixed
three-year
period,
the
term
is
not
divided
into
smaller
terms
by
the
number
of
incumbents
who
may
fill
the
office.
It
is
one
and
indivisible,
and
term
follows
term
in
successive
cycles
of
three
years
each.
If
the
incumbent
or
the
one
elected
to
the
office
fills
a
higher
vacant
office,
refuses
to
assume
office,
fails
to
qualify,
dies,
is
removed
from
office,
voluntary
resigns
or
is
otherwise
permanently
incapacitated
to
discharge
the
functions
of
his
office,
thereby
creating
a
permanent
vacancy,
the
term
would
remain
unbroken
until
the
recurring
election
for
the
office.
The
provisions
on
voluntary
renunciation
under
Art.
X,
Sec.
8
and
other
articles
of
the
Constitution
bolster
the
interpretation
that
for
purposes
of
applying
the
three
term
limit,
service
of
a
full
term
of
three
years
is
contemplated.
Likewise,
because
"term"
is
understood
to
be
a
fixed,
definite,
and
full-period,
the
Constitution,
in
Art.
VI,
Sec.
9,
uses
the
qualifier
"unexpired
term"
to
refer
to
only
a
portion
of
a
term.
Similarly,
Sec.
44
of
theLocal
Government
Code
of
1991
uses
the
phrase
"unexpired
term"
to
mean
the
remainder
of
the
term.
Thus,
when
Art.
X,
Sec.
8
of
the
Constitution
states
that
".
.
.
no
such
(local
elective)
official
shall
serve
for
more
than
three
consecutive
terms,"
it
consistently
means
that
it
allows
service
of
a
maximum
of
three
consecutive
full
terms
and
prohibits
service
of
a
minimum
fourth
consecutive
full
term.
4.
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
ASSUMPTION
OF
OFFICE
THROUGH
A
RECALL
ELECTION
IS
NOT
IN
REALITY
A
SERVICE
OF
FULL
TERM;
RATIONALE.
It
is
my
respectful
submission
that
the
Constitution
and
the
Local
Government
Code
of
1991
proscribe
a
local
official
who
has
been
thrice
consecutively
elected
in
regular
elections
and
has
served
three
full
terms
in
the
same
position,
from
running
in
the
regular
election
succeeding
his
third
consecutive
term.
It
is
this
situation
that
is
prohibited
because
it
makes
possible
service
of
more
than
three
consecutive
and
continuous
full
terms,
i.e.,
service
of
a
fourth
consecutive
full
term.
We
cannot
overstress
that
it
is
this
continuousness
that
the
ConCom
feared
would
open
the
gates
to
the
two
evils
sought
to
be
avoided:
the
incumbent's
use
of
his
undue
advantage
to
put
up
a
political
dynasty
and
limiting
the
people's
choice
of
leaders.
It
is
in
this
context
of
regular
elections
that
our
obiter
dictumin
the
Lonzanida
case,
which
petitioners
harp
on,
should
be
understood.
In
that
case,
we
opined
that
"[a]s
finally
voted
upon,
it
was
agreed
that
an
elective
local
government
official
should
be
barred
from
running
for
the
same
post
after
three
consecutive
terms.
After
a
hiatus
of
at
least
one
term,
he
may
again
run
for
the
same
office."
Indeed,
insofar
as
regular
local
elections
are
concerned,
which
were
the
elections
involved
in
that
case,
there
should
be
a
hiatus
of
at
least
one
full
term
of
three
years.
On
the
other
hand,
in
the
case
of
a
local
official
who
assumes
office
through
a
recall
election
whether
after
his
first,
second,
or
third
consecutive
term
there
is
a
break
in
his
service
caused
by
the
election
of
the
incumbent
who
was
recalled.
Even
in
the
case
of
a
local
official
who
initially
assumes
office
via
recall
election,
then
wins
the
two
succeeding
regular
elections
and
serves
two
full
terms
in
the
same
post,
he
is
not
prohibited
from
seeking
another
reelection
and
serving
another
full
term.
This
is
so
because
his
service
of
the
remainder
of
the
incumbent's
term
via
recall
election
is
not,
in
reality
and
in
law,
a
full
term
continuing
on
to
his
three
succeeding
full
terms.
Local
officials
who
assume
office
via
recall
election
serve
only
the
unexpired
portion
of
the
incumbent's
term
and
this
service
is
not
counted
as
a
full
term,
despite
the
Constitutional
mandate
that
the
term
of
office
of
elective
local
officials
is
three
years.
Such
is
the
design
because
Art.
XVIII,
Secs.
2
and
5
of
the
Constitution
also
prescribe
synchronization
of
regular
national
and
local
elections
beginning
on
the
second
Monday
of
May
1992,
which
is
accomplished
if
the
local
official
who
assumes
office
through
recall
election
serves
only
the
incumbent's
unexpired
term.
As
we
ruled
in
the
Adormeo
case,
service
of
an
unexpired
term
is
considered
service
of
a
full
term
only
with
respect
to
Representatives
(and
Senators)
because
unlike
local
government
officials,
Representatives
cannot
be
recalled.
It
is
continuous
prolonged
stay
in
office
that
breeds
political
dynasties.
Understandable
therefore,
insofar
as
Representatives
who
cannot
be
recalled
are
concerned,
service
of
an
unexpired
term
is
strictly
counted
as
service
of
a
full
term
because
the
purpose
of
the
ConCom
was
to
limit
the
right
to
run
and
be
elected
in
Congress.
MENDOZA,
J.,
separate
opinion:
1.
POLITICAL
LAW;
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
CODE;
ELECTIVE
LOCAL
OFFICIALS;
THREE-TERM
LIMIT;
TERM
DURING
WHICH
A
RECALL
ELECTION
WAS
HELD
SHOULD
NOT
BE
COUNTED
IN
THE
COMPUTATION
THEREOF;
RATIONALE.
I
submit
with
respect
that
the
term
during
which
a
recall
election
is
held
should
not
be
counted
in
computing
the
three-term
limit
not
only
when
the
recall
election
occurs
within
three
consecutive
terms,
as
this
Court
has
already
held,
but
also
when
such
election
is
held
during
the
fourth
term
immediately
following
three
consecutive
terms.
The
reason
for
this
is
that
the
elective
local
official
cannot
be
said
to
have
served
"for
more
than
three
consecutive
terms"
because
of
the
break
in
his
service.
What
prevents
the
fourth
term
from
being
counted
in
determining
the
three-term
limit
is
the
lack
of
continuity,
or
the
break,
in
the
"service
of
the
full
term."
I
must
stress
that
the
Constitution
does
not
say
"service
for
more
than
three
terms"
but
"service
for
more
than
three
consecutive
terms."
acCTIS
2.
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
PURPOSE
THEREOF.
As
the
discussion
of
the
Constitutional
Commission
on
Art.
X.
Sec.
8
shows,
the
three-
term
limit
is
aimed
at
preventing
the
monopolization
or
aggrandizement
of
political
power
and
the
perpetration
of
the
incumbent
in
office.
This
abuse
is
likely
to
arise
from
a
prolonged
stay
in
power.
It
is
not
likely
to
arise
if
the
service
is
broken,
albeit
it
is
for
more
than
three
terms.
3.
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
REQUIREMENTS;
CONSTRUED.
Hence,
the
application
of
the
constitutional
ban
on
the
holding
of
elective
local
office
for
three
consecutive
terms
requires
in
my
view
(1)
election
in
a
regular
election
for
three
consecutive
terms
and
(2)
service
for
the
full
terms,
each
consisting
of
three
years,
for
which
the
official
is
elected.
The
first
requirement
is
intended
to
give
the
electorate
the
freedom
to
reelect
a
candidate
for
a
local
elective
position
as
part
of
their
sovereign
right
(the
right
of
suffrage)
to
choose
those
whom
they
believe
can
best
serve
them.
This
is
the
reason
the
framers
of
ourConstitution
rejected
Scheme
No.
1,
which
was
to
ban
reelection
after
three
successive
terms,
and
adopted
Scheme
No.
2,
which
is
about
"no
immediate
reelection
after
three
successive
terms."
On
the
other
hand,
the
second
requirement
is
intended
to
prevent
the
accumulation
of
power
resulting
from
too
long
a
stay
in
office.
DAVIDE,
JR.,
C.J.,
concurring
and
dissenting
opinion:
1.
POLITICAL
LAW;
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
CODE;
ELECTIVE
LOCAL
OFFICIALS;
THREE-TERM
LIMIT;
FOURTH
TERM
PROHIBITION
COVERS
THE
PERIOD
PERTAINING
TO
IT;
CASE
AT
BAR.
The
ponencia
is
then
correct
when
it
holds
that
the
three-term
limit
bars
an
immediate
reelection
for
a
fourth
term.
But
I
disagree
when
it
rules
that
in
the
case
of
Hagedorn
he
did
not
seek
an
immediate
reelection
for
a
fourth
term
because
he
was
not
a
candidate
for
reelection
in
the
May
2001
election.
It
forgets
that
what
would
have
been
his
fourth
term
by
virtue
of
the
May
2001
election
was
for
the
period
from
30
June
2001
to
30
June
2004.
2.
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
INVOLUNTARY
SEVERANCE
FROM
OFFICE;
NOT
APPLICABLE
IN
CASE
AT
BAR.
The
flaw
in
the
ruling
results
from
an
apparent
confusion
between
term
and
election,
the
root
cause
of
which
is
the
attempt
to
distinguish
"voluntary
renunciation"
of
office
from
"involuntary
severance"
from
office
and
the
term
to
which
it
relates.
.
.
.
The
dichotomy
made
in
the
ponencia
between
"voluntary
renunciation
of
the
office"
as
used
in
Section
8
of
Article
V
of
the
Constitution
and
Section
43(b)
of
R.A.
No.
7160
and
"involuntary
severance
from
office"
is
unnecessary,
if
not
misplaced.
From
the
discussion
in
the
ponencia,
the
latter
is
made
to
apply
to
the
banned
term,
i.e.,
the
fourth
term
immediately
following
three
consecutive
terms.
Speaking
now
of
Hagedorn,
he
cannot
have
suffered
"involuntary
severance
from
office"
because
there
was
nothing
to
be
severed;
he
was
not
a
holder
of
an
office
either
in
ade
jure
or
de
facto
capacity.
He
knew
he
was
disqualified
from
seeking
a
third
reelection
to
office.
Disqualification
is,
definitely,
not
synonymous
withinvoluntary
severance.
Even
if
we
concede
that
involuntary
severance
is
an
act
which
interrupts
the
continuity
of
a
term
for
purposes
of
applying
the
three-term
principle
the
rule
laid
down
in
Lonzanida
vs.
COMELEC
(311
SCRA
609
[1999]),
cited
in
the
ponencia,
page
17,
is
not
applicable
in
the
case
of
Hagedorn.
The
involuntary
severance
referred
to
in
that
case
was
one
that
took
place
during
any
of
the
three
terms;
hence,
the
term
during
which
it
occurred
should
be
excluded
in
the
computation.
In
the
case
of
Hagedorn,
no
such
involuntary
severance
took
place
during
any
of
his
three
terms
brought
about
by
his
election
in
1992
and
reelections
in
1995
and
1998.
ITcCaS
3.
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
VOLUNTARY
RENUNCIATION,
NOT
CONSIDERED
AS
AN
INTERRUPTION
IN
THE
CONTINUITY
OF
SERVICE;
PURPOSE
THEREOF.
More
importantly,
the
voluntary
renunciation
referred
to
in
Section
8,
Article
X
of
the
Constitution
and
Section
43(b)
of
R.A.
No.
7160
its
one
that
takes
place
at
any
time
during
either
the
first,
second,
or
third
term
of
the
three
consecutive
terms.
This
is
very
clear
from
the
last
clause
of
Section
8,
Article
X
of
theConstitution,
which
reads:
"shall
not
be
considered
as
an
interruption
in
the
continuity
of
his
service
for
the
full
term
for
which
he
was
elected."
The
purpose
of
the
provision
is
to
prevent
an
elective
local
official
from
voluntary
resigning
from
office
for
the
purpose
of
circumventing
the
rule
on
the
belief
that
the
term
during
which
he
resigned
would
be
excluded
in
the
counting
of
the
three-term
rule.
In
short,
the
provision
excluded
is
intended
to
impose
a
penalty
on
one
who
flouts
the
rule
or
make
a
mockery
of
it
by
the
simple
act
of
resigning.
4.
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
THREE-TERM
LIMIT
CANNOT
BE
SUBVERTED
IN
A
RECALL
ELECTION;
CASE
AT
BAR.
A
declaration
that
Hagedorn
is
qualified
to
seek
reelection
in
a
recall
election
to
remove
the
Mayor
who
was
elected
for
a
term
for
which
Hagedorn
was
constitutionally
and
statutorily
disqualified
to
be
reelected
to
or
to
hold
is
to
subvert
the
rationale
of
the
three-
consecutive-term
rule
and
make
a
mockery
of
it.
Worse,
it
abets
destructive
endless
partisan
politics
and
unsound
governance.
An
elective
local
official
who
is
disqualified
to
seek
a
fourth
term
because
of
the
three-term
limit
but
obsessed
to
hold
on
to
power
would
spend
the
first
year
of
the
fourth
term
campaigning
for
the
recall
of
the
incumbent
in
the
second
year
of
said
term.
This
would
not
be
a
problem
if
the
disqualified
official
has
a
solid
following
and
a
strong
political
machinery.
Interestingly,
in
this
case,
as
stated
on
page
3
of
the
ponencia,
the
President
of
the
Association
of
Barangay
Captains
of
Puerto
Princesa
City
is
one
Mark
David
M.
Hagedorn
and
he
was
designated
by
the
Preparatory
Recall
Assembly
as
Interim
Chairman.
D
E
C
I
S
I
O
N
CARPIO,
J
p:
The
Case
Before
us
are
consolidated
petitions
for
certiorari
1
seeking
the
reversal
of
the
resolutions
issued
by
the
Commission
on
Elections
("COMELEC"
for
brevity)
in
relation
to
the
recall
election
for
mayor
of
Puerto
Princesa
City,
Palawan.
The
Antecedents
On
July
2,
2002,
312
out
of
528
members
of
the
then
incumbent
barangay
officials
of
the
Puerto
Princesa
convened
themselves
into
a
Preparatory
Recall
Assembly
("PRA"
for
brevity)
at
the
Gymnasium
of
Barangay
San
Jose
from
9:00
a.m.
to
12:00
noon.
The
PRA
was
convened
to
initiate
the
recall
2
of
Victorino
Dennis
M.
Socrates
("Socrates"
for
brevity)
who
assumed
office
as
Puerto
Princesa's
mayor
on
June
30,
2001.
The
members
of
the
PRA
designated
Mark
David
M.
Hagedorn,
president
of
the
Association
of
Barangay
Captains,
as
interim
chair
of
the
PRA.
On
the
same
date,
the
PRA
passed
Resolution
No.
01-02
("Recall
Resolution"
for
brevity)
which
declared
its
loss
of
confidence
in
Socrates
and
called
for
his
recall.
The
PRA
requested
the
COMELEC
to
schedule
the
recall
election
for
mayor
within
30
days
from
receipt
of
the
Recall
Resolution.
On
July
16,
2002,
Socrates
filed
with
the
COMELEC
a
petition,
docketed
as
E.M.
No.
02-010
(RC),
to
nullify
and
deny
due
course
to
the
Recall
Resolution.
On
August
14,
2002,
the
COMELEC
en
banc
3
promulgated
a
resolution
dismissing
for
lack
of
merit
Socrates'
petition.
The
COMELEC
gave
due
course
to
the
Recall
Resolution
and
scheduled
the
recall
election
on
September
7,
2002.
On
August
21,
2002,
the
COMELEC
en
banc
promulgated
Resolution
No.
5673
prescribing
the
calendar
of
activities
and
periods
of
certain
prohibited
acts
in
connection
with
the
recall
election.
The
COMELEC
fixed
the
campaign
period
from
August
27,
2002
to
September
5,
2002
or
a
period
of
10
days.
On
August
23,
2002,
Edward
M.
Hagedorn
("Hagedorn"
for
brevity)
filed
his
certificate
of
candidacy
for
mayor
in
the
recall
election.
On
August
17,
2002,
Ma.
Flores
F.
Adovo
("Adovo"
for
brevity)
and
Merly
E.
Gilo
("Gilo"
for
brevity)
filed
a
petition
before
the
COMELEC,
docketed
as
SPA
No.
02-492,
to
disqualify
Hagedorn
from
running
in
the
recall
election
and
to
cancel
his
certificate
of
candidacy.
On
August
30,
2002,
a
certain
Bienvenido
Ollave,
Sr.
("Ollave"
for
brevity)
filed
a
petition-in-intervention
in
SPA
No.
02-492
also
seeking
to
disqualify
Hagedorn.
On
the
same
date,
a
certain
Genaro
V.
Manaay
filed
another
petition,
docketed
as
SPA
No.
02-539,
against
Hagedorn
alleging
substantially
the
same
facts
and
involving
the
same
issues.
The
petitions
were
all
anchored
on
the
ground
that
"Hagedorn
is
disqualified
from
running
for
a
fourth
consecutive
term,
having
been
elected
and
having
served
as
mayor
of
the
city
for
three
(3)
consecutive
full
terms
immediately
prior
to
the
instant
recall
election
for
the
same
post."
Subsequently,
SPA
Nos.
02-492
and
02-539
were
consolidated.
In
a
resolution
promulgated
on
September
20,
2002,
the
COMELEC's
First
Division
4
dismissed
for
lack
of
merit
SPA
Nos.
02-
492
and
02-539.
The
COMELEC
declared
Hagedorn
qualified
to
run
in
the
recall
election.
The
COMELEC
also
reset
the
recall
election
from
September
7,
2002
to
September
24,
2002.
On
September
23,
2002,
the
COMELEC
en
banc
promulgated
a
resolution
denying
the
motion
for
reconsideration
of
Adovo
and
Gilo.
The
COMELEC
affirmed
the
resolution
declaring
Hagedorn
qualified
to
run
in
the
recall
election.
Hence,
the
instant
consolidated
petitions.
G.R.
No.
154512
Petitioner
Socrates
seeks
to
nullify
the
COMELEC
en
banc
resolution
dated
August
14,
2002
in
E.M.
No.
02-010
(RC)
which
gave
due
course
to
the
Recall
Resolution
and
scheduled
the
recall
election
on
September
7,
2002.
Socrates
alleges
that
the
COMELEC
gravely
abused
its
discretion
in
upholding
the
Recall
Resolution.
Socrates
cites
the
following
circumstances
as
legal
infirmities
attending
the
convening
of
the
PRA
and
its
issuance
of
the
Recall
Resolution:
(1)
not
all
members
of
the
PRA
were
notified
of
the
meeting
to
adopt
the
resolution;
(2)
the
proof
of
service
of
notice
was
palpably
and
legally
deficient;
(3)
the
members
of
the
PRA
were
themselves
seeking
a
new
electoral
mandate
from
their
respective
constituents;
(4)
the
adoption
of
the
resolution
was
exercised
with
grave
abuse
of
authority;
and
(5)
the
PRA
proceedings
were
conducted
in
a
manner
that
violated
his
and
the
public's
constitutional
right
to
information.
G.R.
No.
154683
Petitioner
Vicente
S.
Sandoval,
Jr.
seeks
to
annul
COMELEC
Resolution
No.
5673
dated
August
21,
2002
insofar
as
it
fixed
the
recall
election
on
September
7,
2002,
giving
the
candidates
only
a
ten-day
campaign
period.
He
prayed
that
the
COMELEC
be
enjoined
from
holding
the
recall
election
on
September
7,
2002
and
that
a
new
date
be
fixed
giving
the
candidates
at
least
an
additional
15
days
to
campaign.
AEDcIH
In
a
resolution
dated
September
3,
2002,
the
Court
en
banc
enjoined
the
COMELEC
from
implementing
Resolution
No.
5673
insofar
as
it
fixed
the
date
of
the
recall
election
on
September
7,
2002.
The
Court
directed
the
COMELEC
to
give
the
candidates
an
additional
fifteen
15
days
from
September
7,
2002
within
which
to
campaign.
Accordingly,
on
September
9,
2002,
the
COMELEC
en
banc
issued
Resolution
No.
5708
giving
the
candidates
an
additional
15
days
from
September
7,
2002
within
which
to
campaign.
Thus,
the
COMELEC
reset
the
recall
election
to
September
24,
2002.
G.R.
Nos.
155083-84
Petitioners
Adovo,
Gilo
and
Ollave
assail
the
COMELEC's
resolutions
dated
September
20,
2002
and
September
23,
2002
in
SPA
Nos.
02-492
and
02-539
declaring
Hagedorn
qualified
to
run
for
mayor
in
the
recall
election.
They
likewise
prayed
for
the
issuance
of
a
temporary
restraining
order
to
enjoin
the
proclamation
of
the
winning
candidate
in
the
recall
election.
Petitioners
argue
that
the
COMELEC
gravely
abused
its
discretion
in
upholding
Hagedorn's
qualification
to
run
for
mayor
in
the
recall
election
despite
the
constitutional
and
statutory
prohibitions
against
a
fourth
consecutive
term
for
elective
local
officials.
In
a
resolution
dated
September
24,
2002,
the
Court
ordered
the
COMELEC
to
desist
from
proclaiming
any
winning
candidate
in
the
recall
election
until
further
orders
from
the
Court.
Petitioners
were
required
to
post
a
P20,000
bond.
On
September
27,
2002,
Socrates
filed
a
motion
for
leave
to
file
an
attached
petition
for
intervention
seeking
the
same
reliefs
as
those
sought
by
Adovo,
Gilo
and
Ollave.
In
the
meantime,
Hagedorn
garnered
the
highest
number
of
votes
in
the
recall
election
with
20,238
votes.
Rival
candidates
Socrates
and
Sandoval
obtained
17,220
votes
and
13,241
votes.
Hagedorn
filed
motions
to
lift
the
order
restraining
the
COMELEC
from
proclaiming
the
winning
candidate
and
to
allow
him
to
assume
office
to
give
effect
to
the
will
of
the
electorate.
On
October
1,
2002,
the
Court
granted
Socrates'
motion
for
leave
to
file
a
petition
for
intervention.
The
Issues
The
issues
for
resolution
of
the
Court
are:
1.
In
G.R.
No.
154512,
whether
the
COMELEC
committed
grave
abuse
of
discretion
in
giving
due
course
to
the
Recall
Resolution
and
scheduling
the
recall
election
for
mayor
of
Puerto
Princesa.
2.
In
G.R.
Nos.
155083-84,
whether
Hagedorn
is
qualified
to
run
for
mayor
in
the
recall
election
of
Puerto
Princesa
on
September
24,
2002.
In
G.R.
No.
154683,
the
issue
of
whether
the
COMELEC
committed
grave
abuse
of
discretion
in
fixing
a
campaign
period
of
only
10
days
has
become
moot.
Our
Resolution
of
September
3,
2002
and
COMELEC
Resolution
No.
5708
granted
an
additional
15
days
for
the
campaign
period
as
prayed
for
by
petitioner.
First
Issue:
Validity
of
the
Recall
Resolution.
Petitioner
Socrates
argues
that
the
COMELEC
committed
grave
abuse
of
discretion
in
upholding
the
Recall
Resolution
despite
the
absence
of
notice
to
130
PRA
members
and
the
defective
service
of
notice
to
other
PRA
members.
The
COMELEC,
however,
found
that
"On
various
dates,
in
the
month
of
June
2002,
the
proponents
for
the
Recall
of
incumbent
City
Mayor
Victorino
Dennis
M.
Socrates
sent
notices
of
the
convening
of
the
PRA
to
the
members
thereof
pursuant
to
Section
70
of
the
Local
Government
Code.
Copies
of
the
said
notice
are
in
Volumes
I
and
II
entitled
Notices
to
PRA.
Likewise,
Proof
of
Service
for
each
of
the
said
notices
were
attached
to
the
Petition
and
marked
as
Annex
"G"
of
Volumes
II
and
III
of
the
Petition.
Notices
were
likewise
posted
in
conspicuous
places
particularly
at
the
Barangay
Hall.
Photos
establishing
the
same
were
attached
to
the
Petition
and
marked
as
Annex
"H".
The
proponents
likewise
utilized
the
broadcast
mass
media
in
the
dissemination
of
the
convening
of
the
PRA.
Notices
of
the
convening
of
the
Puerto
Princesa
PRA
were
also
sent
to
the
following:
[a
list
of
25
names
of
provincial
elective
officials,
print
and
broadcast
media
practitioners,
PNP
officials,
COMELEC
city,
regional
and
national
officials,
and
DILG
officials].
xxx
xxx
xxx
The
City
Election
Officer
of
Puerto
Princesa
City
in
her
Certification
dated
10
July
2002
certified
that
upon
a
'thorough
and
careful
verification
of
the
signatures
appearing
in
PRA
Resolution
01-02,
.
.
.
the
majority
of
all
members
of
the
PRA
concerned
approved
said
resolution.'
She
likewise
certified
'that
not
a
single
member/signatory
of
the
PRA
complained
or
objected
as
to
the
veracity
and
authenticity
of
their
signatures.'
The
Provincial
Election
Supervisor
of
Palawan,
Atty.
Urbano
Arlando,
in
his
Indorsement
dated
10
July
2002,
stated,
'upon
proper
review,
all
documents
submitted
are
found
in
order.'
The
Acting
Director
IV,
Region
IV,
in
his
study
dated
30
July
2002
submitted
the
following
recommendations:
'This
Office,
after
evaluating
the
documents
filed,
finds
the
instant
Petition
sufficient
in
form
and
substance.
That
the
PRA
was
validly
constituted
and
that
the
majority
of
all
members
thereof
approved
Resolution
No.
01-02
calling
for
the
recall
of
Mayor
Victorino
Dennis
M.
Socrates.'
xxx
xxx
xxx
This
Court
is
bound
by
the
findings
of
fact
of
the
COMELEC
on
matters
within
the
competence
and
expertise
of
the
COMELEC,
unless
the
findings
are
patently
erroneous.
In
Malonzo
v.
COMELEC,
5
which
also
dealt
with
alleged
defective
service
of
notice
to
PRA
members,
we
ruled
that
"Needless
to
state,
the
issue
of
propriety
of
the
notices
sent
to
the
PRA
members
is
factual
in
nature,
and
the
determination
of
the
same
is
therefore
a
function
of
the
COMELEC.
In
the
absence
of
patent
error,
or
serious
inconsistencies
in
the
findings,
the
Court
should
not
disturb
the
same.
The
factual
findings
of
the
COMELEC,
based
on
its
own
assessments
and
duly
supported
by
gathered
evidence,
are
conclusive
upon
the
court,
more
so,
in
the
absence
of
a
substantiated
attack
on
the
validity
of
the
same."
In
the
instant
case,
we
do
not
find
any
valid
reason
to
hold
that
the
COMELEC's
findings
of
fact
are
patently
erroneous.
Socrates
also
claims
that
the
PRA
members
had
no
authority
to
adopt
the
Recall
Resolution
on
July
2,
2002
because
a
majority
of
PRA
members
were
seeking
a
new
electoral
mandate
in
the
barangay
elections
scheduled
on
July
15,
2002.
This
argument
deserves
scant
consideration
considering
that
when
the
PRA
members
adopted
the
Recall
Resolution
their
terms
of
office
had
not
yet
expired.
They
were
all
de
jure
sangguniang
barangay
members
with
no
legal
disqualification
to
participate
in
the
recall
assembly
under
Section
70
of
the
Local
Government
Code.
Socrates
bewails
that
the
manner
private
respondents
conducted
the
PRA
proceedings
violated
his
constitutional
right
to
information
on
matters
of
public
concern.
Socrates,
however,
admits
receiving
notice
of
the
PRA
meeting
and
of
even
sending
his
representative
and
counsel
who
were
present
during
the
entire
PRA
proceedings.
Proponents
of
the
recall
election
submitted
to
the
COMELEC
the
Recall
Resolution,
minutes
of
the
PRA
proceedings,
the
journal
of
the
PRA
assembly,
attendance
sheets,
notices
sent
to
PRA
members,
and
authenticated
master
list
of
barangay
officials
in
Puerto
Princesa.
Socrates
had
the
right
to
examine
and
copy
all
these
public
records
in
the
official
custody
of
the
COMELEC.
Socrates,
however,
does
not
claim
that
the
COMELEC
denied
him
this
right.
There
is
no
legal
basis
in
Socrates'
claim
that
respondents
violated
his
constitutional
right
to
information
on
matters
of
public
concern.
Thus,
we
rule
that
the
COMELEC
did
not
commit
grave
abuse
of
discretion
in
upholding
the
validity
of
the
Recall
Resolution
and
in
scheduling
the
recall
election
on
September
24,
2002.
Second
Issue:
Hagedorn's
qualification
to
run
for
mayor
in
the
recall
election
of
September
24,
2002.
The
three-term
limit
rule
for
elective
local
officials
is
found
in
Section
8,
Article
X
of
the
Constitution,
which
states:
EHaCTA
"Section
8.
The
term
of
office
of
elective
local
officials,
except
barangay
officials,
which
shall
be
determined
by
law,
shall
be
three
years
and
no
such
official
shall
serve
for
more
than
three
consecutive
terms.
Voluntary
renunciation
of
the
office
for
any
length
of
time
shall
not
be
considered
as
an
interruption
in
the
continuity
of
his
service
for
the
full
term
for
which
he
was
elected."
This
three-term
limit
rule
is
reiterated
in
Section
43
(b)
of
RA
No.
7160,
otherwise
known
as
the
Local
Government
Code,
which
provides:
"Section
43.
Term
of
Office.
(a)
.
.
.
(b)
No
local
elective
official
shall
serve
for
more
than
three
(3)
consecutive
terms
in
the
same
position.
Voluntary
renunciation
of
the
office
for
any
length
of
time
shall
not
be
considered
as
an
interruption
in
the
continuity
of
service
for
the
full
term
for
which
the
elective
official
was
elected."
These
constitutional
and
statutory
provisions
have
two
parts.
The
first
part
provides
that
an
elective
local
official
cannot
serve
for
more
than
three
consecutive
terms.
The
clear
intent
is
that
only
consecutive
terms
count
in
determining
the
three-term
limit
rule.
The
second
part
states
that
voluntary
renunciation
of
office
for
any
length
of
time
does
not
interrupt
the
continuity
of
service.
The
clear
intent
is
that
involuntary
severance
from
office
for
any
length
of
time
interrupts
continuity
of
service
and
prevents
the
service
before
and
after
the
interruption
from
being
joined
together
to
form
a
continuous
service
or
consecutive
terms.
After
three
consecutive
terms,
an
elective
local
official
cannot
seek
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.
Any
subsequent
election,
like
a
recall
election,
is
no
longer
covered
by
the
prohibition
for
two
reasons.
First,
a
subsequent
election
like
a
recall
election
is
no
longer
an
immediate
reelection
after
three
consecutive
terms.
Second,
the
intervening
period
constitutes
an
involuntary
interruption
in
the
continuity
of
service.
When
the
framers
of
the
Constitution
debated
on
the
term
limit
of
elective
local
officials,
the
question
asked
was
whether
there
would
be
no
further
election
after
three
terms,
or
whether
there
would
be
"no
immediate
reelection"
after
three
terms.
This
is
clear
from
the
following
deliberations
of
the
Constitutional
Commission:
"THE
PRESIDENT:
The
Acting
Floor
Leader
is
recognized.
MR.
ROMULO:
6
We
are
now
ready
to
discuss
the
two
issues,
as
indicated
on
the
blackboard,
and
these
are
Alternative
No.
1
where
there
is
no
further
election
after
a
total
of
three
terms
and
Alternative
No.
2
where
there
is
no
immediate
reelection
after
three
successive
terms."
7
The
Journal
of
the
Constitutional
Commission
reports
the
following
manifestation
on
the
term
of
elective
local
officials:
"MANIFESTATION
OF
MR.
ROMULO
Upon
resumption
of
session,
Mr.
Romulo
manifested
that
the
Body
would
proceed
to
the
consideration
of
two
issues
on
the
term
of
Representatives
andlocal
officials,
namely:
1)
Alternative
No.
1
(no
further
reelection
after
a
total
of
three
terms),
and
2)
Alternative
No.
2
(no
immediate
reelection
after
three
successive
terms)."
8
The
framers
of
the
Constitution
used
the
same
"no
immediate
reelection"
question
in
voting
for
the
term
limits
of
Senators
9
and
Representatives
of
the
House.
10
Clearly,
what
the
Constitution
prohibits
is
an
immediate
reelection
for
a
fourth
term
following
three
consecutive
terms.
The
Constitution,
however,
does
not
prohibit
a
subsequent
reelection
for
a
fourth
term
as
long
as
the
reelection
is
not
immediately
after
the
end
of
the
third
consecutive
term.
A
recall
election
mid-way
in
the
term
following
the
third
consecutive
term
is
a
subsequent
election
but
not
an
immediate
reelection
after
the
third
term.
Neither
does
the
Constitution
prohibit
one
barred
from
seeking
immediate
reelection
to
run
in
any
other
subsequent
election
involving
the
same
term
of
office.
What
the
Constitution
prohibits
is
a
consecutive
fourth
term.
The
debates
in
the
Constitutional
Commission
evidently
show
that
the
prohibited
election
referred
to
by
the
framers
of
the
Constitution
is
the
immediate
reelection
after
the
third
term,
not
any
other
subsequent
election.
If
the
prohibition
on
elective
local
officials
is
applied
to
any
election
within
the
three-year
full
term
following
the
three-term
limit,
then
Senators
should
also
be
prohibited
from
running
in
any
election
within
the
six-year
full
term
following
their
two-
term
limit.
The
constitutional
provision
on
the
term
limit
of
Senators
is
worded
exactly
like
the
term
limit
of
elective
local
officials,
thus:
"No
Senator
shall
serve
for
more
than
two
consecutive
terms.
Voluntary
renunciation
of
the
office
for
any
length
of
time
shall
not
be
considered
as
an
interruption
in
the
continuity
of
his
service
for
the
full
term
for
which
he
was
elected."
11
In
the
debates
on
the
term
limit
of
Senators,
the
following
exchange
in
the
Constitutional
Convention
is
instructive:
"GASCON:
12
I
would
like
to
ask
a
question
with
regard
to
the
issue
after
the
second
term.
We
will
allow
the
Senator
to
rest
for
a
period
of
time
before
he
can
run
again?
DAVIDE:
13
That
is
correct.
GASCON:
And
the
question
that
we
left
behind
before
if
the
Gentleman
will
remember
was:
How
long
will
that
period
of
rest
be?
Will
it
be
one
election
which
is
three
years
or
one
term
which
is
six
years?
DAVIDE:
If
the
Gentleman
will
remember,
Commissioner
Rodrigo
expressed
the
view
that
during
the
election
following
the
expiration
of
the
first
12
years,
whether
such
election
will
be
on
the
third
or
on
the
sixth
year
thereafter,
this
particular
member
of
the
Senate
can
run.
So,
it
is
not
really
a
period
of
hibernation
for
six
years.
That
was
the
Committee's
stand.
GASCON:
So,
effectively,
the
period
of
rest
would
be
three
years
at
the
least."
14
(Emphasis
supplied)
The
framers
of
the
Constitution
thus
clarified
that
a
Senator
can
run
after
only
three
years
15
following
his
completion
of
two
terms.
The
framers
expressly
acknowledged
that
the
prohibited
election
refers
only
to
the
immediate
reelection,
and
not
to
any
subsequent
election,
during
the
six-year
period
following
the
two
term
limit.
The
framers
of
the
Constitution
did
not
intend
"the
period
of
rest"
of
an
elective
official
who
has
reached
his
term
limit
to
be
the
full
extent
of
the
succeeding
term.
In
the
case
of
Hagedorn,
his
candidacy
in
the
recall
election
on
September
24,
2002
is
not
an
immediate
reelection
after
his
third
consecutive
term
which
ended
on
June
30,
2001.
The
immediate
reelection
that
the
Constitution
barred
Hagedorn
from
seeking
referred
to
the
regular
elections
in
2001.
Hagedorn
did
not
seek
reelection
in
the
2001
elections.
Hagedorn
was
elected
for
three
consecutive
terms
in
the
1992,
1995
and
1998
elections
and
served
in
full
his
three
consecutive
terms
as
mayor
of
Puerto
Princesa.
Under
the
Constitution
and
the
Local
Government
Code,
Hagedorn
could
no
longer
run
for
mayor
in
the
2001
elections.
The
Constitution
and
theLocal
Government
Code
disqualified
Hagedorn,
who
had
reached
the
maximum
three-term
limit,
from
running
for
a
fourth
consecutive
term
as
mayor.
Thus,
Hagedorn
did
not
run
for
mayor
in
the
2001
elections.
16
Socrates
ran
and
won
as
mayor
of
Puerto
Princesa
in
the
2001
elections.
After
Hagedorn
ceased
to
be
mayor
on
June
30,
2001,
he
became
a
private
citizen
until
the
recall
election
of
September
24,
2002
when
he
won
by
3,018
votes
over
his
closest
opponent,Socrates.
From
June
30,
2001
until
the
recall
election
on
September
24,
2002,
the
mayor
of
Puerto
Princesa
was
Socrates.
During
the
same
period,
Hagedorn
was
simply
a
private
citizen.
This
period
is
clearly
an
interruption
in
the
continuity
of
Hagedorn's
service
as
mayor,
not
because
of
his
voluntary
renunciation,
but
because
of
a
legal
prohibition.
Hagedorn's
three
consecutive
terms
ended
on
June
30,
2001.
Hagedorn's
new
recall
term
from
September
24,
2002
to
June
30,
2004
is
not
a
seamless
continuation
of
his
previous
three
consecutive
terms
as
mayor.
One
cannot
stitch
together
Hagedorn's
previous
three-terms
with
his
new
recall
term
to
make
the
recall
term
a
fourth
consecutive
term
because
factually
it
is
not.
An
involuntary
interruption
occurred
from
June
30,
2001
to
September
24,
2002
which
broke
the
continuity
or
consecutive
character
of
Hagedorn's
service
as
mayor.
In
Lonzanida
v.
Comelec,
17
the
Court
had
occasion
to
explain
interruption
of
continuity
of
service
in
this
manner:
".
.
.
The
second
sentence
of
the
constitutional
provision
under
scrutiny
states,
"Voluntary
renunciation
of
office
for
any
length
of
time
shall
not
be
considered
as
an
interruption
in
the
continuity
of
service
for
the
full
term
for
which
he
was
elected."
The
clear
intent
of
the
framers
of
the
constitution
to
bar
any
attempt
to
circumvent
the
three-term
limit
by
a
voluntary
renunciation
of
office
and
at
the
same
time
respect
the
people's
choice
and
grant
their
elected
official
full
service
of
a
term
is
evident
in
this
provision.
Voluntary
renunciation
of
a
term
does
not
cancel
the
renounced
term
in
the
computation
of
the
three-term
limit;
conversely,
involuntary
severance
from
office
for
any
length
of
time
short
of
the
full
term
provided
by
law
amounts
to
an
interruption
of
continuity
of
service.
.
.
"
(Emphasis
supplied)
In
Hagedorn's
case,
the
nearly
15-month
period
he
was
out
of
office,
although
short
of
a
full
term
of
three
years,
constituted
an
interruption
in
the
continuity
of
his
service
as
mayor.
The
Constitution
does
not
require
the
interruption
or
hiatus
to
be
a
full
term
of
three
years.
The
clear
intent
is
that
interruption
"for
any
length
of
time,"
as
long
as
the
cause
is
involuntary,
is
sufficient
to
break
an
elective
local
official's
continuity
of
service.
In
the
recent
case
of
Adormeo
v.
Comelec
and
Talaga,
18
a
unanimous
Court
reiterated
the
rule
that
an
interruption
consisting
of
a
portion
of
a
term
of
office
breaks
the
continuity
of
service
of
an
elective
local
official.
In
Adormeo,
Ramon
Y.
Talaga,
Jr.
had
served
two
consecutive
full
terms
as
mayor
of
Lucena
City.
In
his
third
bid
for
election
as
mayor
in
1998,
Talaga
lost
to
Bernard
G.
Tagarao.
However,
in
the
recall
election
of
May
12,
2000,
Talaga
won
and
served
the
unexpired
term
of
Tagarao
from
May
12,
2000
to
June
30,
2001.
When
Talaga
ran
again
for
mayor
in
the
2001
elections,
Raymundo
Adormeo,
the
other
candidate
for
mayor,
petitioned
for
Talaga's
disqualification
on
the
ground
that
Talaga
had
already
served
three
consecutive
terms
as
mayor.
TAaEIc
Thus,
the
issue
in
Adormeo
was
whether
Talaga's
recall
term
was
a
continuation
of
his
previous
two
terms
so
that
he
was
deemed
to
have
already
served
three
consecutive
terms
as
mayor.
The
Court
ruled
that
Talaga
was
qualified
to
run
in
the
2001
elections,
stating
that
the
period
from
June
30,
1998
to
May
12,
2000
when
Talaga
was
out
of
office
interrupted
the
continuity
of
his
service
as
mayor.
Talaga's
recall
term
as
mayor
was
not
consecutive
to
his
previous
two
terms
because
of
this
interruption,
there
having
been
a
break
of
almost
two
years
during
which
time
Tagarao
was
the
mayor.
We
held
in
Adormeo
that
the
period
an
elective
local
official
is
out
of
office
interrupts
the
continuity
of
his
service
and
prevents
his
recall
term
from
being
stitched
together
as
a
seamless
continuation
of
his
previous
two
consecutive
terms.
In
the
instant
case,
we
likewise
hold
that
the
nearly
15
months
Hagedorn
was
out
of
office
interrupted
his
continuity
of
service
and
prevents
his
recall
term
from
being
stitched
together
as
a
seamless
continuation
of
his
previous
three
consecutive
terms.
The
only
difference
between
Adormeo
and
the
instant
case
is
the
time
of
the
interruption.
In
Adormeo,
the
interruption
occurred
after
the
first
two
consecutive
terms.
In
the
instant
case,
the
interruption
happened
after
the
first
three
consecutive
terms.
In
both
cases,
the
respondents
were
seeking
election
for
a
fourth
term.
In
Adormeo,
the
recall
term
of
Talaga
began
only
from
the
date
he
assumed
office
after
winning
the
recall
election.
Talaga's
recall
term
did
not
retroact
to
include
the
tenure
in
office
of
his
predecessor.
If
Talaga's
recall
term
was
made
to
so
retroact,
then
he
would
have
been
disqualified
to
run
in
the
2001
elections
because
he
would
already
have
served
three
consecutive
terms
prior
to
the
2001
elections.
One
who
wins
and
serves
a
recall
term
does
not
serve
the
full
term
of
his
predecessor
but
only
the
unexpired
term.
The
period
of
time
prior
to
the
recall
term,
when
another
elective
official
holds
office,
constitutes
an
interruption
in
continuity
of
service.
Clearly,
Adormeo
established
the
rule
that
the
winner
in
the
recall
election
cannot
be
charged
or
credited
with
the
full
term
of
three
years
for
purposes
of
counting
the
consecutiveness
of
an
elective
official's
terms
in
office.
In
the
same
manner,
Hagedorn's
recall
term
does
not
retroact
to
include
the
tenure
in
office
of
Socrates.
Hagedorn
can
only
be
disqualified
to
run
in
the
September
24,
2002
recall
election
if
the
recall
term
is
made
to
retroact
to
June
30,
2001,
for
only
then
can
the
recall
term
constitute
a
fourth
consecutive
term.
But
to
consider
Hagedorn's
recall
term
as
a
full
term
of
three
years,
retroacting
to
June
30,
2001,
despite
the
fact
that
he
won
his
recall
term
only
last
September
24,
2002,
is
to
ignore
reality.
This
Court
cannot
declare
as
consecutive
or
successive
terms
of
office
which
historically
and
factually
are
not.
Worse,
to
make
Hagedorn's
recall
term
retroact
to
June
30,
2001
creates
a
legal
fiction
that
unduly
curtails
the
freedom
of
the
people
to
choose
their
leaders
through
popular
elections.
The
concept
of
term
limits
is
in
derogation
of
the
sovereign
will
of
the
people
to
elect
the
leaders
of
their
own
choosing.
Term
limits
must
be
construed
strictly
to
give
the
fullest
possible
effect
to
the
sovereign
will
of
the
people.
As
this
Court
aptly
stated
in
Borja,
Jr.
v.
Comelec:
"Thus,
a
consideration
of
the
historical
background
of
Art.
X,
8
of
the
Constitution
reveals
that
the
members
of
the
Constitutional
Commission
were
as
much
concerned
with
preserving
the
freedom
of
choice
of
the
people
as
they
were
with
preventing
the
monopolization
of
political
power.
Indeed,
they
rejected
a
proposal
put
forth
by
Commissioner
Edmundo
F.
Garcia
that
after
serving
three
consecutive
terms
or
nine
years
there
should
be
no
further
reelection
for
local
and
legislative
officials.
Instead,
they
adopted
the
alternative
proposal
of
Commissioner
Christian
Monsod
that
such
officials
be
simply
barred
from
running
for
the
same
position
in
the
succeeding
election
following
the
expiration
of
the
third
consecutive
term.
Monsod
warned
against
'prescreening
candidates
[from]
whom
the
people
will
choose'
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
absolute
disqualification,
considering
that
the
draft
constitutioncontained
provisions
'recognizing
people's
power.'''
19
(Emphasis
supplied)
A
necessary
consequence
of
the
interruption
of
continuity
of
service
is
the
start
of
a
new
term
following
the
interruption.
An
official
elected
in
recall
election
serves
the
unexpired
term
of
the
recalled
official.
This
unexpired
term
is
in
itself
one
term
for
purposes
of
counting
the
three-term
limit.
This
is
clear
from
the
following
discussion
in
the
Constitutional
Commission:
"SUAREZ:
20
For
example,
a
special
election
is
called
for
a
Senator,
and
the
Senator
newly
elected
would
have
to
serve
the
unexpired
portion
of
the
term.
Would
that
mean
that
serving
the
unexpired
portion
of
the
term
is
already
considered
one
term?
So,
half
a
term,
which
is
actually
the
correct
statement,
plus
one
term
would
disqualify
the
Senator
concerned
from
running?
Is
that
the
meaning
of
this
provision
on
disqualification,
Madam
President?
DAVIDE:
Yes,
because
we
speak
of
'term,'
and
if
there
is
a
special
election,
he
will
serve
only
for
the
unexpired
portion
of
that
particular
term
plus
one
more
term
for
the
Senator
and
two
more
terms
for
the
Members
of
the
Lower
House."
21
Although
the
discussion
referred
to
special
elections
for
Senators
and
Representatives
of
the
House,
the
same
principle
applies
to
a
recall
election
of
local
officials.
Otherwise,
an
elective
local
official
who
serves
a
recall
term
can
serve
for
more
than
nine
consecutive
years
comprising
of
the
recall
term
plus
the
regular
three
full
terms.
A
local
official
who
serves
a
recall
term
should
know
that
the
recall
term
is
in
itself
one
term
although
less
than
three
years.
This
is
the
inherent
limitation
he
takes
by
running
and
winning
in
the
recall
election.
In
summary,
we
hold
that
Hagedorn
is
qualified
to
run
in
the
September
24,
2002
recall
election
for
mayor
of
Puerto
Princesa
because:
1.
Hagedorn
is
not
running
for
immediate
reelection
following
his
three
consecutive
terms
as
mayor
which
ended
on
June
30,
2001;
HCITDc
2.
Hagedorn's
continuity
of
service
as
mayor
was
involuntarily
interrupted
from
June
30,
2001
to
September
24,
2002
during
which
time
he
was
a
private
citizen;
3.
Hagedorn's
recall
term
from
September
24,
2002
to
June
30,
2004
cannot
be
made
to
retroact
to
June
30,
2001
to
make
a
fourth
consecutive
term
because
factually
the
recall
term
is
not
a
fourth
consecutive
term;
and
4.
Term
limits
should
be
construed
strictly
to
give
the
fullest
possible
effect
to
the
right
of
the
electorate
to
choose
their
leaders.
WHEREFORE,
the
petitions
in
G.R.
Nos.
154512,
154683
and
155083-84
are
DISMISSED.
The
temporary
restraining
order
issued
by
this
Court
on
September
24,
2002
enjoining
the
proclamation
of
the
winning
candidate
for
mayor
of
Puerto
Princesa
in
the
recall
election
of
September
24,
2002
is
lifted.
No
costs.
SO
ORDERED.
Bellosillo,
Panganiban,
Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio-Morales
and
Callejo,
Sr.,
JJ.,
concur.
Davide,
Jr.,
C.J.,
see
concurring
and
dissenting
opinion.
Puno,
J.,
see
concurring
opinion.
Vitug,
J.,
in
the
result.
Mendoza,
J.,
in
the
result,
without
prejudice
to
the
filing
of
separate
opinion.
Azcuna,
J.,
I
join
the
Chief
Justice
in
his
separate
opinion.
Austria-Martinez,
J.,
on
leave.
Corona,
J.,
no
part,
prior
consultation.
Separate
Opinions
election
for
the
second
term
of
elective
local
officials
which
expired
at
noon
of
30
June
1995,
for
elective
local
officials,
was
on
the
second
Monday
of
May
1992
pursuant
to
R.A.
No.
7166
(An
Act
Providing
for
Synchronized
National
and
Local
Elections
and
for
Electoral
Reforms).
The
third
election,i.e.,
for
the
third
term
which
expired
at
noon
of
30
June
1998,
was
on
the
second
Monday
of
May
1995,
pursuant
to
Section
2
of
R.A.
No.
7166.
The
fourth
election,
or
for
the
fourth
term
which
expired
at
noon
of
30
June
2001,
was
on
the
second
Monday
of
May
1998.
The
fifth
election,
i.e.,
for
the
fifth
term
which
would
expire
at
noon
of
30
June
2004,
was
on
the
second
Monday
of
May
2001.
Conformably
with
Section
8
of
Article
X
of
the
Constitution
and
Section
43
(b)
of
R.A.
No.
7160,
a
local
official
elected
in
the
first
local
election
of
18
January
1988
may
be
reelected
in
the
synchronized
elections
in
May
1992
and
in
May
1995.
He
could
not
seek
another
reelection
in
the
May
1998
election
because
that
would
have
been
his
fourth
term.
Similarly,
a
local
official
who
was
elected
in
the
May
1992
election
could
be
reelected
in
the
May
1995
and
May
1998
elections.
Private
respondent
Hagedorn
was
first
elected
as
City
Mayor
of
Puerto
Princesa
City
in
the
May
1992
election.
He
was
reelected
in
the
May
1995
and
May
1998
elections.
His
third
term,
by
virtue
of
his
election
in
the
May
1998
election,
expired
on
30
June
2001.
Therefore,
he
was
constitutionally
and
statutorily
barred
from
seeking
reelection
in
the
May
2001
election,
which
would
have
been
his
fourth
term.
The
term
of
office
covered
by
the
May
2001
election
is
up
to
30
June
2004.
Section
8
of
Article
X
of
the
Constitution
and
Section
43(b)
of
R.A.
No.
7160
are
clear
in
what
is
prohibited,
which
is
the
fourth
term.
Nothing
can
be
clearer
from
the
wordings
thereof:
"the
term
of
office
of
elective
local
officials
.
.
.
shall
be
three
years
and
no
such
official
shall
serve
for
more
than
three
consecutive
terms."
In
short,
an
elective
local
official
who
has
served
three
consecutive
terms,
like
Hagedorn,
is
disqualified
from
seeking
re-election
for
the
succeeding
fourth
term.
The
provision
bars
the
holding
of
four
consecutive
terms.
The
ponencia
is
then
correct
when
it
holds
that
the
three-term
limit
bars
an
immediate
reelection
for
a
fourth
term.
But
I
disagree
when
it
rules
that
in
the
case
of
Hagedorn
he
did
not
seek
an
immediate
reelection
for
a
fourth
term
because
he
was
not
a
candidate
for
reelection
in
the
May
2001
election.
It
forgets
that
what
would
have
been
his
fourth
term
by
virtue
of
the
May
2001
election
was
for
the
period
from
30
June
2001
to
30
June
2004.
The
flaw
in
the
ruling
results
from
an
apparent
confusion
between
term
and
election,
the
root
cause
of
which
is
the
attempt
to
distinguish
"voluntary
renunciation"
of
office
from
"involuntary
severance"
from
office
and
the
term
of
office
to
which
it
relates.
Let
me
first
discuss
the
matter
of
whether
the
Constitutional
Commission
did
approve
the
rule
of
"no
immediate
reelection
after
three
consecutive
terms."
In
support
of
its
affirmative
conclusion
the
ponencia
quotes
the
Manifestation
of
Commissioner
Romulo
as
entered
in
the
Journal
of
the
Constitutional
Commission,
thus:
MANIFESTATION
OF
MR.
ROMULO
Upon
resumption
of
session,
Mr.
Romulo
manifested
that
the
Body
would
proceed
to
the
consideration
of
two
issues
on
the
term
of
Representatives
andlocal
officials,
namely:
a)
Alternative
No.
1
(no
further
reelection
after
a
total
of
three
terms),
and
2)
Alternative
No.
2
(no
immediate
reelection
after
three
successive
terms).
This
is
inaccurate.
What
actually
happened
was
that
the
issue
was
originally
for
elective
national
and
local
officials.
However,
the
Commission
decided
to
consider
first
the
term
of
the
members
of
Congress;
and
to
defer
the
discussion
on
the
term
of
elective
local
officials
until
the
Commission
would
consider
the
report
of
the
Committee
on
Local
Governments.
On
this
point
I
quote
the
pertinent
portions
of
Volume
Two,
pages
238-245
of
the
Record
of
the
Constitutional
Commission
of
its
proceedings
on
25
July
1986:
THE
PRESIDENT.
Maybe
it
will
be
of
help
we
just
remind
ourselves
that
what
we
have
before
us
now
is
the
report
of
the
Committee
on
the
Legislative.
Therefore,
maybe
we
should
confine
ourselves
first
to
what
is
covered
by
the
report
which
is
the
term
of
office
of
the
Senators
and
the
Representatives.
And
with
respect
to
the
local
officials,
let
us
await
the
report
of
the
Committee
on
Local
Governments
as
to
its
recommendation
on
this
matter.
MR.
RODRIGO.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
I
will
go
further
than
that.
It
is
my
belief,
as
regards
local
officials,
that
we
should
leave
this
matter
to
the
legislative.
THE
PRESIDENT.
So
what
is
the
pleasure
now
of
the
Acting
Floor
Leader
or
of
the
Chairman
of
the
Committee
on
the
Legislative?
MR.
RODRIGO.
I
wonder
if
the
two
proponents,
Madam
President,
will
agree
that
we
first
talk
about
the
term
of
office
of
the
Representatives
because
we
are
now
discussing
the
legislative
department.
MR
DAVIDE.
Madam
President.
THE
PRESIDENT.
Commissioner
Davide
is
recognized.
MR.
DAVIDE.
I
will
agree
really
that
this
matter
should
relate
only
to
the
term
of
office
of
the
Representatives.
THE
PRESIDENT.
But
are
we
agreed
on
these
two
proposals
the
one
of
Commissioner
Garcia
where
there
is
no
further
election
after
a
total
of
three
terms
and
the
other
where
there
is
no
immediate
reelection
after
three
successive
terms?
TaCDIc
MR.
OPLE.
Madam
President,
originally
if
I
remember
right,
the
Commission
decided
to
consider
the
synchronization
of
elections.
And
from
that
original
commitment,
we
proceeded
to
fix
the
terms
and
decided
related
questions
within
the
context
of
synchronization.
Are
we
now
abandoning
the
original
task
of
synchronization
which
could
only
be
fully
settled
in
terms
of
delimitations
on
the
proposed
terms
of
the
President
and
the
Vice-President,
the
Members
of
Congress
and
the
local
officials,
or
do
we
want
to
postpone
the
synchronization
task
to
a
later
time
after
we
hear
from
the
Committee
on
Local
Governments
and
the
other
concerned
committees?
THE
PRESIDENT.
What
does
the
Acting
Floor
Leader
say
to
this
particular
question
of
Commissioner
Ople?
MR.
ROMULO.
In
a
way,
Madam
President,
we
have
settled
the
synchronization
task,
because
we
have
decided
on
the
officials'
absolute
terms.
All
we
are
really
talking
about
now
is
whether
or
not
they
are
eligible
for
reelection,
and
I
think
those
are
separable
issues.
MR.
OPLE.
If
they
are
separable,
and
we
have
already
settled
the
synchronization
task,
then
I
think
that
is
something
to
be
thankful
about.
But
considering
the
immediate
business
at
hand,
is
it
the
wish
of
the
Acting
Floor
Leader
that
the
election
of
the
local
officials
should
be
eliminated
from
the
consideration
of
those
two
choices?
MR.
ROMULO.
Yes.
I
think
the
sense
of
the
body
now
is
to
limit
this
choice
to
the
Members
of
the
House
of
Representatives.
MR.
OPLE.
And
do
the
manifestations
of
both
Commissioners
Garcia
and
Monsod
still
stand
after
the
elimination
of
the
election
of
the
local
officials?
MR.
ROMULO.
Yes,
I
think
so.
xxx
xxx
xxx
THE
PRESIDENT.
Commissioner
Davide
is
recognized.
MR.
DAVIDE.
Madam
President,
as
worded,
it
is
a
personal
disqualification.
MR.
ROMULO.
We
are
now
ready
to
vote,
Madam
President.
SUSPENSION
OF
SESSION
THE
PRESIDENT.
We
are
now
ready
to
vote
by
ballot.
Let
us
distribute
the
ballots.
Anyway
the
voting
would
take
only
about
10
minutes.
The
session
is
suspended.
It
was
3:40
p.m.
At
this
juncture,
pieces
of
paper
were
distributed,
and
the
Commissioners
wrote
down
their
votes.
RESUMPTION
OF
SESSION
At
3:50
p.m.,
the
session
was
resumed.
THE
PRESIDENT.
MR.
ROMULO.
The
question
is
whether
or
not
that
will
be
perpetual,
Madam
President,
or
after
resting
for
six
years
they
can
run
again.
That
is
the
question
that
is
not
answered.
I
am
talking
of
the
Senators.
THE
PRESIDENT.
This
morning,
Scheme
No.
1,
without
reelection,
has
3
votes;
Scheme
No.
II,
with
one
reelection
22
votes;
Scheme
No.
III,
no
limit
on
reelection
17
votes.
MR.
REGALADO.
Madam
President.
MR.
RODRIGO.
Madam
President.
THE
PRESIDENT.
May
we
first
clarify
this
from
the
Secretary-General?
MR.
ROMULO.
The
question
is
whether
or
not
in
voting
for
the
term
of
six
years
with
one
reelection,
the
Senator
is
perpetually
disqualified,
so
that
is
a
similar
question
to
what
we
had
posed
with
regard
to
the
House
of
Representatives.
THE
PRESIDENT.
In
other
words,
after
serving
with
one
reelection,
whether
or
not
he
is
perpetually
disqualified
after
serving
12
years?
MR.
ROMULO.
Yes,
Madam
President.
MR.
RODRIGO.
Madam
President.
THE
PRESIDENT.
Yes,
Commissioner
Rodrigo
is
recognized.
MR.
RODRIGO.
Or,
if
after
one
reelection,
he
is
perpetually
disqualified
or
he
can
hibernate
the
very
word
used
for
six
years
and
then
run
again
for
reelection
but
not
consecutive,
not
immediate.
In
other
words,
he
is
entitled
to
one
immediate
reelection.
REV.
RIGOS.
Another
point,
Madam
President.
MR.
RODRIGO.
And
then,
after
that,
if
there
is
a
gap,
when
he
is
not
a
Senator,
then
he
can
run
for
the
same
office.
REV.
RIGOS.
Madam
President.
THE
PRESIDENT.
Yes,
Commissioner
Rigos
is
recognized.
REV.
RIGOS.
In
relation
to
that,
if
he
will
be
allowed
to
run
again
as
Senator
after
a
period
of
hibernation;
we
have
to
clarify
how
long
that
should
be.
It
could
be
three
years,
because
in
the
proposed
scheme,
every
three
years
we
can
elect
the
Senators.
MR.
RODRIGO.
Yes,
Madam
President,
it
can
be
three
years.
SUSPENSION
OF
SESSION
THE
PRESIDENT.
I
will
suspend
the
session
again
so
as
to
allow
the
parties
to
compare
with
the
Acting
Floor
Leader
so
that
we
will
know
what
we
are
going
to
vote
on.
The
session
is
suspended
It
was
3:58
p.m.
RESUMPTION
OF
SESSION
At
4:05
p.m.,
the
session
was
resumed.
THE
PRESIDENT.
The
session
is
resumed.
The
Acting
Floor
Leader
is
recognized.
MR.
ROMULO.
Madam
President,
we
are
now
ready
to
vote
on
the
question
of
the
Senators,
and
the
schemes
are
as
follows:
The
first
scheme
is,
no
further
election
after
two
terms;
the
second
scheme
is,
no
immediate
reelection
after
two
successive
terms.
Madam
President,
inasmuch
as
the
principles
applicable
here
are
the
same
as
those
for
the
House
of
Representatives,
I
move
that
we
go
directly
to
the
voting
and
forego
any
further
discussions.
THE
PRESIDENT.
Please
distribute
the
ballots
for
this
particular
item
for
Senators.
Are
we
ready
now?
The
Secretary-General
will
please
count
the
ballots.
COUNTING
OF
BALLOTS
THE
SECRETARY-GENERAL.
We
have
43
ballots
here,
Madam
President.
We
shall
now
begin
to
count.
THE
PRESIDENT.
Please
proceed.
THE
SECRETARY-GENERAL,
reading:
Scheme
No.
I
/////-/////-//
MR.
NOLLEDO.
The
Committee
accepts
the
amendment,
as
amended,
Madam
President.
THE
PRESIDENT.
Is
there
any
other
comment?
MR.
OPLE.
Madam
President.
THE
PRESIDENT.
Commissioner
Ople
is
recognized.
MR.
OPLE.
May
we
ask
the
Committee
to
read
the
proposed
amendment
now.
MR.
NOLLEDO.
May
we
ask
Commissioner
Davide
to
read
the
new
section.
MR.
DAVIDE.
THE
TERM
OF
OFFICE
OF
ELECTIVE
LOCAL
OFFICIALS,
EXCEPT
BARANGAY
OFFICIALS,
WHICH
SHALL
BE
DETERMINED
BY
LAW,
SHALL
BE
THREE
YEARS
AND
NO
SUCH
OFFICIAL
SHALL
SERVE
FOR
MORE
THAN
THREE
CONSECUTIVE
TERMS.
VOLUNTARY
RENUNCIATION
OF
THE
OFFICE
FOR
ANY
LENGTH
OF
TIME
SHALL
NOT
BE
CONSIDERED
AS
AN
INTERRUPTION
IN
THE
CONTINUITY
OF
HIS
SERVICE
FOR
THE
FULL
TERM
FOR
WHICH
HE
WAS
ELECTED.
xxx
xxx
xxx
THE
PRESIDENT.
Then
let
us
vote
first
on
the
Davide
amendment.
Is
there
any
objection
to
this
new
section
proposed
by
Commissioner
Davide
which
has
been
read
to
the
body?
(Silence)
The
Chair
hears
none;
the
proposed
section
is
approved.
I
wish
to
add
that
the
Constitutional
Commission
debates
on
the
issue
of
"no
immediate
reelection"
after
three
consecutive
terms
for
members
of
Congress
clearly
indicated
that
the
"no
immediate
reelection"
after
the
3-term
limit
would
equally
apply
to
the
elective
local
officials.
This
accounted
for
the
immediate
acceptance
by
the
Committee
on
Local
Governments
of
the
aforementioned
Amendment
of
Commissioner
Davide,
which
is
now
Section
8
of
Article
X
of
theConstitution.
These
debates
clearly
showed
the
intent
of
the
Commission
that
the
ban
against
an
immediate
reelection
after
three
consecutive
terms
applies
to
the
fourth
term,
i.e.,
the
term
immediately
following
the
three
consecutive
terms,
to
be
filled
up
by
the
regular
election
for
such
fourth
term.
For
one
to
be
able
to
run
again
after
three
consecutive
terms,
he
has
to
rest
for
the
entire
immediately
succeeding
fourth
term.
On
the
next
fifth
term
he
can
run
again
to
start
a
new
series
of
three
consecutive
terms.
We
quote
these
pertinent
portions
of
the
debates,
recorded
in
Volume
Two,
pages
232-233
of
the
Record
of
the
Constitutional
Commission:
MR.
ROMULO.
Madam
President,
the
following
are
the
various
alternatives:
Scheme
No.
I
is
without
reelection;
Scheme
No.
II
is
with
one
reelection;
and
Scheme
No.
III
is
reelection
without
limit.
This
is
for
the
Senators.
At
this
juncture,
pieces
of
paper
were
distributed
and
the
Commissioners
wrote
down
their
votes.
THE
PRESIDENT.
The
Chair
asks
the
Chairman,
Commissioner
Davide,
to
please
consolidate
the
results
of
the
voting
for
President
and
Vice-President.
THE
SECRETARY-GENERAL.
Madam
President,
we
are
ready.
THE
PRESIDENT.
The
Secretary-General
will
please
proceed.
COUNTING
OF
BALLOTS
THE
SECRETARY-GENERAL,
reading:
Scheme
No.
I
///
Scheme
No.
II
/////-/////-/////-/////-//
Scheme
No.
III
/////-/////-/////-//
THE
PRESIDENT.
The
results
show
3
votes
for
Scheme
No.
I;
22
votes
for
Scheme
No.
II;
and
17
votes
for
Scheme
No.
III;
Scheme
No.
II
is
approved.
MR.
ROMULO.
Madam
President,
the
next
position
is
for
the
House
of
Representatives,
the
Congressmen.
I
would
assume
we
can
use
the
same
choices.
Does
any
one
want
any
variation?
MR.
RODRIGO.
Madam
President.
THE
PRESIDENT.
Commissioner
Rodrigo
is
recognized.
MR.
RODRIGO.
For
the
record,
I
would
like
to
ask
Commissioner
Romulo
some
questions.
MR.
ROMULO.
Yes.
MR.
RODRIGO.
Scheme
No.
II
says
"the
Vice-President
with
one
reelection."
THE
PRESIDENT.
No,
that
is
for
Senators.
MR.
GUINGONA.
Madam
President.
THE
PRESIDENT.
THE
PRESIDENT.
Commissioner
Monsod
is
recognized.
MR.
MONSOD.
Madam
President,
it
occurred
to
us
that
the
three
alternatives
are
not
really
mutually
exclusive.
Can
we
have
only
these
three:
without
reelection,
with
reelection
and
with
unlimited
reelection?
We
are
asking
here
for
plurality
only,
Madam
President.
Can
we
eliminate?
THE
PRESIDENT.
In
other
words,
we
shall
have
the
same
schemes
as
those
for
Senators;
without
reelection,
with
one
reelection
and
unlimited
reelection.
REV.
RIGOS.
Madam
President,
besides
we
have
already
submitted
our
ballots.
MR.
MONSOD.
I
withdraw
my
proposal,
Madam
President.
MR.
GARCIA.
Madam
President,
I
would
suggest
that
the
two
schemes
with
the
highest
votes
be
voted
upon
to
get
the
key
majority.
For
example,
if
the
schemes
with
two
reelections
and
no
limit
to
election
get
the
highest
number
of
votes,
then
we
vote
again
to
get
the
key
majority.
THE
PRESIDENT.
We
will
do
that.
Are
all
the
votes
in?
COUNTING
OF
BALLOTS
THE
SECRETARY-GENERAL.
Madam
President,
we
have
43
ballots.
THE
PRESIDENT.
The
Secretary-General
will
please
proceed.
THE
SECRETARY-GENERAL,
reading:
Scheme
No.
I
0
Scheme
No.
II
//
Scheme
No.
III
/////-/////-/////-/////-/
Scheme
No.
IV
/////-/////-////
Scheme
No.
V
/////-/
THE
PRESIDENT.
The
results
show
no
vote
for
Scheme
No.
I;
2
votes
for
Scheme
No.
II;
21
votes
for
Scheme
No.
III;
14
votes
for
Scheme
No.
IV;
and
6
votes
for
Scheme
No.
V;
Scheme
No.
III
is
approved.
MR.
RODRIGO.
Madam
President.
THE
PRESIDENT.
Commissioner
Rodrigo
is
recognized.
MR.
RODRIGO.
I
would
like
to
ask
a
question
for
clarification.
THE
PRESIDENT.
Please
proceed.
MR.
RODRIGO.
If
the
Members
of
the
Lower
House
can
have
two
reelections,
does
this
mean
two
immediate
reelections,
or
a
term
of
nine
consecutive
years?
Let
us
say
that
a
Member
of
the
Lower
House
has
been
reelected
twice;
that
means
he
will
serve
for
nine
years.
Can
he
let
three
years
elapse
and
then
run
again?
IaDcTC
THE
PRESIDENT.
We
will
ask
the
Chairman
of
the
Committee
on
the
Legislative
to
answer
the
question.
MR.
DAVIDE.
That
is
correct,
Madam
President,
because
two
reelections
mean
two
successive
reelections.
So
he
cannot
serve
beyond
nine
consecutive
years.
MR.
RODRIGO.
Consecutively?
MR.
DAVIDE.
Consecutively.
MR.
RODRIGO.
But
after
nine
years
he
can
let
one
.
.
.
MR.
DAVIDE.
He
can
rest.
He
can
hibernate
for
three
years.
MR.
RODRIGO.
And
run
again.
MR.
DAVIDE.
He
can
run
again.
MR.
RODRIGO.
And
again
have
nine
years
as
a
maximum.
MR.
DAVIDE.
I
do
not
know
if
that
is
also
the
thinking
of
Commissioner
Garcia
who
is
the
main
proponent
of
this
proposal
on
two
reelections.
I
would
seek
the
opinion
of
Commissioner
Garcia
for
the
record.
(italics
supplied
for
emphasis.)
xxx
xxx
xxx
The
dichotomy
made
in
the
ponencia
between
"voluntary
renunciation
of
the
office"
as
used
in
Section
8
of
Article
X
of
the
Constitution
and
Section
43
(b)
ofR.A.
No.
7160
and
"involuntary
severance
from
office"
is
unnecessary,
if
not
misplaced.
From
the
discussion
in
the
ponencia,
the
latter
is
made
to
apply
to
the
banned
term,
i.e.,
the
fourth
term
immediately
following
three
consecutive
terms.
Speaking
now
of
Hagedorn,
he
cannot
have
suffered
"involuntary
severance
from
office"
because
there
was
nothing
to
be
severed;
he
was
not
a
holder
of
an
office
either
in
a
de
jure
or
de
facto
capacity.
He
knew
he
was
disqualified
from
seeking
a
third
reelection
to
office.
Disqualification
is,
definitely,
not
synonymous
with
involuntary
severance.
Even
if
we
concede
thatinvoluntary
severance
is
an
act
which
interrupts
the
continuity
of
a
term
for
purposes
of
applying
the
three-term
principle
the
rule
laid
down
in
Lonzanida
vs.
COMELEC
(311
SCRA
609
[1999]),
cited
in
the
ponencia,
page
17,
is
not
applicable
in
the
case
of
Hagedorn.
The
involuntary
severance
referred
to
in
that
case
was
one
that
took
place
during
any
of
the
three
terms;
hence,
the
term
during
which
it
occurred
should
be
excluded
in
the
computation.
In
the
case
of
Hagedorn,
no
such
involuntary
severance
took
place
during
any
of
his
three
terms
brought
about
by
his
election
in
1992
and
reelections
in
1995
and
1998.
More
importantly,
the
voluntary
renunciation
referred
to
in
Section
8,
Article
X
of
the
Constitution
and
Section
43
(b)
of
R.A.
No.
7160
is
one
that
takes
place
at
any
time
during
either
the
first,
second,
or
third
term
of
the
three
consecutive
terms.
This
is
very
clear
from
the
last
clause
of
Section
8,
Article
X
of
theConstitution,
which
reads:
"shall
not
be
considered
as
an
interruption
in
the
continuity
of
his
service
for
the
full
term
for
which
he
was
elected."
The
purpose
of
the
provision
is
to
prevent
an
elective
local
official
from
voluntarily
resigning
from
office
for
the
purpose
of
circumventing
the
rule
on
the
belief
that
the
term
during
which
he
resigned
would
be
excluded
in
the
counting
of
the
three-term
rule.
In
short,
the
provision
excluded
is
intended
to
impose
a
penalty
on
one
who
flouts
the
rule
or
make
a
mockery
of
it
by
the
simple
act
of
resigning.
Thus,
applying
it
in
the
case
of
Hagedorn,
even
if
he
voluntarily
resigned
on
his
third
term,
he
would
still
be
barred
from
seeking
reelection
in
the
May
2001
election.
Hagedorn
cannot
likewise
avail
of
the
ruling
in
Adormeo
vs.
COMELEC
(G.R.
No.
147927,
4
February
2002)
because
in
that
case
Talaga
did
not
win
in
his
second
reelection
bid,
or
for
a
third
term,
in
the
May
1998
elections.
He
won
in
the
recall
election
of
12
May
2000.
Hagedorn,
as
earlier
stated,
fully
served
three
successive
terms.
Neither
can
we
allow
Hagedorn
to
take
refuge
under
the
exchange
between
Commissioner
Suarez
and
Commissioner
Davide
found
on
page
592,
Vol.
II
of
the
Record
of
the
Constitutional
Commission
and
quoted
on
pages
19-20
of
the
ponencia:
SUAREZ:
For
example,
a
special
election
is
called
for
a
Senator,
and
the
Senator
newly
elected
would
have
to
serve
the
unexpired
portion
of
the
term.
Would
that
mean
that
serving
the
unexpired
portion
of
the
term
is
already
considered
one
term?
So,
half
a
term,
which
is
actually
the
correct
statement,
plus
one
term
would
disqualify
the
Senator
concerned
from
running?
Is
that
the
meaning
of
this
provision
on
disqualification,
Madam
President?
DAVIDE:
Yes,
because
we
speak
of
"term."
And
if
there
is
a
special
election,
he
will
serve
only
for
the
unexpired
portion
of
that
particular
term
plus
one
more
term
for
the
Senator
and
two
more
terms
for
the
Members
of
the
Lower
House.
On
the
contrary,
it
is
clear
from
the
views
of
Commissioners
Suarez
and
Davide
that
the
term
of
office
of
one
who
is
elected
in
a
special
election
is
considered
one
term
for
purposes
of
determining
the
three
consecutive
terms.
A
declaration
that
Hagedorn
is
qualified
to
seek
reelection
in
a
recall
election
to
remove
the
Mayor
who
was
elected
for
a
term
for
which
Hagedorn
was
constitutionally
and
statutorily
disqualified
to
be
reelected
to
or
to
hold
is
to
subvert
the
rationale
of
the
three-consecutive-term
rule
and
make
a
mockery
of
it.
Worse,
it
abets
destructive
endless
partisan
politics
and
unsound
governance.
An
elective
local
official
who
is
disqualified
to
seek
a
fourth
term
because
of
the
three-term
limit
but
obsessed
to
hold
on
to
power
would
spend
the
first
year
of
the
fourth
term
campaigning
for
the
recall
of
the
incumbent
in
the
second
year
of
said
term.
This
would
not
be
a
problem
if
the
disqualified
official
has
a
solid
following
and
a
strong
political
machinery.
Interestingly,
in
this
case,
as
stated
on
page
3
of
the
ponencia,
the
President
of
the
Association
of
Barangay
Captains
of
Puerto
Princesa
City
is
one
Mark
David
M.
Hagedorn
and
he
was
designated
by
the
Preparatory
Recall
Assembly
as
Interim
Chairman.
I
therefore
vote
to
grant
the
petition
in
G.R.
Nos.
155083-84,
to
set
aside
the
resolution
of
the
COMELEC
holding
private
respondent
Edward
Hagedorn
a
qualified
candidate
for
the
position
of
Mayor
of
Puerto
Princesa
City
in
the
recall
election,
and
to
declare
him
DISQUALIFIED
from
seeking
reelection
for
a
fourth
term
or
from
being
a
candidate
for
Mayor
in
the
recall
election
in
question.
PUNO,
J.,
concurring:
The
correctness
of
the
decision
so
ably
written
by
Mr.
Justice
Carpio
speaks
for
itself.
Nonetheless,
the
complex
constitutional
dimensions
of
the
issue
for
resolution
compels
this
humble
concurring
opinion.
The
issue
is
whether
private
respondent
Hagedorn
is
disqualified
from
running
in
the
September
24,
2002
recall
election
for
mayor
of
Puerto
Princesa
City
and
from
serving
the
unexpired
portion
of
the
2001-2004
mayoralty
term
considering
that
he
has
thrice
been
consecutively
elected
and
has
served
three
full
terms
as
Puerto
Princesa
City
mayor
from
1992-1998.
In
illuminating
the
gray
interstices
of
this
election
case,
prudence
dictates
that
".
.
.
where
the
sovereignty
of
the
people
is
at
stake,
we
must
not
only
be
legally
right
but
also
politically
correct."
1
Private
respondent
Hagedorn
was
elected
mayor
of
Puerto
Princesa
City,
Palawan
in
1992,
1995
and
1998
and
served
three
full
terms.
In
the
May
14,
2001
national
and
local
elections,
he
ran
for
governor
for
the
Province
of
Palawan
and
lost.
Petitioner-intervenor
Victorino
Dennis
M.
Socrates
was
elected
mayor
of
Puerto
Princesa
City.
On
July
2,
2002,
three
hundred
twelve
(312)
out
of
five
hundred
twenty-eight
(528)
members
of
the
Barangay
Officials
of
Puerto
Princesa
City
convened
themselves
into
a
Preparatory
Recall
Assembly
to
initiate
the
recall
of
Mayor
Socrates.
On
August
21,
2002,
COMELEC
promulgated
Resolution
No.
5673
prescribing
a
calendar
of
activities
for
the
recall
election.
Two
days
after,
Hagedorn
filed
his
certificate
of
candidacy
for
mayor
in
said
election.
On
August
27,
2002,
petitioners
Adovo
and
Gilo
sought
for
Hagedorn's
immediate
disqualification
on
the
ground
that
he
had
served
three
consecutive
full
terms
as
mayor
of
Puerto
Princesa
City
immediately
prior
to
the
recall
election
and
was
thus
proscribed
by
the
Constitution
from
running
in
said
election.
On
August
30,
2002,
petitioner
Ollave,
Sr.
intervened
to
disqualify
Hagedorn
on
the
same
ground.
The
recall
election
was
set
on
September
24,
2002.
On
September
20,
2002,
public
respondent
COMELEC's
First
Division
denied
the
petitions
for
Hagedorn's
disqualification.
The
following
day,
petitioners
Adovo,
Gilo
and
Ollave,
Sr.
filed
a
motion
for
reconsideration
imploring
the
COMELEC
en
banc
to
reverse
the
September
20
resolution.
On
September
23,
2002,
the
COMELEC
en
banc
affirmed
the
resolution
of
the
First
Division
holding
Hagedorn
qualified
to
run
in
the
recall
election.
On
September
24,
2002,
petitioners
Adovo,
Gilo
and
Ollave,
Sr.
sought
recourse
in
this
Court
with
a
Very
Urgent
Petition
for
Certiorari
and
Prohibition
with
Preliminary
Injunction
and
Prayer
for
Temporary
Restraining
Order.
On
the
same
date,
Mayor
Socrates
filed
a
petition-in-intervention
to
nullify
the
September
23
resolution
of
the
COMELEC.
The
petitions
before
us
raise
the
following
issues:
"I
THE
COMELEC
GRAVELY
ABUSED
ITS
DISCRETION
WHEN
IT
RULED
THAT
RESPONDENT
HAGEDORN
IS
NOT
DISQUALIFIED
FROM
RUNNING
FOR
THE
POSITION
OF
MAYOR
OF
PUERTO
PRINCESA
CITY
IN
THE
SCHEDULED
RECALL
ELECTION,
THE
CLEAR
AND
UNAMBIGUOUS
CONSTITUTIONAL
AND
STATUTORY
PROHIBITION
AGAINST
A
FOURTH
CONSECUTIVE
TERM
FOR
LOCAL
ELECTIVE
OFFICIALS
NOTWITHSTANDING.
II.
THE
HONORABLE
COMELEC
GRAVELY
ERRED
AND
ABUSED
ITS
DISCRETION
WHEN
IT
PROCEEDED
TO
DIVIDE
A
SINGLE
TERM
OF
OFFICE
INTO
TWO.
III.
THE
HONORABLE
COMELEC
COMMITTED
GRAVE
ABUSE
OF
DISCRETION
AND
VIOLATED
THE
INTENT
AND
PURPOSE
FOR
HOLDING
THE
SCHEDULED
RECALL
ELECTIONS
FOR
THE
POSITION
OF
MAYOR
OF
PUERTO
PRINCESA
CITY
AND
THE
CONSTITUTIONAL
AND
STATUTORY
BAR
AGAINST
A
FOURTH
CONSECUTIVE
TERM.
IV.
THE
HONORABLE
COMELEC
GRAVELY
ABUSED
ITS
DISCRETION
WHEN
IT
RULED
THAT
RESPONDENT
HAGEDORN
IS
NOT
DISQUALIFIED
FROM
RUNNING
IN
THE
UPCOMING
RECALL
ELECTIONS
AS
HIS
INELIGIBILITY
IS
NOT
APPARENT
UNDER
SECTIONS
65
AND
68
OF
THE
OMNIBUS
ELECTION
CODE,
SECTIONS
39
AND
40
OF
RA
7160
(LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
CODE),
AND
RULES
23
AND
25
OF
THE
COMELEC
RULES
OF
PROCEDURE.
V.
THE
HONORABLE
COMELEC
COMMITTED
GRAVE
ABUSE
OF
DISCRETION
WHEN
IT
RULED
THAT
RESPONDENT
HAGEDORN
IS
QUALIFIED
TO
RUN
IN
THE
RECALL
ELECTION
EVEN
IF
HE
STANDS
DISQUALIFIED
FROM
SERVING
UNDER
A
FOURTH
CONSECUTIVE
TERM
AS
SUCH
IS
ALLEGEDLY
NOT
THE
PROVINCE
OF
THE
INSTANT
DISQUALIFICATION
PROCEEDINGS.
VI.
THE
HONORABLE
COMELEC
COMMITTED
GRAVE
ABUSE
OF
DISCRETION
WHEN
IT
ISSUED
A
DEFECTIVE
AND
CLEARLY
VOID
RESOLUTION."
2
The
foregoing
issues
may
be
reduced
to
the
singular
issue
of
whether
or
not
private
respondent
Hagedorn
is
disqualified
from
running
in
the
September
24,
2002
recall
election
and
serving
as
mayor
of
Puerto
Princesa
City
considering
that
he
has
been
thrice
consecutively
elected
and
has
served
three
full
terms
in
that
position
from
1992
to
2001.
I
find
the
petitions
devoid
of
merit.
Art.
X,
Sec.
8
of
the
Constitution
provides:
"Sec.
8
The
term
of
office
of
elective
local
officials,
except
barangay
officials,
which
shall
be
determined
by
law,
shall
be
three
years
and
no
such
official
shall
serve
for
more
than
three
consecutive
terms.
Voluntary
renunciation
of
the
office
for
any
length
of
time
shall
not
be
considered
as
an
interruption
in
the
continuity
of
his
service
for
the
full
term
for
which
he
was
elected."
This
constitutional
provision
is
restated
in
the
Local
Government
Code
of
1991,
to
wit:
HcSDIE
"Sec.
43.
Term
of
Office.
.
.
.
(b)
No
local
elective
official
shall
serve
for
more
than
three
(3)
consecutive
terms
in
the
same
position.
Voluntary
renunciation
of
the
office
for
any
length
of
time
shall
not
be
considered
as
an
interruption
in
the
continuity
of
service
for
the
full
term
for
which
the
elective
official
concerned
was
elected."
We
have
not
interpreted
Art.
X,
Sec.
8
of
the
Constitution
in
the
recall
election
context
of
the
cases
at
bar.
It
is
imperative
to
distill
the
intent
of
the
framers
of
the
Constitution
and
the
people
who
ratified
it.
3
Mere
reliance
on
the
surface
meaning
of
the
words
of
the
above
provision,
however,
will
not
suffice
to
capture
this
elusive
intent.
Thus,
we
turn
to
the
proceedings
and
debates
of
the
Constitutional
Commission
(ConCom)
as
an
extrinsic
aid
to
interpretation.
4The
Record
of
the
Constitutional
Commission
shows
that
Art.
X,
Sec.
8
was
readily
accepted
by
the
Commissioners
without
much
discussion;
5
nonetheless,
their
debates
on
setting
the
term
limit
for
Representatives
show
that
the
rationale
for
the
limit
applies
to
both
Representatives
and
elective
local
officials.
We
quote
at
length
the
relevant
portions
of
the
debates,
to
wit:
"MR.
GARCIA.
I
would
like
to
advocate
the
proposition
that
no
further
election
for
local
and
legislative
officials
be
allowed
after
a
total
of
three
terms
or
nine
years.
I
have
four
reasons
why
I
would
like
to
advocate
this
proposal,
which
are
as
follows:
(1)
to
prevent
monopoly
of
political
power;
(2)
to
broaden
the
choice
of
the
people;
(3)
so
that
no
one
is
indispensable
in
running
the
affairs
of
the
country;
(4)
to
create
a
reserve
of
statesmen
both
in
the
national
and
local
levels.
May
I
explain
briefly
these
four
reasons.
First:
To
prevent
monopoly
of
political
power
Our
history
has
shown
that
prolonged
stay
in
public
office
can
lead
to
the
creation
of
entrenched
preserves
of
political
dynasties.
In
this
regard,
I
would
also
like
to
advocate
that
immediate
members
of
the
families
of
public
officials
be
barred
from
occupying
the
same
position
being
vacated.
Second:
To
broaden
the
choice
of
the
people
Although
individuals
have
the
right
to
present
themselves
for
public
office,
our
times
demand
that
we
create
structures
that
will
enable
more
aspirants
to
offer
to
serve
and
to
provide
the
people
a
broader
choice
so
that
more
and
more
people
can
be
enlisted
to
the
cause
of
public
service,
not
just
limited
only
to
those
who
may
have
the
reason
or
the
advantage
due
to
their
position.
Third:
No
one
is
indispensable
in
running
the
affairs
of
the
country
After
the
official's
more
than
a
decade
or
nearly
a
decade
of
occupying
the
same
public
office,
I
think
we
should
try
to
encourage
a
more
team-oriented
consensual
approach
to
governance
favored
by
a
proposal
that
will
limit
public
servants
to
occupy
the
same
office
for
three
terms.
And
this
would
also
favor
not
relying
on
personalities
no
matter
how
heroic,
some
of
whom,
in
fact,
are
now
in
our
midst.
Lastly,
the
fact
that
we
will
not
reelect
people
after
three
terms
would
also
favor
the
creation
of
a
reserve
of
statesmen
both
in
the
national
and
local
levels.
Turnovers
in
public
office
after
nine
years
will
ensure
that
new
ideas
and
new
approaches
will
be
welcome.
Public
office
will
no
longer
be
a
preserve
of
conservatism
and
tradition.
At
the
same
time,
we
will
create
a
reserve
of
statesmen,
both
in
the
national
and
local
levels,
since
we
will
not
deprive
the
community
of
the
wealth
of
experience
and
advice
that
could
come
from
those
who
have
served
for
nine
years
in
public
office.
Finally,
the
concept
of
public
service,
if
political
dynasty
symbolized
by
prolonged
stay
in
particular
public
offices
is
barred,
will
have
fuller
meaning.
It
will
not
be
limited
only
to
those
who
directly
hold
public
office,
but
also
to
consultative
bodies
organized
by
the
people,
among
whom
could
be
counted
those
who
have
served
in
public
office
with
accomplishment
and
distinction,
for
public
service
must
no
longer
be
limited
only
to
public
office.
xxx
xxx
xxx
MR.
MONSOD.
Madam
President,
I
was
reflecting
on
this
issue
earlier
and
I
asked
to
speak
because
in
this
draft
Constitution,
we
are
recognizing
people
power.
We
have
said
that
now
there
is
a
new
awareness,
a
new
kind
of
voter,
a
new
kind
of
Filipino.
And
yet
at
the
same
time,
we
are
prescreening
candidates
among
whom
they
will
choose.
We
are
saying
that
this
48-member
Constitutional
Commission
has
decreed
that
those
who
have
served
for
a
period
of
nine
years
are
barred
from
running
for
the
same
position.
The
argument
is
that
there
may
be
other
positions.
But
there
are
some
people
who
are
very
skilled
and
good
at
legislation,
and
yet
are
not
of
a
national
stature
to
be
Senators.
They
may
be
perfectly
honest,
perfectly
competent
and
with
integrity.
They
get
voted
into
office
at
the
age
of
25,
which
is
the
age
we
provide
for
Congressmen.
And
at
34
years
old
we
put
them
to
pasture.
Second,
we
say
that
we
want
to
broaden
the
choices
of
the
people.
We
are
talking
here
only
of
congressional
or
senatorial
seats.
We
want
to
broaden
the
people's
choice
but
we
are
making
a
prejudgment
today
because
we
exclude
a
certain
number
of
people.
We
are,
in
effect,
putting
an
additional
qualification
for
office
that
the
officials
must
not
have
served
a
total
of
more
than
a
number
of
years
in
their
lifetime.
Third,
we
are
saying
that
by
putting
people
to
pasture,
we
are
creating
a
reserve
of
statesmen,
but
the
future
participation
of
these
statesmen
is
limited.
Their
skills
may
only
be
in
some
areas,
but
we
are
saying
that
they
are
going
to
be
barred
from
running
for
the
same
position.
Madam
President,
the
ability
and
capacity
of
a
statesman
depend
as
well
on
the
day-to-day
honing
of
his
skills
and
competence,
in
intellectual
combat,
in
concern
and
contact
with
the
people,
and
here
we
are
saying
that
he
is
going
to
be
barred
from
the
same
kind
of
public
service.
I
do
not
think
it
is
in
our
place
today
to
make
such
a
very
important
and
momentous
decision
with
respect
to
many
of
our
countrymen
in
the
future
who
may
have
a
lot
more
years
ahead
of
them
in
the
service
of
their
country.
If
we
agree
that
we
will
make
sure
that
these
people
do
not
set
up
structures
that
will
perpetuate
them,
then
let
us
give
them
this
rest
period
of
three
years
or
whatever
it
is.
Maybe
during
that
time,
we
would
even
agree
that
their
fathers
or
mothers
or
relatives
of
the
second
degree
should
not
run.
But
let
us
not
bar
them
for
life
after
serving
the
public
for
a
number
of
years.
xxx
xxx
xxx
MR.
OPLE.
.
.
.
The
principle
involved
is
really
whether
this
Commission
shall
impose
a
temporary
or
a
perpetual
disqualification
on
those
who
have
served
their
terms
in
accordance
with
the
limits
on
consecutive
service
as
decided
by
the
Constitutional
Commission.
I
would
be
very
wary
about
the
Commission
exercising
a
sort
of
omnipotent
power
in
order
to
disqualify
those
who
will
already
have
served
their
terms
from
perpetuating
themselves
in
office.
I
think
the
Commission
achieves
its
purpose
in
establishing
safeguards
against
the
excessive
accumulation
of
power
as
a
result
of
consecutive
terms.
We
do
put
a
gap
on
consecutive
service
in
the
case
of
the
President,
six
years;
in
the
case
of
the
Vice-President,
unlimited;
and
in
the
case
of
the
Senators,
one
reelection.
In
the
case
of
the
Members
of
Congress,
both
from
the
legislative
districts
and
from
the
party
list
and
sectoral
representation,
this
is
now
under
discussion
and
later
on
the
policy
concerning
local
officials
will
be
taken
up
by
the
Committee
on
Local
Governments.
The
principle
remains
the
same.
I
think
we
want
to
prevent
future
situations
where,
as
a
result
of
continuous
service
and
frequent
reelections,
officials
from
the
President
down
to
the
municipal
mayor
tend
to
develop
a
proprietary
interest
in
their
positions
and
to
accumulate
those
powers
and
perquisites
that
permit
them
to
stay
on
indefinitely
or
to
transfer
these
posts
to
members
of
their
families
in
a
subsequent
election.
I
think
that
is
taken
care
of
because
we
put
a
gap
on
the
continuity
or
unbroken
service
of
all
of
these
officials.
But
were
we
now
(to)
decide
to
put
these
prospective
servants
of
the
people
or
politicians,
if
we
want
to
use
the
coarser
term,
under
a
perpetual
disqualification,
I
have
a
feeling
that
we
are
taking
away
too
much
from
the
people,
whereas
we
should
be
giving
as
much
to
the
people
as
we
can
in
terms
of
their
own
freedom
of
choice.
I
think
the
veterans
of
the
Senate
and
of
the
House
of
Representatives
here
will
say
that
simply
getting
nominated
on
a
party
ticket
is
a
very
poor
assurance
that
the
people
will
return
them
to
the
Senate
or
to
the
House
of
Representatives.
There
are
many
casualties
along
the
way
of
those
who
want
to
return
to
their
office,
and
it
is
the
people's
decision
that
matters.
They
judge
whether
or
not
a
Soc
Rodrigo,
a
Sumulong,
a
Padilla,
an
Alonto
and
a
Rosales,
after
a
first
and
second
term,
should
go
back
to
the
Senate.
That
is
a
prerogative
of
the
people
that
we
should
not
take
away
from
them
the
right
to
judge
those
who
have
served.
In
any
case,
we
already
take
away
from
the
people
the
freedom
to
vote
for
the
third
termers
because
we
say
that
a
Senator,
say,
Mr.
Rodrigo,
is
only
good
for
twelve
years.
But
if
he
wants
to
be
like
Cincinnatus,
if
he
is
called
back
by
his
people
to
serve
again,
let
us
say
for
a
period
of
six
years
which
Commissioner
Davide
called
a
period
of
hibernation
which
is
spent
at
his
fishpond
in
Bulacan,
Bulacan
because
there
is
a
new
situation
in
the
country
that
fairly
impels
the
people
to
summon
him
back,
like
Cincinnatus
in
the
past,
then
there
will
no
longer
be
any
Cincinnatus.
That
is
not
perhaps
a
very
important
point,
but
I
think
we
already
have
succeeded
in
striking
a
balance
of
policies,
so
that
the
structures,
about
which
Commissioner
Garcia
expressed
a
very
legitimate
concern,
could
henceforth
develop
to
redistribute
opportunities,
both
in
terms
of
political
and
economic
power,
to
the
great
majority
of
the
people,
because
very
soon,
we
will
also
discuss
the
multiparty
system.
We
have
unshackled
the
Philippine
politics
from
the
two-party
system,
which
really
was
the
most
critical
support
for
the
perpetuation
of
political
dynasties
in
the
Philippines.
That
is
quite
a
victory,
but
at
the
same
time,
let
us
not
despise
the
role
of
political
parties.
The
strength
of
democracy
will
depend
a
lot
on
how
strong
our
democratic
parties
are,
and
a
splintering
of
all
these
parties
so
that
we
fall
back
on,
let
us
say,
nontraditional
parties
entirely
will
mean
a
great
loss
to
the
vitality
and
resiliency
of
our
democracy
.
.
.
xxx
xxx
xxx
BISHOP
BACANI
.
.
.
I
think
when
we
voted
on
the
provision
that
the
illiterate
be
allowed
to
vote
and
when
we
proposed
in
this
Constitutional
Commission
for
initiative
as
a
way
also
of
empowering
our
people
to
engage
in
the
legislative
exercise;
we
are
really
presupposing
the
political
maturity
of
our
people.
Why
is
it
that
that
political
maturity
seems
now
to
be
denied
by
asking
that
we
should
put
a
constitutional
bar
to
a
further
election
of
any
Representative
after
a
term
of
three
years?
Why
should
we
not
leave
that
to
the
premise
accepted
by
practically
everybody
here
that
our
people
are
politically
mature?
Should
we
use
this
assumption
only
when
it
is
convenient
for
us,
and
not
when
it
may
also
lead
to
a
freedom
of
choice
for
the
people
and
for
politicians
who
may
aspire
to
serve
longer?
xxx
xxx
xxx
MR.
GARCIA.
I
would
like
to
answer
Commissioner
Bacani.
We
put
a
constitutional
bar
to
reelection
of
any
Representative
basically
because
of
the
undue
advantage
of
the
incumbent.
It
is
not
because
of
lack
of
trust
in
the
people.
We
realize
from
history
that
Mexico
fought
a
revolution
simply
because
of
the
issue
of
reelection.
No
reeleccion,
sufragio
universal.
Basically,
it
is
because
of
the
undue
advantage
of
the
incumbent
that
he
accumulates
power,
money,
party
machine
or
patronage.
As
regards
what
Commissioner
Aquino
has
said,
politics
is
not
won
by
ideals
alone;
it
is
won
by
solid
organizing
work
by
organizations
that
have
the
capacity
to
do
so;
and
normally
the
incumbent
has
all
the
advantages.
.
.
xxx
xxx
xxx
THE
SECRETARY-GENERAL.
Madam
President,
we
have
here
43
ballots
cast.
We
will
now
start
the
counting.
Alternative
No.
1
no
further
election
after
a
total
of
three
terms:
/////-/////-/////-//
Alternative
No.
2
no
immediate
reelection
after
three
successive
terms:
/////-/////-/////-/////-/////-
/"
6
(emphasis
supplied)
In
several
cases,
this
Court
was
guided
by
the
proceedings
of
the
ConCom
in
construing
Art.
X,
Sec.
8
of
the
Constitution
in
relation
to
Section
43
(b)
of
theLocal
Government
Code
of
1991.
Different
from
the
issue
presented
by
the
cases
at
bar,
however,
the
question
in
those
cases
was
what
constitutes
a
"term"
for
purposes
of
counting
the
three
consecutive
terms
allowed
under
Art.
X,
Sec.
8.
It
is
apropos
to
revisit
these
cases
to
aid
us
in
extracting
the
intent
behind
said
Constitutional
provision
and
properly
apply
it
to
the
unique
case
of
private
respondent
Hagedorn.
The
maiden
case
was
Borja,
Jr.
v.
Commission
on
Elections
and
Jose
T.
Capco
7
which
involved
the
1998
mayoralty
election
in
Pateros.
In
1989,
private
respondent
Capco
became
mayor
by
operation
of
law
upon
the
death
of
the
incumbent,
Cesar
Borja.
In
1992,
he
was
elected
mayor
for
a
term
ending
in
1995.
In
1995,
he
was
reelected
mayor
for
another
term
of
three
years
ending
in
June
1998.
In
March
1998,
he
filed
his
certificate
of
candidacy
for
the
May
1998
mayoralty
election
of
Pateros.
Petitioner
Borja,
Jr.,
another
candidate
for
mayor,
sought
Capco's
disqualification
on
the
ground
that
by
June
30,
1998,
Capco
would
have
already
served
as
mayor
for
three
consecutive
terms
and
would
therefore
be
ineligible
to
serve
for
another
term.
The
COMELEC
en
bancdeclared
Capco
eligible
to
run
for
mayor,
thus
Borja,
Jr.
sought
recourse
in
this
Court.
In
dismissing
the
petition,
we
considered
the
historical
background
of
Art.
X,
Sec.
8
of
the
Constitution,
viz:
"
.
.
.
a
consideration
of
the
historical
background
of
Article
X,
8
of
the
Constitution
reveals
that
the
members
of
the
Constitutional
Commission
were
as
much
concerned
with
preserving
the
freedom
of
choice
of
the
people
as
they
were
with
preventing
the
monopolization
of
political
power.
Indeed,
they
rejected
a
proposal
put
forth
by
Commissioner
Edmundo
F.
Garcia
that
after
serving
three
consecutive
terms
or
nine
years
there
should
be
no
further
reelection
for
local
and
legislative
officials.
Instead,
they
adopted
the
alternative
proposal
of
Commissioner
Christian
Monsod
that
such
officials
be
simplybarred
from
running
for
the
same
position
in
the
succeeding
election
following
the
expiration
of
the
third
consecutive
term
(2
RECORD
OF
THE
CONSTITUTIONAL
COMMISSION
236-243
[Session
of
July
25,
1986]
.
.
.
).
Monsod
warned
against
`prescreening
candidates
[from]
whom
the
people
will
choose'
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
absolute
disqualification,
considering
that
the
draft
constitution
contained
provisions
`recognizing
people's
power.'
xxx
xxx
xxx
Two
ideas
thus
emerge
from
a
consideration
of
the
proceedings
of
the
Constitutional
Commission.
The
first
is
the
notion
of
service
of
term,
derived
from
the
concern
about
the
accumulation
of
power
as
a
result
of
a
prolonged
stay
in
office.
The
second
is
the
idea
of
election,
derived
from
the
concern
that
the
right
of
the
people
to
choose
whom
they
wish
to
govern
them
be
preserved.
(emphasis
supplied)
xxx
xxx
xxx
To
recapitulate,
the
term
limit
for
elective
local
officials
must
be
taken
to
refer
to
the
right
to
be
elected
as
well
as
the
right
to
serve
in
the
same
elective
position.
Consequently,
it
is
not
enough
that
an
individual
has
served
three
consecutive
terms
in
an
elective
local
office,
he
must
also
have
been
elected
to
the
same
position
for
the
same
number
of
times
before
the
disqualification
can
apply.
This
point
can
be
made
clearer
by
considering
the
following
cases
or
situations:
Case
No.
1.
Suppose
A
is
a
vice-mayor
who
becomes
mayor
by
reason
of
the
death
of
the
incumbent.
Six
months
before
the
next
election,
he
resigns
and
is
twice
elected
thereafter.
Can
he
run
again
for
mayor
in
the
next
election?
Yes,
because
although
he
has
already
first
served
as
mayor
by
succession
and
subsequently
resigned
from
office
before
the
full
term
expired,
he
has
not
actually
served
three
full
terms
in
all
for
the
purpose
of
applying
the
term
limit.
Under
Art.
X,
8,
voluntary
renunciation
of
the
office
is
not
considered
as
an
interruption
in
the
continuity
of
his
service
for
the
full
term
only
if
the
term
is
one
"for
which
he
was
elected."
Since
A
is
only
completing
the
service
of
the
term
for
which
the
deceased
and
not
he
was
elected,
A
cannot
be
considered
to
have
completed
one
term.
His
resignation
constitutes
an
interruption
of
the
full
term.
xxx
xxx
xxx
.
.
.
the
mayor
is
entitled
to
run
for
reelection
because
the
two
conditions
for
the
application
of
the
disqualification
provisions
have
not
concurred,
namely,that
the
local
official
concerned
has
been
elected
three
consecutive
times
and
that
he
has
fully
served
three
consecutive
terms.
In
the
first
case,
even
if
the
local
official
is
considered
to
have
served
three
full
terms
notwithstanding
his
resignation
before
the
end
of
the
first
term,
the
fact
remains
that
he
has
not
been
elected
three
times.
.
.
Case
No.
3.
The
case
of
vice-mayor
C
who
becomes
mayor
by
succession
involves
a
total
failure
of
the
two
conditions
to
concur
for
the
purpose
of
applying
Art.
X,
8.
Suppose
he
is
twice
elected
after
that
term,
is
he
qualified
to
run
again
in
the
next
election?
Yes,
because
he
was
not
elected
to
the
office
of
mayor
in
the
first
term
but
simply
found
himself
thrust
into
it
by
operation
of
law.
Neither
had
he
served
the
full
term
because
he
only
continued
the
service,
interrupted
by
the
death,
of
the
deceased
mayor.
To
consider
C
in
the
third
case
to
have
served
the
first
term
in
full
and
therefore
ineligible
to
run
a
third
time
for
reelection
would
be
not
only
to
falsify
reality
but
also
to
unduly
restrict
the
right
of
the
people
to
choose
whom
they
wish
to
govern
them.
If
the
vice-mayor
turns
out
to
be
a
bad
mayor,
the
people
can
remedy
the
situation
by
simply
not
reelecting
him
for
another
term.
But
if,
on
the
other
hand,
he
proves
to
be
a
good
mayor,
there
will
be
no
way
the
people
can
return
him
to
office
(even
if
it
is
just
the
third
time
he
is
standing
for
reelection)
if
his
service
of
the
first
term
is
counted
as
one
for
the
purpose
of
applying
the
term
limit.
To
consider
C
as
eligible
for
reelection
would
be
in
accord
with
the
understanding
of
the
Constitutional
Commission
that
while
the
people
should
be
protected
from
the
evils
that
a
monopoly
of
political
power
may
bring
about,
care
should
be
taken
that
their
freedom
of
choice
is
not
unduly
curtailed."
8
(emphasis
supplied)
We
reiterated
the
Borja
ruling
in
Lonzanida
v.
Commission
on
Elections,
et
al.
9
which
involved
the
election
for
mayor
of
San
Antonio,
Zambales.
Prior
to
the
May
8,
1995
elections,
petitioner
Romeo
Lonzanida
served
two
consecutive
terms
as
municipal
mayor
of
San
Antonio,
Zambales.
In
the
May
1995
elections,
he
ran
for
mayor,
was
proclaimed
winner,
and
assumed
office.
His
proclamation
was,
however,
contested
by
his
opponent
Juan
Alvez
in
an
election
protest
filed
before
the
Regional
Trial
Court
of
Zambales
which
rendered
a
decision
declaring
a
failure
of
elections.
Upon
appeal
of
the
decision
to
the
COMELEC,
Alvez
was
declared
the
duly
elected
mayor
of
San
Antonio.
In
February
1998,
the
COMELEC
issued
a
writ
of
execution
ordering
Lonzanida
to
vacate
the
post,
and
Alvez
served
the
remainder
of
the
term.
Lonzanida
filed
his
certificate
of
candidacy
for
the
May
11,
1998
election
for
mayor
of
San
Antonio.
His
opponent
Eufemio
Muli
filed
with
the
COMELEC
a
petition
to
disqualify
Lonzanida
on
the
ground
that
he
had
already
served
three
consecutive
terms
in
the
same
office
and
was
thus
prohibited
from
running
in
the
upcoming
election.
On
May
13,
1998,
Lonzanida
was
proclaimed
winner.
COMELEC
ruled
that
Lonzanida
was
disqualified
as
his
assumption
to
office
in
1995,
although
he
was
unseated
before
the
expiration
of
the
term,
was
considered
one
full
term
for
purposes
of
counting
the
three
term
limit
under
theConstitution
and
the
Local
Government
Code
of
1991.
On
appeal
to
this
Court,
we
ruled,
viz:
"It
is
not
disputed
that
the
petitioner
was
previously
elected
and
served
two
consecutive
terms
as
mayor
of
San
Antonio,
Zambales
prior
to
the
May
1995
mayoral
elections.
In
the
May
1995
elections
he
again
ran
for
mayor
of
San
Antonio,
Zambales
and
was
proclaimed
winner.
He
assumed
office
and
discharged
the
rights
and
duties
of
mayor
until
March
1998
when
he
was
ordered
to
vacate
the
post
by
reason
of
the
COMELEC
decision
dated
November
13,
1997
on
the
election
protest
against
the
petitioner
which
declared
his
opponent
Juan
Alvez,
the
duly
elected
mayor
of
San
Antonio.
Alvez
served
the
remaining
portion
of
the
1995-1998
mayoral
term.
The
two
requisites
for
the
application
of
the
three
term
rule
are
absent.
First,
the
petitioner
cannot
be
considered
as
having
been
duly
elected
to
the
post
in
the
May
1995
elections,
and
second,
the
petitioner
did
not
fully
serve
the
1995-1998
mayoral
term
by
reason
of
voluntary
relinquishment
of
office.
After
a
reappreciation
and
revision
of
the
contested
ballots
the
COMELEC
itself
declared
by
final
judgment
that
petitioner
Lonzanida
lost
in
the
May
1995
mayoral
elections
and
his
previous
proclamation
as
a
winner
was
declared
null
and
void.
His
assumption
of
office
as
mayor
cannot
be
deemed
to
have
been
by
reason
of
a
valid
election
but
by
reason
of
a
void
proclamation.
.
.
Second,
the
petitioner
cannot
be
deemed
to
have
served
the
May
1995
to
1998
term
because
he
was
ordered
to
vacate
his
post
before
the
expiration
of
the
term.
The
respondents'
contention
that
the
petitioner
should
be
deemed
to
have
served
one
full
term
from
May
1995-1998
because
he
served
the
greater
portion
of
that
term
has
no
legal
basis
to
support
it;
it
disregards
the
second
requisite
for
the
application
of
the
disqualification,
i.e.,
that
he
has
fully
served
three
consecutive
terms.
In
sum,
the
petitioner
was
not
the
duly
elected
mayor
and
he
did
not
hold
office
for
the
full
term;
hence,
his
assumption
of
office
from
May
1995
to
March
1998
cannot
be
counted
as
a
term
for
purposes
of
computing
the
three
term
limit."
10
(emphasis
supplied)
Finally,
in
the
recent
case
of
Adormeo
v.
COMELEC,
et
al.,
11
we
ruled
that
a
mayor
who
assumed
office
via
a
recall
election
and
served
the
unexpired
portion
of
the
mayoralty
term
is
not
considered
to
have
served
a
full
term
for
purposes
of
applying
the
three
term
limit.
In
this
case,
therein
private
respondent
Ramon
Talaga,
Jr.
was
elected
mayor
in
May
1992
and
served
the
full
term.
In
1995,
he
was
reelected
and
again
served
the
full
term.
In
1998,
he
lost
to
Bernard
G.
Tagarao.
About
two
years
later,
a
recall
election
was
held
where
Talaga,
Jr.
ran
against
Tagarao.
He
(Talaga,
Jr.)
won
and
served
the
remainder
of
Tagarao's
term.
In
view
of
the
upcoming
May
2001
mayoralty
election,
Talaga,
Jr.
filed
his
certificate
of
candidacy.
On
March
2,
2001,
therein
petitioner
Adormeo
sought
the
cancellation
of
Talaga,
Jr.'s
certificate
of
candidacy
and/or
his
disqualification
on
the
ground
that
he
had
been
thrice
elected
and
had
served
three
consecutive
terms
as
city
mayor.
Talaga,
Jr.,
however,
was
declared
qualified
for
the
position
of
city
mayor.
Adormeo
thus
sought
recourse
before
this
Court.
Citing
the
Borja
and
Lonzanida
rulings,
we
ruled
that
Talaga,
Jr.
was
not
disqualified
as
the
two
conditions
for
disqualification,
namely
(1)
the
elective
official
concerned
was
elected
for
three
consecutive
terms
in
the
same
post
and
(2)
he
has
fully
served
three
consecutive
terms,
were
not
met.
We
did
not
consider
Talaga,
Jr.'s
service
of
the
unexpired
portion
of
Tagarao's
term
as
service
of
a
full
term
for
purposes
of
the
three
term
limit.
We
also
ruled
that
he
did
not
serve
for
three
consecutive
terms
as
there
was
a
break
in
his
service
when
he
lost
to
Tagarao
in
the
1998
elections.
We
held,
viz:
"COMELEC's
ruling
that
private
respondent
was
not
elected
for
three
(3)
consecutive
terms
should
be
upheld.
For
nearly
two
years,
he
was
a
private
citizen.The
continuity
of
his
mayorship
was
disrupted
by
his
defeat
in
the
1998
elections.
Patently
untenable
is
petitioner's
contention
that
COMELEC
in
allowing
respondent
Talaga,
Jr.
to
run
in
the
May
1998
election
violates
Article
X,
Section
8
of
the
1987
Constitution.
(footnote
omitted)
To
bolster
his
case,
respondent
adverts
to
the
comment
of
Fr.
Joaquin
Bernas,
a
Constitutional
Commission
member,
stating
that
in
interpreting
said
provision
that
'if
one
is
elected
representative
to
serve
the
unexpired
term
of
another,
that
unexpired
(term),
no
matter
how
short,
will
be
considered
one
term
for
the
purpose
of
computing
the
number
of
successive
terms
allowed.'
As
pointed
out
by
the
COMELEC
en
banc,
Fr.
Bernas'
comment
is
pertinent
only
to
members
of
the
House
of
Representatives.
Unlike
local
government
officials,
there
is
no
recall
election
provided
for
members
of
Congress.
(Rollo,
pp.
83-84)"
12
(emphasis
supplied)
The
deliberations
of
the
ConCom
and
the
ruling
case
law
of
Borja,
Lonzanida
and
Adormeo
show
that
there
are
two
principal
reasons
for
the
three
term
limit
for
elective
local
officials:
(1)
to
prevent
political
dynasties
perpetuated
by
the
undue
advantage
of
the
incumbent
and
(2)
to
broaden
the
choice
of
the
people
by
allowing
candidates
other
than
the
incumbent
to
serve
the
people.
Likewise
evident
in
the
deliberations
is
the
effort
to
balance
between
two
interests,
namely,
the
prevention
of
political
dynasties
and
broadening
the
choice
of
the
people
on
the
one
hand,
and
respecting
the
freedom
of
choice
and
voice
of
the
people,
on
the
other;
thus,
the
calibration
between
perpetual
disqualification
after
three
consecutive
terms
as
proposed
by
Commissioner
Garcia,
and
setting
a
limit
on
immediate
reelection
and
providing
for
a
hibernation
period.
In
all
three
cases
Borja,
Lonzanida
and
Adormeo
we
ruled
that
the
"term"
referred
to
in
the
three
term
limit
is
service
of
a
full
term
of
three
years
for
elective
local
officials.
This
ruling
furthers
the
intent
of
the
ConCom
to
prevent
political
dynasties
as
it
is
the
service
of
consecutive
full
terms
that
makes
service
continuous
and
which
opens
the
gates
to
political
dynasties
limiting
the
people's
choice
of
leaders.
In
the
words
of
Commissioner
Ople,
".
.
.
we
want
to
prevent
future
situations
where,
as
a
result
of
continuous
service
and
frequent
reelections,
officials
from
the
President
down
to
the
municipal
mayor
tend
to
develop
a
proprietary
interest
in
their
positions
and
to
accumulate
those
powers
and
perquisites
that
permit
them
to
stay
on
indefinitely
or
to
transfer
these
posts
to
members
of
their
families
in
a
subsequent
election.
I
think
that
is
taken
care
of
because
we
put
a
gap
on
the
continuity
or
unbroken
service
of
all
of
these
officials.
(emphasis
supplied)"
Thus,
ConCom
set
the
limit
on
consecutive
full
terms
to
no
more
than
three.
Otherwise
stated,
it
is
a
fourthconsecutive
full
term
that
is
prohibited.
In
the
cases
at
bar,
however,
private
respondent
Hagedorn
will
not
serve
a
prohibited
fourth
consecutive
full
term
as
he
will
be
serving
only
the
unexpired
portion
of
the
2001-2004
mayoralty
term.
Similar
to
Talaga,
Jr.
in
the
Adormeo
case,
Hagedorn's
service
as
mayor
will
not
be
continuous
from
the
third
to
a
fourth
consecutive
full
term
as
it
was
broken
when
Socrates
was
elected
in
the
2001
regular
mayoralty
election
and
served
for
one
year.
In
the
same
vein
that
Talaga,
Jr.
was
elected
into
office
by
recall
election
and
his
service
of
the
unexpired
portion
of
the
incumbent's
term
was
not
considered
a
consecutive
full
term
for
purposes
of
applying
the
three
term
limit,
Hagedorn's
service
of
the
unexpired
portion
of
Socrates'
term
should
not
also
be
counted
as
a
prohibited
fourth
consecutive
full
term.
It
should
not
make
a
difference
whether
the
recall
election
came
after
the
second
consecutive
full
term
as
in
the
Adormeo
caseor
after
the
third
consecutive
term
as
in
the
cases
at
bar
because
the
intent
to
create
a
hiatus
in
service
is
satisfied
in
both
instances.
Even
a
textual
analysis
of
Art.
X,
Sec.
8
will
yield
the
interpretation
that
what
is
prohibited
is
the
service
of
a
fourth
consecutive
full
term.
Petitioners
are
correct
in
foisting
the
view
that
"term"
is
a
fixed
and
definite
period
of
time
prescribed
by
law
or
the
Constitution
during
which
the
public
officer
may
claim
to
hold
the
office
as
a
right.
It
is
a
fixed
and
definite
period
of
time
to
hold
office,
perform
its
functions,
and
enjoy
its
privileges
and
emoluments
until
the
expiration
of
the
period.
13
In
ascertaining
what
"term"
means
for
elective
local
officials,
the
Constitution
itself
provides
in
Art.
X,
Sec.
8
that
it
means
a
fixed,
definite,
and
full
period
of
three
years,
viz:
"Sec.
8.
The
term
of
office
of
elective
local
officials,
except
barangay
officials,
which
shall
be
determined
by
law,
shall
be
three
years
.
.
.
"
Although
one
or
more
persons
may
discharge
the
duties
of
the
office
during
this
fixed
three-year
period,
the
term
is
not
divided
into
smaller
terms
by
the
number
of
incumbents
who
may
fill
the
office.
It
is
one
and
indivisible,
and
term
follows
term
in
successive
cycles
of
three
years
each.
If
the
incumbent
or
the
one
elected
to
the
office
fills
a
higher
vacant
office,
refuses
to
assume
office,
fails
to
qualify,
dies,
is
removed
from
office,
voluntarily
resigns
or
is
otherwise
permanently
incapacitated
to
discharge
the
functions
of
his
office,
thereby
creating
a
permanent
vacancy,
14
the
term
would
remain
unbroken
until
the
recurring
election
for
the
office.
15
The
provisions
on
voluntary
renunciation
under
Art.
X,
Sec.
8
and
other
articles
of
the
Constitution
bolster
the
interpretation
that
for
purposes
of
applying
the
three
term
limit,
service
of
a
full
term
of
three
years
is
contemplated,
viz:
"Art.
X,
Sec.
8.
The
term
of
office
of
elective
local
officials,
except
barangay
officials,
which
shall
be
determined
by
law,
shall
be
three
years
and
no
such
official
shall
serve
for
more
than
three
consecutive
terms.
Voluntary
renunciation
of
the
office
for
any
length
of
time
shall
not
be
considered
as
an
interruption
in
the
continuity
of
the
service
for
the
full
term
for
which
he
was
elected."
"Art.
VI,
Sec.
4.
.
.
.
No
Senator
shall
serve
for
more
than
two
consecutive
terms.
Voluntary
renunciation
of
the
office
for
any
length
of
time
shall
not
be
considered
as
an
interruption
in
the
continuity
of
his
service
for
the
full
term
for
which
he
was
elected.
xxx
xxx
xxx
Sec.
7.
.
.
.
No
Member
of
the
House
of
Representatives
shall
serve
for
more
than
three
consecutive
terms.
Voluntary
renunciation
of
the
office
for
any
length
of
time
shall
not
be
considered
as
an
interruption
in
the
continuity
of
his
service
for
the
full
term
for
which
he
was
elected.
xxx
xxx
xxx
Art.
VII,
Sec.
4.
.
.
.
No
Vice-President
shall
serve
more
than
two
successive
terms.
Voluntary
renunciation
of
the
office
for
any
length
of
time
shall
not
be
considered
as
an
interruption
in
the
continuity
of
the
service
for
the
full
term
for
which
he
was
elected."
(emphasis
supplied)
Similarly,
the
Local
Government
Code
of
1991
provides
in
Sec.
43
(b),
viz:
"Sec.
43(b)
.
.
.
No
local
elective
official
shall
serve
for
more
than
three
(3)
consecutive
terms
in
the
same
position.
Voluntary
renunciation
of
the
office
for
any
length
of
time
shall
not
be
considered
as
an
interruption
in
the
continuity
of
service
for
the
full
term
for
which
the
elective
official
concerned
was
elected."
(emphasis
supplied)
Likewise,
because
"term"
is
understood
to
be
a
fixed,
definite,
and
full
period,
the
Constitution,
in
Art.
VI,
Sec.
9,
uses
the
qualifier
"unexpired
term"
to
refer
to
only
a
portion
of
a
term,
viz:
"Art.
VI,
Sec.
9.
In
case
of
vacancy
in
the
Senate
or
in
the
House
of
Representatives,
a
special
election
may
be
called
to
fill
such
vacancy
in
the
manner
prescribed
by
law,
but
the
Senator
or
Member
of
the
House
of
Representatives
thus
elected
shall
serve
only
for
the
unexpired
term."
(emphasis
supplied)
Similarly,
Sec.
44
of
the
Local
Government
Code
of
1991
uses
the
phrase
"unexpired
term"
to
mean
the
remainder
of
the
term,
viz:
"Sec.
44(d).
The
successors
as
defined
herein
shall
serve
only
the
unexpired
terms
of
his
predecessors.
.
."
(emphasis
supplied)
Thus,
when
Art.
X,
Sec.
8
of
the
Constitution
states
that
".
.
.
no
such
(local
elective)
official
shall
serve
for
more
than
three
consecutive
terms,"
it
consistently
means
that
it
allows
service
of
a
maximum
of
three
consecutive
full
terms
and
prohibits
service
of
a
minimum
fourth
consecutive
full
term.
In
putting
a
cap
on
the
number
of
consecutive
full
terms
an
elective
local
official
can
serve,
the
ConCom
sought
to
curb
the
undue
advantage
of
the
incumbent
over
other
aspirants,
which
advantage
makes
it
easier
to
found
a
political
dynasty.
At
the
time
of
the
September
24,
2002
recall
election,
however,
Hagedorn
was
not
the
incumbent
favored
with
this
feared
"undue
advantage
of
the
incumbent."
On
the
contrary,
he
ran
against
the
incumbent
MayorSocrates
who
alone
could
be
the
subject
of
recall
election
and
who,
by
law,
was
automatically
a
candidate
in
the
election.
16
Hagedorn
did
not
run
in
the
2001
regular
mayoralty
election
of
Puerto
Princesa
City
which
Socrates
won,
precisely
because
he
was
aware
of
the
three
term
limit.
It
is
my
respectful
submission
that
the
Constitution
and
the
Local
Government
Code
of
1991
proscribe
a
local
official
who
has
been
thrice
consecutively
elected
in
regular
elections
and
has
served
three
full
terms
in
the
same
position,
from
running
in
the
regular
election
succeeding
his
third
consecutive
term.
It
is
this
situation
that
is
prohibited
because
it
makes
possible
service
of
more
than
three
consecutive
and
continuous
full
terms,
i.e.,
service
of
a
fourth
consecutive
full
term.
We
cannot
overstress
that
it
is
this
continuousness
that
the
ConCom
feared
would
open
the
gates
to
the
two
evils
sought
to
be
avoided:
the
incumbent's
use
of
his
undue
advantage
to
put
up
a
political
dynasty
and
limiting
the
people's
choice
of
leaders.
It
is
in
this
context
of
regular
elections
that
our
obiter
dictum
in
the
Lonzanida
case,
which
petitioners
harp
on,
should
be
understood.
In
that
case,
we
opined
that
"[a]s
finally
voted
upon,
it
was
agreed
that
an
elective
local
government
official
should
be
barred
from
running
for
the
same
post
after
three
consecutive
terms.
After
a
hiatus
of
at
least
one
term,
he
may
again
run
for
the
same
office."
17
Indeed,
insofar
as
regular
local
elections
are
concerned,
which
were
the
elections
involved
in
that
case,
there
should
be
a
hiatus
of
at
least
one
full
term
of
three
years.
On
the
other
hand,
in
the
case
of
a
local
official
who
assumes
office
through
a
recall
election
whether
after
his
first,
second,
or
third
consecutive
term
there
is
a
break
in
his
service
caused
by
the
election
of
the
incumbent
who
was
recalled.
Even
in
the
case
of
a
local
official
who
initially
assumes
office
viarecall
election,
then
wins
the
two
succeeding
regular
elections
and
serves
two
full
terms
in
the
same
post,
he
is
not
prohibited
from
seeking
another
reelection
and
serving
another
full
term.
This
is
so
because
his
service
of
the
remainder
of
the
incumbent's
term
via
recall
election
is
not,
in
reality
and
in
law,
a
full
term
continuing
on
to
his
three
succeeding
full
terms.
Local
officials
who
assume
office
via
recall
election
serve
only
the
unexpired
portion
of
the
incumbent's
term
and
this
service
is
not
counted
as
a
full
term,
despite
the
Constitutional
mandate
that
the
term
of
office
of
elective
local
officials
is
three
years.
Such
is
the
design
because
Art.
XVIII,
Secs.
2
and
5
of
the
Constitution
also
prescribe
synchronization
of
regular
national
and
local
elections
beginning
on
the
second
Monday
of
May
1992,
18
which
is
accomplished
if
the
local
official
who
assumes
office
through
recall
election
serves
only
the
incumbent's
unexpired
term.
It
is
only
in
the
case
of
Representatives
(and
Senators)
that
"if
one
is
elected
Representative
to
serve
the
unexpired
term
of
another,
that
unexpired
term
will
be
considered
one
term
for
purposes
of
computing
the
number
of
successive
terms
allowed."
19
The
election
herein
contemplated
is
a
special
election
thus
this
Constitutional
intent
does
not
apply
to
a
recall
election
which
involves
only
elective
local
officials.
The
Record
bear
this
out,
viz:
"MR.
SUAREZ.
.
.
.
May
we
ask
a
clarificatory
question
regarding
the
interpretation
of
the
provisions
in
Sections
3
and
6
in
relation
to
Section
9
regarding
the
disqualification
on
the
part
of
the
Senator
to
run
for
two
consecutive
terms,
and
in
the
case
of
the
Members
of
the
House
of
Representatives,
for
three
consecutive
terms.
For
example,
a
special
election
is
called
for
a
Senator,
and
the
Senator
newly
elected
would
have
to
serve
the
unexpired
portion
of
the
term.
Would
that
mean
that
serving
the
unexpired
portion
of
the
term
is
already
considered
one
term?
So,
half
a
term,
which
is
actually
the
correct
statement,
plus
one
term
would
disqualify
the
Senator
concerned
from
running?
Is
that
the
meaning
of
this
provision
on
disqualification,
Madam
President?
MR.
DAVIDE.
Yes,
because
we
speak
of
"term"
and
if
there
is
a
special
election,
he
will
serve
only
for
the
unexpired
portion
of
that
particular
term
plus
one
more
term
for
the
Senator
and
two
terms
for
the
Members
of
the
Lower
House."
20
As
we
ruled
in
the
Adormeo
case,
service
of
an
unexpired
term
is
considered
service
of
a
full
term
only
with
respect
to
Representatives
(and
Senators)
because
unlike
local
government
officials,
Representatives
cannot
be
recalled.
It
is
continuous
prolonged
stay
in
office
that
breeds
political
dynasties.
Understandably
therefore,
insofar
as
Representatives
who
cannot
be
recalled
are
concerned,
service
of
an
unexpired
term
is
strictly
counted
as
service
of
a
full
term
because
the
purpose
of
the
ConCom
was
to
limit
the
right
to
run
and
be
elected
in
Congress.
21
In
allowing
Hagedorn
to
participate
in
the
September
24
recall
election,
we
are
not
unmindful
of
the
intent
of
the
ConCom
to
broaden
the
people's
choice
of
leaders.
The
three
term
limit
was
adopted
to
allow
the
electorate
to
choose
from
other
candidates
in
the
regular
election
succeeding
the
incumbent's
third
consecutive
term.
This
is
clear
in
the
Commissioners'
alternatives
for
voting
on
the
term
limit
for
Representatives
and
the
outcome
of
their
voting
where
17
voted
for
"no
further
election
after
a
total
of
three
terms"
and
26
voted
for
"no
immediate
reelection
after
three
successive
terms."
A
reelection
is
immediate
if
a
local
official
wins
in
the
election
succeeding
the
third
consecutive
term.
22
This
is
not
the
case
with
Hagedorn
who
did
not
run
in
the
2001
regular
mayoralty
election
and
left
that
political
arena
to
other
contenders,
thereby
upholding
the
intent
of
the
ConCom
to
broaden
the
choice
of
the
electorate.
TIcEDC
The
intent
of
the
ConCom
to
create
a
hiatus
in
the
service
of
elective
local
officials
after
three
consecutive
full
terms
cannot
be
undermined
through
abuse
of
the
power
of
recall.
The
Local
Government
Code
of
1991
provides
limitations
on
recall
in
Section
74,
viz:
"Section
74.
Limitations
on
Recall.
(a)
any
elective
local
official
may
be
the
subject
of
a
recall
election
only
once
during
his
term
of
office
for
loss
of
confidence.
(b)
No
recall
shall
take
place
within
one
(1)
year
from
the
date
of
the
official's
assumption
to
office
or
one
(1)
year
immediately
preceding
a
regular
local
election."
(emphasis
supplied)
Thus,
an
elective
local
official
cannot
perpetually
hold
on
to
his
office
through
the
mechanism
of
recall
as
at
the
very
least,
there
will
be
a
hiatus
of
one
year
after
an
unbroken
service
of
three
terms.
He
could
not
simply
create,
in
the
words
of
Commissioner
Monsod,
"structures
that
will
perpetuate
him
(them)"
in
power
with
the
assurance
that
they
will
not
be
exposed
because
after
serving
three
consecutive
full
terms,
he
will
certainly
be
replaced.
Within
the
one-year
period
under
Sec.
74,
his
successor
could
discover
and
begin
to
dismantle
these
manipulative
structures.
This
one
year
period
also
provides
a
reasonable
basis
for
the
electorate
to
judge
the
performance
of
the
incumbent
successor,
thus
obviating
fear
of
political
maneuvering
through
initiation
of
recall
proceedings
by
a
Preparatory
Recall
Assembly
dominated
by
minions
of
the
previous
local
official.
23
In
Claudio
v.
COMELEC,
et
al.,
24
we
held,
viz:
"In
the
Bower
case
(In
re
Bower
41
Ill.
777,
242
N.E.
2d
252
[1968])
cited
by
this
Court
in
Angobung
v.
COMELEC
(269
SCRA
245,
256
[1997]),
it
was
held
that
'The
only
logical
reason
which
we
can
ascribe
for
requiring
the
electors
to
wait
one
year
before
petitioning
for
recall
election
is
to
prevent
premature
action
on
their
part
in
voting
to
remove
a
newly
elected
official
before
having
had
sufficient
time
to
evaluate
the
soundness
of
his
policies
and
decisions."'
25
If,
after
one
year
in
office,
the
incumbent
proves
himself
to
be
worthy
of
his
position,
then
his
constituents
will
confirm
this
should
a
recall
election
be
called,
as
in
the
case
of
Mayor
Reynaldo
Malonzo
of
Caloocan
City.
If,
on
the
other
hand,
the
incumbent
turns
out
to
be
an
ineffective
leader,
there
is
no
reason
why
the
electorate
should
not
be
allowed
to
make
a
Cincinnatus
of
their
past
leader.
The
imagined
fear
of
abuse
of
the
power
of
recall
does
not
suffice
to
disqualify
private
respondent
Hagedorn
and
should
not
prevail
over
the
resounding
voice
of
the
people
of
Puerto
Princesa
City.
They
have
spoken
and
there
is
no
mistaking
that
Hagedorn
is
their
overwhelming
choice.
We
cannot
subscribe
to
the
petitioners'
position
and
allow
an
overly
literal
reading
of
the
law
to
mute
the
electorate's
cry
and
curtail
their
freedom
to
choose
their
leaders.
This
freedom
was
as
much
a
concern
of
the
ConCom
as
was
the
prevention
of
political
dynasties
and
broadening
the
choice
of
the
people.
This
Court
has
not
just
once
admonished
against
a
too
literal
reading
of
the
law
as
this
is
apt
to
constrict
rather
than
fulfill
its
purpose
and
defeat
the
intention
of
the
authors.
26
In
sum,
private
respondent
Hagedorn
is
not
disqualified
from
running
in
the
September
24,
2002
recall
election
as
the
disqualification
under
Art.
X,
Sec.
8
of
the
Constitution
applies
to
the
regular
mayoralty
election
succeeding
the
third
consecutive
term
served.
Nor
is
he
precluded
from
serving
the
unexpired
portion
of
the
2001-2004
mayoralty
term
as
this
is
not
service
of
a
prohibited
fourth
consecutive
full
term.
I
vote
to
deny
the
petition,
giving
due
consideration
to
the
tenet
of
representative
democracy
that
the
people
should
be
allowed
to
choose
whom
they
wish
to
govern
them.
27
In
the
end,
".
.
.
more
than
judgments
of
courts
of
law,
the
judgment
of
the
tribunal
of
the
people
is
final
for
'sovereignty
resides
in
the
people
and
all
government
authority
emanates
from
them.
'"
28
MENDOZA,
J.,
concurring
in
the
judgment:
There
is
no
dispute
in
this
case
that
respondent
Edward
S.
Hagedorn
had
served
for
three
consecutive
terms
as
Mayor
of
Puerto
Princesa
City
prior
to
his
election
to
the
same
position
in
the
recall
election
held
on
September
24,
2002.
The
question
is
whether
his
election
was
for
a
fourth
consecutive
term
in
violation
of
Art.
X,
8
of
the
Constitution,
which
bars
elective
local
officials,
with
the
exception
of
barangay
officers,
from
"serv[ing]
for
more
than
three
consecutive
terms."
1
The
majority
hold
that
it
does
not
because
"what
the
Constitution
prohibits
is
an
immediate
reelection
for
a
fourth
term
following
three
consecutive
terms."
(p.
15)
They
argue
that
.
.
.
Hagedorn's
recall
term
does
not
retroact
to
include
the
tenure
in
office
of
Socrates.
Hagedorn
can
only
be
disqualified
to
run
in
the
September
24,
2002
recall
election
if
the
recall
term
is
made
to
retroact
to
June
30,
2001,
for
only
then
can
the
recall
term
constitute
a
fourth
consecutive
term.
But
to
consider
Hagedorn's
recall
term
as
a
full
term
of
three
years,
retroacting
to
June
30,
2001,
despite
the
fact
that
he
won
his
recall
term
only
last
September
24,
2002,
is
to
ignore
reality.
This
Court
cannot
declare
as
consecutive
or
successive
terms
of
office
which
historically
and
factually
are
not.
(p.
22)
On
the
other
hand,
the
dissenters
argue
that
"what
is
prohibited
is
[a]
fourth
term"
(p.
4)
and
that
the
only
way
an
elective
local
official,
who
has
served
for
three
consecutive
terms,
may
again
be
elected
to
the
same
position
is
for
him
to
allow
the
fourth
term
to
expire
before
doing
so.
Both
the
majority
and
the
dissenters
are
thus
agreed
that
the
term
following
the
three
consecutive
terms
must
be
counted.
Their
disagreement
is
in
considering
whether
or
not
to
count
the
term
during
which
a
recall
election
is
held
as
part
of
the
three
consecutive
terms
preceding
it.
The
majority
consider
the
term
as
a
consecutive
term
of
the
term
following
but
not
of
the
third
term
preceding
which
has
just
ended
because
of
the
interruption
between
the
beginning
of
the
fourth
term
and
the
date
of
the
recall
election.
Thus,
the
majority
state:
A
necessary
consequence
of
the
interruption
of
continuity
of
service
is
the
start
of
a
new
term
following
the
interruption.
An
official
elected
in
recall
election
serves
the
unexpired
term
of
the
recalled
official.
This
unexpired
term
is
in
itself
one
term
for
purposes
of
counting
the
three-term
limit.
(p.
23)
In
contending
that
the
unexpired
term
served
by
the
winner
in
a
recall
election
"is
in
itself
one
term
for
purposes
of
counting
the
three
term
limit,"
the
majority
take
contradictory
positions
because
they
also
argue
that
"Hagedorn's
recall
term
does
not
retroact"
to
the
beginning
of
that
term
and
that
"to
consider
Hagedorn's
recall
term
as
a
full
term
of
three
years,
retroacting
to
June
30,
2001,
despite
the
fact
that
he
won
his
recall
term
only
last
September
24,
2002,
is
to
ignore
reality."
The
majority
are
thus
riding
two
unruly
horses
contending
on
the
one
hand
in
holding
that
the
term
during
which
a
recall
election
takes
place
is
a
fourth
term,
and
on
the
other
that
it
is
not
a
fourth
term
for
purposes
of
determining
whether
an
elective
local
official
has
served
for
more
than
three
consecutive
terms.
On
the
other
hand,
the
dissenters
say
that
the
only
way
an
elective
local
official
can
run
again
for
the
same
position
after
serving
three
consecutive
terms
is
for
him
to
allow
the
succeeding
full
term
of
three
years
to
pass
before
doing
so.
They
contend:
.
.
.
For
one
to
be
able
to
run
again
after
three
consecutive
terms,
he
has
to
rest
for
the
entire
immediately
succeeding
fourth
term.
On
the
next
fifth
term
he
can
run
again
to
start
a
new
series
of
three
consecutive
terms.
(p.
11)
Hagedorn
may
not
have
"rested"
for
one
full
term
before
running
in
the
recall
election
on
September
24,
2002,
but
neither
will
he
be
serving
a
fourth
term
because
a
term
consists
of
three
years.
Not
to
have
"rested"
for
one
full
term
requires
that
he
should
also
serve
for
one
full
term.
This
is
not,
however,
possible
because,
under
Art.
X,
8
of
the
Constitution,
"the
term
of
office
of
elective
officials
.
.
.
shall
be
three
years."
Less
than
three
years
is
not
a
term.
The
flaw
in
the
theories
of
both
the
majority
and
the
dissenters
is
that
both
agree
that
if
there
is
an
interruption
in
the
continuity
of
service
of
an
elective
local
official
during
the
three
consecutive
terms,
not
caused
by
the
voluntary
renunciation
of
office,
the
term
during
which
the
interruption
occurs
should
not
be
counted
in
determining
the
three-term
limit.
This
is
in
accordance
with
the
ruling
in
Lonzanida
v.
COMELEC
2
that
if
the
election
of
a
mayor
for
the
third
consecutive
term
is
annulled,
he
can
run
again
in
the
next
election
because
the
term
during
which
his
election
was
invalidated
is
not
to
be
counted.
Similarly,
in
Adormeo
v.
COMELEC,
3
it
was
held
that
if
after
serving
for
two
consecutive
terms,
a
mayor
loses
in
his
bid
for
reelection
but,
in
a
recall
election
subsequently
held
during
that
term,
he
wins
he
can
still
run
in
the
next
regular
election
because
the
term
during
which
he
lost
is
not
to
be
counted
for
applying
the
three-term
limit.
However,
the
majority
and
the
dissenters
also
say
that
if
the
interruption
takes
place
in
the
term
following
three
consecutive
terms,
the
term
should
be
counted
in
applying
the
three-term
limit.
For
the
majority,
such
term
should
be
included
in
determining
the
next
consecutive
terms,
while
the
dissenters
say
it
should
be
considered
in
determining
the
consecutive
terms
preceding
it.
Both
majority
and
the
dissenters
are
thus
inconsistent.
Moreover,
both
erroneously
assume
that
the
election
in
a
recall
election
is
a
reelection.
Both
cite
the
records
of
the
Constitutional
Commission
that
what
is
prohibited
after
a
service
for
more
than
three
consecutive
terms
is
not
reelection
per
se
but
"immediate
reelection."
They
note
that
the
three-term
limit,
originally
adopted
for
Senators
and
members
of
the
House
of
Representatives,
was
later
applied
to
elective
local
officials
as
well.
4
Hence,
they
focus
their
discussion
on
whether
a
reelection
is
"immediate."
To
the
majority
a
recall
election
is
a
reelection
but
it
is
not
an
"immediate"
one
because
a
recall
election
does
not
immediately
follow
the
end
of
the
third
term.
On
the
other
hand,
to
the
dissenters,
such
election
is
"immediate"
because
it
takes
place
during
the
fourth
term
which
"immediately
follows"
three
consecutive
terms.
Consequently,
the
election
during
that
term
of
a
local
elective
official
is
prohibited
if
he
has
served
in
the
previous
three
consecutive
terms.
To
quote
the
minority:
These
debates
[in
the
Constitutional
Commission]
clearly
show
the
intent
of
the
Commission
that
the
ban
against
an
immediate
reelection
after
three
consecutive
terms
applies
to
the
fourth
term,
i.e.,
the
term
immediately
following
the
three
consecutive
terms,
to
be
filled
up
by
the
regular
election
for
such
term.
(p.
11)
The
question
is
not
whether
an
election
during
a
recall
is
an
"immediate
reelection."
The
question
is
whether
it
is
a
reelection
at
all.
The
dictionary
meaning
of
"reelect"
is
"to
elect
for
another
term."
5
On
the
other
hand,
as
already
pointed
out,
the
Constitution
provides
that
the
term
of
an
elective
local
official
is
three
years.
Therefore,
the
period
during
which
one
serves
by
virtue
of
a
recall
election
is
not
a
term
because
it
cannot
be
for
three
years.
It
is
only
a
tenure.
I
submit
with
respect
that
the
term
during
which
a
recall
election
is
held
should
not
be
counted
in
computing
the
three-term
limit
not
only
when
the
recall
election
occurs
within
three
consecutive
terms,
as
this
Court
has
already
held,
6
but
also
when
such
election
is
held
during
the
fourth
term
immediately
following
three
consecutive
terms.
The
reason
for
this
is
that
the
elective
local
official
cannot
be
said
to
have
served
"for
more
than
three
consecutive
terms"
because
of
the
break
in
his
service.
What
prevents
the
fourth
term
from
being
counted
in
determining
the
three-term
limit
is
the
lack
of
continuity,
or
the
break,
in
the
"service
of
the
full
term."
I
must
stress
that
the
Constitution
does
not
say
"service
for
more
than
three
terms"
but
"service
for
more
than
three
consecutive
terms."
As
the
discussion
of
the
Constitutional
Commission
on
Art.
X,
8
shows,
the
three-term
limit
is
aimed
at
preventing
the
monopolization
or
aggrandizement
of
political
power
and
the
perpetration
of
the
incumbent
in
office.
This
abuse
is
likely
to
arise
from
a
prolonged
stay
in
power.
It
is
not
likely
to
arise
if
the
service
is
broken,
albeit
it
is
for
more
than
three
terms.
Hence,
the
application
of
the
constitutional
ban
on
the
holding
of
elective
local
office
for
three
consecutive
terms
requires
in
my
view
(1)
election
in
a
regular
election
for
three
consecutive
terms
and
(2)
service
for
the
full
terms,
each
consisting
of
three
years,
for
which
the
official
is
elected.
The
first
requirement
is
intended
to
give
the
electorate
the
freedom
to
reelect
a
candidate
for
a
local
elective
position
as
part
of
their
sovereign
right
(the
right
of
suffrage)
to
choose
those
whom
they
believe
can
best
serve
them.
This
is
the
reason
the
framers
of
ourConstitution
rejected
Scheme
No.
1,
which
was
to
ban
reelection
after
three
successive
terms,
and
adopted
Scheme
No.
2,
which
is
about
"no
immediate
reelection
after
three
successive
terms."
On
the
other
hand,
the
second
requirement
is
intended
to
prevent
the
accumulation
of
power
resulting
from
too
long
a
stay
in
office.
7
To
repeat,
the
term
during
which
a
recall
election
is
held
is
not
a
fourth
term
in
relation
to
the
three
consecutive
terms
preceding
it.
Nor
is
the
unexpired
portion
of
such
term
a
new
one.
Much
less
is
the
election
a
reelection.
This
can
be
made
clear
by
the
following
example:
If
A
is
thrice
elected
mayor
of
a
municipality
for
three
consecutive
terms
and,
during
his
third
term,
is
made
to
face
a
recall
election
in
an
off-year
election
and
is
elected
over
his
rivals,
it
would
be
absurd
to
contend
that
he
cannot
continue
in
office
because
his
election
will
actually
be
his
fourth
election
and
the
service
of
the
remainder
of
the
third
term
will
actually
be
service
for
the
fourth
consecutive
term.
In
this
case,
for
lack
of
the
second
element,
i.e.,
service
for
more
than
three
consecutive
terms,
the
three-term
limit
rule
cannot
be
applied
to
the
election
of
Hagedorn
in
the
recall
election
of
September
24,
2002.
HaAISC
Finally,
the
dissenters
argue
that,
unless
the
three-term
limit
is
applied
to
a
recall
election
taking
place
after
three
consecutive
terms,
a
popular
elective
local
official,
unable
to
run
for
a
fourth
term,
may
be
tempted
to
plot
the
recall
of
his
successor
so
that
he
can
return
to
power
in
the
ensuing
election.
I
appreciate
the
point
of
the
dissenters.
But
the
danger
is
equally
great
for
a
vice-mayor
plotting
against
the
mayor
and
by
succession
ascending
into
power
and
from
thence
forward
seeking
three
more
successive
terms.
And
yet
we
have
held
that
service
for
the
unexpired
term,
by
reason
of
succession,
is
not
to
be
counted.
8
In
any
event,
it
is
familiar
learning
that
"the
possibility
of
abuse
is
not
an
argument
against
the
concession
of
power
as
there
is
no
power
that
is
not
susceptible
of
abuse."
9
Thus,
while
I
do
not
subscribe
to
the
majority
reasoning
by
which
the
decision
in
this
case
is
justified,
I
reach
the
same
result
as
they
do
in
holding
that
Hagedorn
was
not
disqualified
because
of
prior
service
for
more
than
three
consecutive
terms
to
run
for
Mayor
of
Puerto
Princesa
City
in
the
recall
election
held
on
September
24,
2002.
The
result
reached
upholds
the
right
of
a
candidate
to
seek
a
popular
mandate
and
vindicates
the
sovereign
judgment
of
the
electorate
of
Puerto
Princesa
City.
FOR
THE
FOREGOING
REASONS,
I
vote
to
dismiss
the
petition
in
G.R.
Nos.
155083-84
as
well
as
those
in
G.R.
Nos.
154512
and
154683
and
to
declare
respondent
Edward
S.
Hagedorn
qualified
to
run
in
the
last
recall
election
for
Mayor
of
Puerto
Princesa
City.
Footnotes
1.Filed
under
Rule
65
in
relation
to
Rule
64
of
the
1997
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure
with
prayers
for
preliminary
injunction
and
temporary
restraining
orders.
2.Pursuant
to
the
provisions
of
Republic
Act
7160
or
the
Local
Government
Code
of
1991,
Chapter
5,
Section
69
to
75.
3.Composed
of
Benjamin
S.
Abalos,
Sr.
as
Chairman
with
Commissioners
Luzviminda
G.
Tancangco,
Rufino
S.B.
Javier,
Ralph
C.
Lantion,
Mehol
K.
Sadain,
Resurreccion
Z.
Borra
and
Florentino
A.
Tuason,
Jr.
4.With
Mehol
K.
Sadain
as
Presiding
Commissioner
and
Luzviminda
G.
Tancangco
and
Resurreccion
Z.
Borra
as
Commissioners.
5.269
SCRA
380
(1997).
6.Ricardo
J.
Romulo,
Commissioner
of
the
1986
Constitutional
Convention.
7.Record
of
the
Constitutional
Commission,
Vol.
2,
p.
236.
8.Journal
of
the
Constitutional
Commission,
Vol.
I,
p.
420.
9."MR.
ROMULO:Madam
President,
we
are
now
ready
to
vote
on
the
question
of
the
Senators,
and
the
schemes
are
as
follows:
The
first
scheme
is,
no
further
election
after
two
terms;
the
second
scheme
is,
no
immediate
reelection
after
two
successive
terms.
Madam
President,
inasmuch
as
the
principles
applicable
here
are
the
same
as
those
for
the
House
of
Representatives,
I
move
that
we
go
directly
to
the
voting
and
forego
any
further
discussions.
THE
PRESIDENT:
Please
distribute
the
ballots
for
this
particular
item
for
Senators.
Are
we
ready
now?
The
Secretary-
General
will
please
count
the
ballots.
COUNTING
OF
BALLOTS
THE
SECRETARY-GENERAL:
We
have
43
ballots
here,
Madam
President.
We
shall
now
begin
to
count.
THE
PRESIDENT:
Please
proceed.
THE
SECRETARY-GENERAL,
reading:
Scheme
No.
I
/////-/////-//
Scheme
No.
II
/////-/////-/////-/////-/////-/////-//
THE
PRESIDENT:
The
results
show
12
votes
for
Scheme
No.
1
and
32
votes
for
Scheme
No.
II;
Scheme
No.
II
is
approved."
(Emphasis
supplied)
Record
of
the
Constitutional
Commission,
Vol.
2,
pp.
244-245.
10.MR.
GASCON:Is
this
voting
just
for
Congressmen?
THE
PRESIDENT:
Yes.
The
Secretary-General
will
now
please
proceed
to
count
the
votes.
COUNTING
OF
BALLOTS
THE
SECRETARY-GENERAL:
Madam
President,
we
have
here
43
ballots
cast.
We
will
now
start
the
counting.
Alternative
No.
1
no
further
election
after
a
total
of
three
tern:
/////-/////-/////-//
Alternative
No.
2
no
immediate
reelection
after
three
successive
terms:
/////-/////-/////-/////-/////-/
THE
PRESIDENT:
The
result
show
17
votes
for
Alternative
No.
1
and
26
votes
for
Alternative
No.
2;
Alternative
No.
2
is
approved."
(Emphasis
supplied)
Record
of
the
Constitutional
Commission,
Vol.
2,
pp.
243-244.
11.Second
paragraph
of
Section
4,
Article
VI
of
the
Constitution.
12.Jose
Luis
Martin
C.
Gascon
Commissioner
of
the
1986
Constitutional
Commission.
13.Hilario
G.
Davide,
Jr.,
Commissioner
of
the
1986
Constitutional
Commission,
and
now
Chief
Justice
of
the
Supreme
Court.
14.Record
of
the
Constitutional
Commission,
Vol.
II,
p.
590.
15.Bernas,
The
Intent
of
the
1986
Constitutional
Writers,
p.
341
(1995).
16.Hagedorn
instead
ran
for
Governor
of
Palawan
in
the
2001
elections
but
lost.
17.311
SCRA
602
(1999).
18.G.R.
No.
147927,
February
4,
2002.
19.295
SCRA
157
(1998).
20.Jose
E.
Suarez,
Commissioner
of
the
1986
Constitutional
Commission.
21.Record
of
the
Constitutional
Commission,
Vol.
II,
p.
592.
Puno,
J.,
concurring:
1.Frivaldo
v.
COMELEC,
257
SCRA
727
(1996).
2.Very
Urgent
Petition
for
Certiorari
and
Prohibition
with
Preliminary
Injunction
and
Prayer
for
Temporary
Restraining
Order
(Petition),
pp.
9-10.
The
Petition-in-Intervention
of
Mayor
Socrates
raises
similar
issues.
3.1
L.
Taada
and
F.
Carreon,
Political
Law
of
the
Philippines
95-96
(1961).
4.R.
Martin,
Philippine
Political
Law
27
(New
ed.
1998).
5.J.
Bernas,
The
Intent
of
the
1986
Constitution
Writers
699
(1995);
Record
of
the
Constitutional
Commission
("Record"),
Vol.
III,
pp.
406-408,
451.
6.Record,
Vol.
II,
pp.
236-237,
239-240,
243.
7.295
SCRA
157
(1998).
8.Id.,
pp.
163,
165.
9.311
SCRA
602
(1999).
10.Lonzanida
v.
COMELEC,
et
al.,
311
SCRA
602
(1999),
pp.
612-613.
11.G.R.
No.
147927,
February
4,
2002.
12.Adormeo
v.
COMELEC,
et
al.,
supra,
p.
6.
13.Petition,
p.
23,
citing
Martin
and
Martin,
Administrative
Law,
Law
of
Public
Officers
and
Election
Law,
Revised
Edition,
p.
173.
14.Local
Government
Code
of
1991,
Sec.
44(d).
15.See
Schardein
v.
Harrison,
et
al.,
18
S.
W.
2d
316
(1929).
16.Section
71
of
the
Local
Government
Code
of
1991
provides
in
relevant
part,
viz:
"Section
71.
.
.
.
The
official
or
officials
sought
to
be
recalled
shall
automatically
be
considered
as
duly
registered
candidate
or
candidates
to
the
pertinent
positions
and,
like
other
candidates,
shall
be
entitled
to
be
voted
upon."
17.Petition,
p.
18,
citing
Lonzanida
v.
Comelec,
supra,
p.
609.
18.Osmena,
et
al.
v.
Del
Mar,
et
al.,
199
SCRA
750
(1991).
19.II
J.
Bernas,
The
Constitution
of
the
Republic
of
the
Philippines:
A
Commentary
96
(First
ed.
1988).
20.Record,
Vol.
II,
p.
592.
21.Borja,
Jr.
v.
COMELEC,
et
al.,
supra.
p.
167.
22.Id.,
p.
163.
23.Section
70
of
the
Local
Government
Code
provides,
viz:
"Section
70.
Initiation
of
the
Recall
Process.
(a)
Recall
may
be
initiated
by
a
preparatory
recall
assembly
or
by
the
registered
voters
of
the
local
government
unit
to
which
the
local
elective
official
subject
to
such
recall
belongs.
(b)
There
shall
be
a
preparatory
recall
assembly
in
every
province,
city,
district,
and
municipality
which
shall
be
composed
of
the
following:
(1)
Provincial
level.
All
mayors,
vice-mayors,
and
sanggunian
members
of
the
municipalities
and
component
cities;
(2)
City
level.
All
punong
barangay
and
sanggunian
barangay
members
in
the
city;
(3)
Legislative
district
level.
In
cases
where
sangguniang
panlalawigan
members
are
elected
by
district,
all
elective
municipal
officials
in
the
district;
and
in
cases
where
sangguniang
panglungsod
members
are
elected
by
district,
all
elective
barangay
officials
in
the
district;
and
(4)
Municipal
level.
All
punong
barangay
and
sangguniang
barangay
members
in
the
municipality.
(c)
A
majority
of
all
the
preparatory
recall
assembly
members
may
convene
in
session
in
a
public
place
and
initiate
a
recall
proceeding
against
any
elective
official
in
the
local
government
unit
concerned.
Recall
of
provincial,
city,
or
municipal
officials
shall
be
validly
initiated
through
a
resolution
adopted
by
a
majority
of
all
the
members
of
the
preparatory
recall
assembly
concerned
during
its
session
called
for
the
purpose."
24.331
SCRA
388
(2000).
25.Claudio
v.
COMELEC,
et
al.,
supra,
p.
406.
26.Paras
v.
COMELEC,
264
SCRA
491
(1996).
27.U.S.
Term
Limits,
Inc.
v.
Thornton,
514
U.S.
779,
131
L.
Ed.
2d
881
(1995).
28.Garcia
v.
COMELEC,
et
al.,
227
SCRA
100
(1993).
Mendoza,
J.,
concurring
in
the
judgment:
1.CONST.,
ART.
X,
8:
"The
term
of
office
of
elective
local
officials,
except
barangay
officials,
which
shall
be
determined
by
law,
shall
be
three
years
and
no
such
official
shall
serve
for
more
than
three
consecutive
terms.
Voluntary
renunciation
of
the
office
for
any
length
of
time
shall
not
be
considered
as
an
interruption
in
the
continuity
of
his
service
for
the
full
term
for
which
he
was
elected."
2.311
SCRA
602
(1999).
3.G.R.
No.
147927,
Feb.
4,
2002.
4.2
RECORD
OF
THE
CONSTITUTIONAL
COMMISSION
243-245
(Session
of
July
25,
1986)
(hereafter
referred
to
as
RECORD);
3
RECORD
406-408
(Session
of
August
16,
1986).
5.WEBSTER'S
THIRD
INTERNATIONAL
DICTIONARY
OF
THE
ENGLISH
LANGUAGE
(Unabridged)
p.
731
(1993).
6.Adormeo
v.
COMELEC,
G.R.
No.
147927,
Feb.
4,
2002.
7.See
Borja
v.
COMELEC,
295
SCRA
157
(1998);
Arcos
v.
COMELEC
(res.),
G.R.
No.
133639,
Oct.
6,
1998.
8.Borja
v.
COMELEC,
supra;
Arcos
v.
COMELEC,
supra.
9.Angara
v.
Electoral
Commission,
63
Phil.
139,
177
(1936);
Nava
v.
Gatmaitan,
90
Phil.
172,
200
(1951);
Vera
v.
Avelino,
77
Phil.
192
(1946);
Aquino
v.
Enrile,
Jr.,
59
SCRA
183,
417
(1974).
|||
(Socrates
v.
COMELEC,
G.R.
No.
154512,
154683,
155083-84,
[November
12,
2002])
EN
BANC
[G.R.
No.
134293.
June
21,
1999.]
KAISER
B.
RECABO,
JR.,
petitioner,
vs.
THE
COMMISSION
ON
ELECTIONS
and
FRANCISCO
R.
REYES,
JR.,
respondents.
Enrique
Y.
Tandan
for
petitioner.
Rene
O.
Median
for
private
respondent.
SYNOPSIS
Candelaria
B.
Recabo,
mother
of
herein
petitioner,
filed
her
certificate
of
candidacy
for
vice-mayor
of
the
municipality
of
Mainit,
Surigao
del
Norte
of
the
political
party
LAKAS
NUCD-UMDP
on
March
25,
1995
and
later
withdrew
the
same
on
March
31,
1998.
On
March
27,
1998
private
respondent
filed
his
certificate
of
candidacy
for
the
same
position
and
of
the
same
political
party
while
herein
petitioner
filed
his
certificate
of
candidacy
on
April
2,
1998,
in
substitution
of
his
mother
who
had
withdrawn
earlier.
Thereafter,
private
respondent
filed
before
the
respondent
Commission
a
petition
for
the
cancellation
of
petitioner's
certificate
of
candidacy
theorizing
that
Candelaria
B.
Recabo
was
not
validly
nominated
by
the
political
party
since
the
certificate
of
nomination
and
acceptance
in
her
favor
was
signed
only
by
one
authorized
officer
of
the
party.
Therefore,
not
having
been
validly
nominated,
she
should
be
deemed
an
independent
candidate
only.
And
since
she
is
an
independent
candidate,
she
cannot
be
validly
substituted
because
under
Sec.
11
of
Comelec
Resolution
No.
2977
promulgated
on
January
15,
1998,
"no
substitution
shall
be
allowed
for
an
independent
candidate."
On
the
other
hand,
petitioner
maintained
that
his
certificate
of
candidacy
and
that
of
his
mother
who
he
substituted
substantially
complied
with
the
requirements
of
being
official
candidates
of
the
political
party.
Petitioner
further
assailed
the
jurisdiction
of
the
respondent
Commission
to
rule
on
the
issue.
Based
on
the
foregoing,
the
respondent
Commission
issued
a
resolution
canceling
petitioner's
certificate
of
candidacy
and
ruling
that
private
respondent's
certificate
of
candidacy
be
given
due
course.
Petitioner
moved
for
reconsideration
but
the
respondent
Commission
denied
the
same.
Hence,
petitioner
filed
this
present
petition
imputing
grave
abuse
of
discretion
on
the
part
of
the
respondent
Commission
in
canceling
his
certificate
of
candidacy.
Private
respondent,
on
the
other
hand,
moved
that
in
the
event
of
the
Supreme
Court
affirmed
the
non-qualification
of
petitioner,
he
should
be
proclaimed
the
winner
and
allowed
to
assume
the
position
of
vice-mayor
of
the
municipality
of
Mainit,
Surigao
del
Norte.
aDcETC
The
Supreme
Court
affirmed
the
resolution
of
the
respondent
Commission.
The
Court
found
that
the
findings
and
conclusions
reached
by
the
respondent
Commission
were
not
whimsical
nor
capricious.
The
respondent
Commission
acted
within
its
powers
and
jurisdiction
in
canceling
petitioner's
certificate
of
candidacy
and
there
is
no
justification
for
the
Court
to
interfere
with
its
action.
The
disqualification
or
non-qualification
of
the
winner
in
a
vice-mayoralty
race
does
not
justify
the
proclamation
of
the
defeated
candidate
who
obtained
the
second
highest
number
of
votes.
Hence,
in
the
event
that
herein
petitioner
obtained
the
plurality
of
votes
in
the
May
11,
1998
elections
for
Vice-Mayor
of
the
Municipality
of
Mainit,
Surigao
del
Norte,
the
vacancy
due
to
his
ineligibility
should
be
filled
up
in
accordance
with
Section
44
of
the
Local
Government
Code
of
1991
which
provides
that
the
highest
ranking
sanggunian
member
shall
become
the
vice-mayor.
SYLLABUS
1.
REMEDIAL
LAW;
SPECIAL
CIVIL
ACTION;
CERTIORARI;
COMELEC
ACTED
WITHIN
ITS
JURISDICTION
WHEN
IT
CANCELLED
PETITIONER'S
CERTIFICATE
OF
CANDIDACY.
Preliminarily,
it
must
be
stated
that
in
special
civil
actions
for
certiorari,
the
main
issue
is
one
of
jurisdiction
lack
of
jurisdiction
or
grave
abuse
of
discretion
amounting
to
excess
of
jurisdiction.
In
the
case
at
bar,
we
find
that
the
findings
and
conclusions
reached
by
the
respondent
Commission
were
not
whimsical
nor
capricious.
The
respondent
Commission
acted
within
its
powers
and
jurisdiction
in
canceling
the
certificate
of
candidacy
of
petitioner
and
there
is
no
justification
for
this
Court
to
interfere
with
the
actions
taken
by
the
Comelec.
The
findings
of
the
respondent
Commission
are
supported
by
documentary
evidence.
2.
POLITICAL
LAW;
ELECTIONS;
THE
ELECTORAL
REFORM
LAW
OF
1987;
DOCTRINE
THAT
A
MERE
TECHNICALITY
CANNOT
BE
USED
TO
FRUSTRATE
THE
PEOPLE'S
WILL,
NOT
APPLICABLE
WHEN
RESULTS
OF
THE
ELECTION
HAVE
NOT
BEEN
DULY
ESTABLISHED.
In
Garay
vs.
Commission
on
Elections
we
had
occasion
to
rule
that:
".
.
.
According
to
Section
17,
a
certificate
of
votes
can
only
be
"evidence
to
prove
tampering,
alteration,
falsification
or
any
other
anomaly
committed
in
the
election
returns
concerned,
when
duly
authenticated
.
.
."
A
certificate
of
votes
does
not
constitute
sufficient
evidence
of
the
true
and
genuine
results
of
the
election;
only
election
returns
are,
pursuant
to
Sections
231,
233-236,
and
238
of
B.P.
Blg.
881."
In
like
manner,
neither
is
the
certified
list
of
winning
candidates
signed
by
the
said
Election
Officer
II
and
OIC
sufficient
evidence
of
the
real
results
of
the
election.
Moreover,
we
find
that
the
certificate
of
votes
does
not
conform
with
Section
16
of
R.A.
6646.
The
certificate
of
votes
submitted
by
petitioner
does
not
state
the
number
of
votes
obtained
in
words;
it
does
not
state
the
number
of
the
precinct,
the
total
number
of
voters
who
voted
in
the
precinct
and
the
time
issued.
Most
importantly,
it
was
merely
certified
true
and
correct
by
a
certain
Lydia
P.
Mahinay
as
acting
election
officer.
As
aforequoted,
Section
16
of
R.A.
6646
requires
that
the
certificate
of
votes
be
signed
and
thumbmarked
by
each
member
of
the
board
of
election
inspectors.
Thus,
the
doctrine
that
a
mere
technicality
cannot
be
used
to
frustrate
the
people's
will
finds
no
application
in
the
case
at
bar
considering
that
the
results
of
the
election
have
not
been
duly
established.
3.
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
CERTIFICATE
OF
CANDIDACY;
CANCELLATION
THEREOF,
CONSIDERED
PROPER
IN
CASE
AT
BAR.
Pursuant
to
Section
5
of
Comelec
Resolution
No.
2977
the
political
party
of
LAKAS
NUCD-UMDP
issued
an
'Authorization'
designating
two
(2)
Party
officers
to
nominate,
sign,
attest
under
oath
and
issue
the
Official
Certificates
of
Nomination,
namely,
Francisco
T.
Matugas
and
Robert
Ace
S.
Barbers.
Consistent
with
the
foregoing,
the
certificate
of
nomination
and
acceptance,
as
pointed
out
by
the
respondent
Commission,
requires
the
joint
signing
of
the
two
party
officers.
The
fact
that
only
Francisco
T.
Matugas
signed
the
certificate
of
nomination
of
petitioner
Recabo,
Jr.
leaves
the
same
open
to
question.
On
the
other
hand,
the
certificate
of
nomination
of
private
respondent
Reyes,
Jr.
was
signed
by
no
less
than
Fidel
V.
Ramos
and
Jose
De
Venecia,
Jr.
as
the
National
Chairman
and
Secretary
General,
respectively
of
the
LAKAS
NUCD-UMDP
party.
By
and
large,
the
best
authority
to
interpret
a
rule
is
the
source
itself
of
the
rule,
in
this
case
the
COMELEC.
Moreover,
the
chronology
of
events
would
still
call
for
the
cancellation
of
petitioner's
certificate
of
candidacy
to
curb
the
evil
that
the
respondent
Commission
sought
to
abate
pursuant
to
its
mandate
to
hold
free,
orderly,
honest,
peaceful
and
credible
elections.
As
the
respondent
Commission
stated,
"to
allow
respondent
to
run
under
the
circumstances
adverted
to
herein
would
put
the
election
process
in
mockery
and
disrepute
for
we
would
in
effect
be
allowing
an
anomalous
situation
where
a
single
political
party
may
field-in
multiple
candidates
for
a
single
election
position."
4.
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
DISUNITY
AMONG
MEMBERS
OF
A
POLITICAL
PARTY
SHOULD
NOT
BE
ALLOWED
TO
CREATE
A
MOCKERY
OF
THE
ELECTORAL
PROCESS.
Assuming
all
three
candidates
were
fielded-in
by
the
same
political
party,
at
the
time
petitioner
Recabo,
Jr.
filed
his
certificate
of
candidacy
there
was
no
more
void
to
fill
in
as
respondent
Reyes,
Jr.
had
already
filed
his
certificate
of
candidacy
as
official
candidate
of
LAKAS
NUCD-UMDP.
Verily,
there
was
no
more
vacancy
to
be
substituted
for.
Disunity
and
discord
amongst
members
of
a
political
party
should
not
be
allowed
to
create
a
mockery
of
our
electoral
process,
which
envisions
one
candidate
from
a
political
party
for
each
position.
5.
ID.;
ID.;
ID.;
INDEPENDENT
CERTIFICATE
OF
CANDIDACY;
FILED
BEYOND
THE
DEADLINE
IS
NOT
VALID;
CASE
AT
BAR.
This
issue
was
not
raised
in
this
petition,
nevertheless,
we
deem
it
necessary
to
clarify
respondent
Commission's
declaration
that
petitioner's
mother
is
an
independent
candidate
on
account
of
the
invalidity
of
her
certificate
of
nomination
and
acceptance
to
forestall
any
confusion
that
may
arise
on
account
of
the
said
declaration.
For
the
same
reason,
that
his
certificate
of
nomination
was
invalid
because
it
was
signed
only
by
one
authorized
party
officer,
may
petitioner
be
likewise
deemed
an
independent
candidate
and
pave
the
way
for
his
candidacy
in
the
said
elections?
The
answer
would
still
be
in
the
negative.
Were
we
to
treat
him
as
an
independent
candidate,
his
certificate
of
candidacy
would
still
be
cancelled
and
denied
due
course
on
the
ground
that
it
was
filed
out
of
time.
It
is
well-settled
that
a
certificate
filed
beyond
the
deadline
is
not
valid.
Petitioner
filed
his
certificate
of
candidacy
on
April
2,
1998,
well
within
the
prescriptive
period
for
filing
a
substitute
certificate
of
candidacy,
but
way
beyond
the
period
for
filing
an
independent
certificate
of
candidacy.
Section
4
of
COMELEC
Resolution
No.
2977
requires
that
"the
certificate
of
candidacy
for
municipal
positions
in
areas
other
than
the
ARMM
should
be
filed
starting
January
11,
1998
to
midnight
of
March
27,
1998."
On
the
other
hand,
Section
11
thereof
provides
that
"the
substitute
candidate
nominated
by
the
political
party
concerned
may
file
his
certificate
of
candidacy
as
herein
provided
for
the
office
affected
not
later
than
mid-day
of
the
day
of
the
election."
acTDCI
6.
ID.;
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
CODE;
ELECTIVE
OFFICIALS;
VACANCIES
AND
SUCCESSION;
DISQUALIFICATION
OR
NON-
QUALIFICATION
OF
THE
WINNER
IN
A
VICE
MAYORALTY
RACE
DOES
NOT
JUSTIFY
THE
PROCLAMATION
OF
THE
DEFEATED
CANDIDATE
WHO
OBTAINED
THE
SECOND
HIGHEST
NUMBER
OF
VOTES.
Private
respondent
Reyes,
Jr.
has
filed
a
motion
in
this
Court
to
the
effect
that
in
the
event
this
Court
affirms
the
non-qualification
of
petitioner
Recabo,
Jr.,
he
should
be
proclaimed
the
winner
and
assume
the
position
of
vice-mayor
of
the
municipality
of
Mainit,
Surigao
del
Norte.
Apparently,
respondent
Reyes,
Jr.
is
counting
on
the
certificate
of
votes
to
establish
that
he
is
the
second
highest
winning
candidate.
As
we
have
pointed
out
earlier,
a
certificate
of
votes
is
not
sufficient
to
establish
the
true
and
genuine
results
of
the
election.
A
certificate
of
canvass
issued
on
the
basis
of
the
election
returns
is
required
to
proclaim
the
elected
candidate.
Moreover,
it
is
settled
that
the
disqualification
or
non-qualification
of
the
winner
in
a
vice-mayoralty
race
does
not
justify
the
proclamation
of
the
defeated
candidate
who
obtained
the
second
highest
number
of
votes.
Hence,
in
the
event
that
herein
petitioner
Kaiser
Recabo,
Jr.
obtained
the
plurality
of
votes
in
the
May
11,
1998
elections
for
Vice-Mayor
of
the
Municipality
of
Mainit,
Surigao
del
Norte,
the
vacancy
due
to
the
ineligibility
of
herein
petitioner
should
be
filled
up
in
accordance
with
Section
44
of
the
Local
Government
Code
of
1991
which
provides
that
the
highest
rankingsanggunian
member
shall
become
the
vice-mayor.
In
sum,
we
find
that
the
respondent
Commission
did
not
act
without
jurisdiction
or
with
grave
abuse
of
discretion
in
canceling
and
denying
due
course
to
petitioner
Recabo,
Jr.'s
certificate
of
candidacy.
D
E
C
I
S
I
O
N
GONZAGA-REYES,
J
p:
This
is
a
petition
for
certiorari
under
Rule
65
of
the
1997
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure
seeking
to
annul
the
resolution
dated
May
8,
1998
of
the
First
Division
of
the
Commission
on
Elections
1
("the
Commission"),
cancelling
the
certificate
of
candidacy
of
petitioner
Kaiser
B.
Recabo,
Jr.,
and
the
resolution
dated
July
1,
1998
of
the
Commission
en
banc,
denying
petitioner's
motion
for
reconsideration.
cdphil
The
antecedents
as
found
by
the
Commission
in
the
resolution
dated
May
8,
1998
are:
"It
appears
that
on
March
27,
1998,
petitioner
Francisco
R.
Reyes,
Jr.
filed
his
certificate
of
candidacy
(Annex
A,
Petition)
as
the
official
candidate
(for
vice-mayor
of
the
municipality
of
Mainit,
Surigao
del
Norte)
of
the
political
party
LAKAS
NUCD-UMDP.
His
nomination
by
said
political
party
is
evidenced
by
the
certificate
of
nomination
and
acceptance
dated
March
27,
1998
signed
by
Fidel
V.
Ramos
and
Jose
de
Venecia,
National
Chairman
and
Secretary
General,
respectively,
of
said
political
party.
This
certificate
of
nomination
and
acceptance
is
petitioner's
Annex
A-1.
However,
on
April
2,
1998,
another
person,
respondent
Kaiser
B.
Recabo,
Jr.,
claiming
to
be
the
official
candidate
of
LAKAS
NUCD-UMDP
as
vice-mayor
of
the
municipality
of
Mainit,
Surigao
del
Norte
also
filed
his
certificate
of
candidacy
(Annex
E,
Petition).
Petitioner
submitted
to
this
Commission
a
copy
of
the
certificate
of
nomination
and
acceptance
in
favor
of
Kaiser
B.
Recabo,
Jr.
dated
March
30,
1998
(Annex
F)
signed
only
by
one
representative
of
LAKAS
NUCD-UMDP,
Francisco
T.
Matugas.
The
space
of
the
other
representative
(Robert
Z.
Barbers)
is
blank.
Petitioner
in
par.
II-2
of
the
petition
alleges:
II-2.
The
respondent
KAISER
B.
RECABO,
JR.,
is
a
SUBSTITUTE
candidate
for
the
office
of
VICE-MAYOR
of
the
Municipality
of
Mainit,
Surigao
del
Norte.
He
filed
his
Certificate
of
Candidacy
on
April
02,
1998.
He
claims
to
be
a
substitute
of
MRS.
CANDELARIA
B.
RECABO
who
filed
her
Certificate
of
Candidacy
for
the
position
of
VICE-MAYOR
of
Mainit,
Surigao
del
Norte
on
March
25,
1998.
cdphil
The
allegations
in
this
paragraph
are
admitted
by
respondent
as
he
has
not
specifically
denied
the
same.
Further,
respondent
emphasizes
that
he
admits
this
in
par.
1
of
his
Answer
where
he
states:
1.
Except
those
that
may
be
specifically
denied
in
the
following
paragraphs
of
this
answer,
he
admits
the
material
allegations
of
the
petition.
Petitioner
submits
the
theory
that
since
the
certificate
of
nomination
and
acceptance
(Annex
C)
in
favor
of
Candelaria
B.
Recabo
is
not
signed
by
Robert
Barbers,
there
is
no
valid
nomination
by
LAKAS
NUCD-UMDP
in
favor
of
Candelaria
Recabo.
Therefore,
Candelaria
B.
Recabo
not
having
been
validly
nominated,
should
be
deemed
an
independent
candidate
only.
And
since
Candelaria
B.
Recabo
is
an
independent
candidate,
she
cannot
be
validly
substituted
because
under
Sec.
11
of
Comelec
Res.
No.
2977
promulgated
on
January
15,
1998,
"no
substitution
shall
be
allowed
for
an
independent
candidate."
On
the
other
hand,
respondent
argues
that
the
certificate
of
nomination
and
acceptance
signed
only
by
representative
Matugas
(and
without
the
joint
signature
of
representative
Barbers)
substantially
complied
with
the
party
requirements
and
are,
therefore,
valid
as
far
as
the
party
is
concerned.
Respondent
maintains
that
his
nomination
is
valid.
Respondent
further
argues
that
the
Commission
has
no
jurisdiction
to
rule
on
who
between
petitioner
and
respondent
has
a
valid
certificate
of
candidacy.
cdrep
Respondent
likewise
claims
that
the
certificate
of
nomination
in
favor
of
petitioner
(Annex
A-1).
is
falsified
because
it
was
notarized
in
Mainit,
Surigao
del
Norte
at
a
time
when
the
signatories
therein
(Fidel
Ramos
and
Jose
de
Venecia,
Jr.)
were
not
in
said
place.
Respondent
however
has
not
presented
any
evidence
to
this
effect."
2
Based
on
the
foregoing,
the
respondent
Commission
cancelled
the
certificate
of
candidacy
of
petitioner
Kaiser
B.
Recabo,
Jr.
On
May
14,
1998,
petitioner
Recabo,
Jr.
filed
a
motion
for
reconsideration
and
a
supplement
thereto
on
May
22,
1998.
Francisco
R.
Reyes,
Jr.
filed
his
opposition.
On
July
1,
1998,
the
Commission
en
banc
issued
a
resolution
denying
the
motion
for
reconsideration
for
lack
of
merit.
Hence,
the
instant
petition
on
the
following
grounds:
"1.
The
certificate
of
candidacy
of
petitioner
and
that
of
his
mother
whom
he
substituted
as
candidate
for
Vice-Mayor
substantially
complied
with
the
requirements
of
being
official
candidate
of
the
LAKAS-NUCD-
UMDP
party.
2.
The
people
of
Mainit,
Surigao
del
Norte
have
spoken
loud
and
clear
in
favor
of
petitioner
by
giving
him
a
resounding
majority
of
1,102
votes
or
12%
of
the
votes
cast
for
both
of
them.
cda
3.
By
canceling
the
certificate
of
candidacy
of
petitioner,
public
respondent
acted
without
or
in
excess
of
jurisdiction
or
with
grave
abuse
of
discretion,
and
there
is
no
appeal
or
any
plain,
speedy
and
adequate
remedy
in
the
ordinary
course
of
law
available
to
petitioner,
except
this
present
petition."
3
The
respondent
Commission
rationalized
the
cancellation
of
petitioner's
certificate
of
candidacy
thus:
"It
appears
from
the
very
wording
of
the
certificate
of
nomination
and
acceptance
of
LAKAS
NUCD-UMDP
that
joint
signing
of
the
certificate
is
required
for
validity.
The
body
of
the
certificate
begins
by
.
.
.
"WE,
GOV.
FRANCISCO
T.
MATUGAS
and
ROBERTO
Z.
BARBERS
.
.
.
as
its
Provincial
Chairman
and
District
Chairman,
respectively,
hereby
nominate.
The
certificate
continues
.
.
."WITNESS
OUR
HANDS
this
18th
day
of
March
1998"
etc.
From
the
way
the
document
is
worded,
the
intent
is
that
there
should
be
two
complete
signatures
on
the
certificate
for
the
certificate
to
be
valid.
The
mischief
in
respondent's
assertion
to
the
effect
that
this
Commission
has
no
jurisdiction
to
rule
on
whose
certificate
of
candidacy
should
be
given
due
course
is
that
if
such
a
position
is
taken,
it
would
give
rise
to
a
scenario
whereby
one
single
political
party
may
make
multiple
nominations
for
a
single
elective
position.
Such
is
not
the
intent
of
our
election
laws
and
neither
is
such
a
situation
the
intent
of
the
rules
and
regulations
issued
by
this
Commission.llcd
We,
therefore,
rule
that
petitioner's
certificate
of
candidacy
be
given
due
course
and
that
respondent's
certificate
of
candidacy
be
denied
due
course.
First,
because
petitioner
filed
it
much
earlier
than
respondent
and
second,
because
the
certificate
of
nomination
and
acceptance
upon
which
respondent's
certificate
of
candidacy
is
premised
appears
to
be
invalid.
We
find
the
theory
of
petitioner,
that
at
best
Candelaria
Recabo
is
only
an
independent
candidate,
logical
and
valid.
Consequently,
she
cannot
be
substituted
by
respondent.
(Sec.
11,
Comelec
Res.
2977).
Furthermore,
under
Sec.
69
of
the
Omnibus
Election
Code,
the
Commission
may
motu
propio,
or
upon
valid
petition,
refuse
to
give
due
course
to
or
cancel
a
certificate
of
candidacy
if
it
is
shown
that
said
certificate
has
been
filed
to
put
the
election
process
in
mockery
or
disrepute
or
by
other
circumstances
or
acts
which
clearly
demonstrate
that
the
candidate
has
no
bona
fide
intention
to
run
for
office
for
which
the
certificate
of
candidacy
has
been
filed
and
thus
prevent
a
faithful
determination
of
the
true
will
of
the
electorate.
To
allow
respondent
to
run
under
the
circumstances
adverted
to
herein
would
put
the
election
process
in
mockery
or
disrepute
for
we
would
in
effect
be
allowing
an
anomalous
situation
where
a
single
political
party
may
field-in
multiple
candidates
for
a
single
elective
position."
4
To
put
matters
in
the
proper
perspective,
we
shall
resolve
the
second
issue
first
that
the
"electorate
has
spoken
loud
and
clear
in
favor
of
petitioner
by
giving
him
a
resounding
majority
of
1,102
votes
or
12%
of
the
votes
cast
for
both
of
them."
Petitioner,
in
effect,
argues
that
the
"popular
will
as
clearly
expressed
in
votes
cast
and
counted
should
prevail,
such
that
the
election
of
a
candidate
cannot
be
annulled
because
of
formal
defects
in
his
certificate."
5
Petitioner
cites
a
number
of
cases
to
advance
this
position.
6
According
to
petitioner,
on
May
11,
1998,
election
day,
he
garnered
4,835
votes
as
against
private
respondent's
votes
of
3,733.
As
proof,
petitioner
Recabo,
Jr.
submitted
a
'Certified
List
of
Candidates
with
their
Votes
Obtained'
dated
May
14,
1998
and
an
undated
'Certified
List
of
Winning
Candidates'
both
signed
by
a
certain
Lydia
P.
Mahinay
as
Acting
Election
Officer,
and,
Election
Officer-OIC,
respectively.
7
In
Garay
vs.
Commission
on
Elections
8
we
had
occasion
to
rule
that:
".
.
.
.
According
to
Section
17,
9
a
certificate
of
votes
can
only
be
"evidence
to
prove
tampering,
alteration,
falsification
or
any
other
anomaly
committed
in
the
election
returns
concerned,
when
duly
authenticated
.
.
.
."
A
certificate
of
votes
does
not
constitute
sufficient
evidence
of
the
true
and
genuine
results
of
the
election;
only
election
returns
are,
pursuant
to
Sections
231,
233-236,
and
238
of
B.P.
Blg.
881."
10
In
like
manner,
neither
is
the
certified
list
of
winning
candidates
signed
by
the
said
Election
Officer
II
and
OIC
sufficient
evidence
of
the
real
results
of
the
election.
Moreover,
we
find
that
the
certificate
of
votes
does
not
conform
with
Section
16
of
R.A.
6646
which
reads:
"SECTION
16.
Certificate
of
Votes.
After
the
counting
of
the
votes
cast
in
the
precinct
and
announcement
of
the
results
of
the
election,
and
before
leaving
the
polling
place,
the
board
of
election
inspectors
shall
issue
a
certificate
of
votes
upon
request
of
the
duly
accredited
watchers.
The
certificate
shall
contain
the
number
of
votes
obtained
by
each
candidate
written
in
words
and
figures,
the
number
of
the
precinct,
the
name
of
the
city
or
municipality,
province,
the
total
number
of
voters
who
voted
in
the
precinct
and
the
date
and
time
issued,
and
shall
be
signed
and
thumbmarked
by
each
member
of
the
board.
LLjur
The
certificate
of
votes
submitted
by
petitioner
does
not
state
the
number
of
votes
obtained
in
words;
it
does
not
state
the
number
of
the
precinct,
the
total
number
of
voters
who
voted
in
the
precinct
and
the
time
issued.
Most
importantly,
it
was
merely
certified
true
and
correct
by
a
certain
Lydia
P.
Mahinay
as
acting
election
officer.
As
aforequoted,
Section
16
of
R.A.
6646
requires
that
the
certificate
of
votes
be
signed
and
thumbmarked
by
each
member
of
the
board
of
election
inspectors.
Thus,
the
doctrine
that
a
mere
technicality
cannot
be
used
to
frustrate
the
people's
will
finds
no
application
in
the
case
at
bar
considering
that
the
results
of
the
election
have
not
been
duly
established.
prLL
This
brings
us
to
the
first
issue
of
whether
"the
certificate
of
candidacy
of
petitioner
and
that
of
his
mother
who
he
substituted
as
candidate
for
Vice-Mayor
substantially
complied
with
the
requirements
of
being
official
candidates
of
the
LAKAS-NUCD-
UMDP
Party".
The
issue
boils
down
to
the
validity
of
the
certificate
of
nomination
of
petitioner
by
LAKAS
NUCD-UMDP
which
is
required
to
be
attached
and
filed
with
the
certificate
of
candidacy,
for
apparently,
petitioner
possesses
all
the
qualifications
and
none
of
the
disqualifications
provided
by
law
and
the
contents
of
petitioner's
certificate
of
candidacy
are
otherwise
in
order.
Preliminarily,
it
must
be
stated
that
in
special
civil
actions
for
certiorari,
the
main
issue
is
one
of
jurisdiction
lack
of
jurisdiction
or
grave
abuse
of
discretion
amounting
to
excess
of
jurisdiction.
11
In
the
case
at
bar,
we
find
that
the
findings
and
conclusions
reached
by
the
respondent
Commission
were
not
whimsical
nor
capricious.
The
respondent
Commission
acted
within
its
powers
and
jurisdiction
in
canceling
the
certificate
of
candidacy
of
petitioner
and
there
is
no
justification
for
this
Court
to
interfere
with
the
actions
taken
by
the
Comelec.
The
findings
of
the
respondent
Commission
are
supported
by
documentary
evidence.
cdtai
COMELEC
Resolution
No.
2977
which
prescribes
the
rules
and
regulations
governing
the
filing
of
certificates
of
candidacy
in
connection
with
the
May
11,
1998
elections
provides
under
Section
5
thereof:
SECTION
5.
Certificate
of
nomination
of
official
candidates
by
political
party,
.
.
.
.
The
certificates
of
nomination
by
registered
political
parties,
organizations
or
coalitions
of
their
official
candidates
shall
be
filed
with
the
certificates
of
candidacy
not
later
than
the
last
day
for
filing
of
certificates
of
candidacy
as
specified
in
Section
4
hereof,
duly
signed
and
attested
under
oath
by
the
party
president,
chairman,
secretary-general
or
any
other
party
officer
duly
authorized
in
writing
to
do
so.
xxx
xxx
xxx."
Pursuant
to
said
resolution,
the
political
party
of
LAKAS
NUCD-UMDP
issued
an
'Authorization'
designating
two
(2)
Party
officers
to
nominate,
sign,
attest
under
oath
and
issue
the
Official
Certificates
of
Nomination,
namely,
Francisco
T.
Matugas
and
Robert
Ace
S.
Barbers.
Consistent
with
the
foregoing,
the
certificate
of
nomination
and
acceptance,
as
pointed
out
by
the
respondent
Commission,
requires
the
joint
signing
of
the
two
party
officers.
The
fact
that
only
Francisco
T.
Matugas
signed
the
certificate
of
nomination
of
petitioner
Recabo,
Jr.
leaves
the
same
open
to
question.
On
the
other
hand,
the
certificate
of
nomination
of
private
respondent
Reyes,
Jr.
was
signed
by
no
less
than
Fidel
V.
Ramos
and
Jose
De
Venecia,
Jr.
as
the
National
Chairman
and
Secretary
General,
respectively
of
the
LAKAS
NUCD-UMDP
party.
By
and
large,
the
best
authority
to
interpret
a
rule
is
the
source
itself
of
the
rule,
in
this
case
the
COMELEC.
12
Moreover,
the
chronology
of
events
would
still
call
for
the
cancellation
of
petitioner's
certificate
of
candidacy
to
curb
the
evil
that
the
respondent
Commission
sought
to
abate
pursuant
to
its
mandate
to
hold
free,
orderly,
honest,
peaceful
and
credible
elections.
13
As
the
respondent
Commission
stated,
"to
allow
respondent
to
run
under
the
circumstances
adverted
to
herein
would
put
the
election
process
in
mockery
and
disrepute
for
we
would
in
effect
be
allowing
an
anomalous
situation
where
a
single
political
party
may
field-in
multiple
candidates
for
a
single
election
position."
It
will
be
recalled
that
the
mother
of
herein
petitioner
filed
her
certificate
of
candidacy
on
March
25,
1998
and
later
withdrew
the
same
on
March
31,
1998.
In
the
meantime,
private
respondent
Reyes,
Jr.
filed
his
certificate
of
candidacy
on
March
27,
1998.
Thereafter,
herein
petitioner
Recabo,
Jr.
filed
his
certificate
of
candidacy
on
April
2,
1998,
in
substitution
of
his
mother
who
had
withdrawn
earlier.
cdtai
Assuming
all
three
candidates
were
fielded-in
by
the
same
political
party,
at
the
time
petitioner
Recabo,
Jr.
filed
his
certificate
of
candidacy
there
was
no
more
void
to
fill
in
as
respondent
Reyes,
Jr.
had
already
filed
his
certificate
of
candidacy
as
official
candidate
of
LAKAS
NUCD-UMDP.
Verily,
there
was
no
more
vacancy
to
be
substituted
for.
Disunity
and
discord
amongst
members
of
a
political
party
should
not
be
allowed
to
create
a
mockery
of
our
electoral
process,
which
envisions
one
candidate
from
a
political
party
of
each
position.
This
issue
was
not
raised
in
this
petition,
nevertheless,
we
deem
it
necessary
to
clarify
respondent
Commission's
declaration
that
petitioner's
mother
is
an
independent
candidate
on
account
of
the
invalidity
of
her
certificate
of
nomination
and
acceptance
to
forestall
any
confusion
that
may
arise
on
account
of
the
said
declaration.
For
the
same
reason,
that
his
certificate
of
nomination
was
invalid
because
it
was
signed
only
by
one
authorized
party
officer,
may
petitioner
be
likewise
deemed
an
independent
candidate
and
pave
the
way
for
his
candidacy
in
the
said
elections?
The
answer
would
still
be
in
the
negative.
Were
we
to
treat
him
as
an
independent
candidate,
his
certificate
of
candidacy
would
still
be
cancelled
and
denied
due
course
on
the
ground
that
it
was
filed
out
of
time.
It
is
well-settled
that
a
certificate
filed
beyond
the
deadline
is
not
valid.
14
Petitioner
filed
his
certificate
of
candidacy
on
April
2,
1998,
well
within
the
prescriptive
period
for
filing
a
substitute
certificate
of
candidacy,
but
way
beyond
the
period
for
filing
an
independent
certificate
of
candidacy.
Section
4
of
COMELEC
Resolution
No.
2977
requires
that
"the
certificate
of
candidacy
for
municipal
positions
in
areas
other
than
the
ARMM
should
be
filed
starting
January
11,
1998
to
midnight
of
March
27,
1998."
15
On
the
other
hand,
Section
11
thereof
provides
that
"the
substitute
candidate
nominated
by
the
political
party
concerned
may
file
his
certificate
of
candidacy
as
herein
provided
for
the
office
affected
not
later
than
mid-day
of
the
day
of
the
election."
16
Finally,
private
respondent
Reyes,
Jr.
has
filed
a
motion
in
this
Court
to
the
effect
that
in
the
event
this
Court
affirms
the
non-
qualification
of
petitioner
Recabo,
Jr.,
he
should
be
proclaimed
the
winner
and
assume
the
position
of
vice-mayor
of
the
municipality
of
Mainit,
Surigao
del
Norte.
Apparently,
respondent
Reyes,
Jr.
is
counting
on
the
certificate
of
votes
to
establish
that
he
is
the
second
highest
winning
candidate.
As
we
have
pointed
out
earlier,
a
certificate
of
votes
is
not
sufficient
to
establish
the
true
and
genuine
results
of
the
election.
A
certificate
of
canvas
issued
on
the
basis
of
the
election
returns
is
required
to
proclaim
the
elected
candidate.
17
Moreover,
it
is
settled
that
the
disqualification
or
non-qualification
of
the
winner
in
a
vice
mayoralty
race
does
not
justify
the
proclamation
of
the
defeated
candidate
who
obtained
the
second
highest
number
of
votes.
Thus,
in
the
recent
case
of
Reyes
vs.
Commission
on
Elections,
18
it
was
stated:
"That
the
candidate
who
obtains
the
second
highest
number
of
votes
may
not
be
proclaimed
winner
in
case
the
winning
candidate
is
disqualified
is
now
settled.
The
doctrinal
instability
caused
by
see-sawing
rulings
has
since
been
removed.
In
the
latest
ruling
on
the
question,
this
Court
said:
To
simplistically
assume
that
the
second
placer
would
have
received
the
other
votes
would
be
to
substitute
our
judgment
for
the
mind
of
the
voter.
The
second
placer
is
just
that,
a
second
placer.
He
lost
the
elections.
He
was
repudiated
by
either
a
majority
or
plurality
of
voters.
He
could
not
be
considered
the
first
among
qualified
candidates
because
in
a
field
which
excludes
the
disqualified
candidate,
the
conditions
would
have
substantially
changed.
We
are
not
prepared
to
extrapolate
the
results
under
the
circumstances."
(at
p.
529)
Hence
in
the
event
that
herein
petitioner
Kaiser
Recabo,
Jr.
obtained
the
plurality
of
votes
in
the
May
11,
1998
elections
for
Vice-Mayor
of
the
Municipality
of
Mainit,
Surigao
del
Norte,
the
vacancy
due
to
the
ineligibility
of
herein
petitioner
should
be
filled
up
in
accordance
with
Section
44
of
the
Local
Government
Code
of
1991
19
which
provides
that
the
highest
ranking
sanggunian
member
shall
become
the
vice-mayor.
In
sum,
we
find
that
the
respondent
Commission
did
not
act
without
jurisdiction
or
with
grave
abuse
of
discretion
in
cancelling
and
denying
due
course
to
petitioner
Recabo,
Jr.'s
certificate
of
candidacy.
cdrep
WHEREOF,
the
instant
petition
for
certiorari
is
hereby
DISMISSED
for
lack
of
merit.
The
assailed
resolutions
of
respondent
Commission
dated
May
8,
1998
and
July
1,
1998
are
hereby
AFFIRMED.
SO
ORDERED.
Davide,
Jr.,
C.J.,
Romero,
Bellosillo,
Melo,
Vitug,
Kapunan,
Mendoza,
Quisumbing,
Purisima,
Buena
and
Santiago,
JJ.,
concur.
Puno,
J.,
is
abroad
on
official
leave.
Panganiban,
J.,
is
on
leave.
Pardo,
J.,
took
no
part.
Footnotes
1.Composed
of
Commissioner
Manolo
B.
Gorospe
(as
Presiding
Commissioner),
Teresita
Dy-Liacco
Flores
and
Evalyn
I.
Fetalino.
2.Rollo,
pp.
39-41.
3.Ibid.,
pp.
10-11.
4.Id.,
pp.
41-42.
5.De
Guzman
vs.
Board
of
Canvassers,
48
Phil.
211.
6.Alcala
vs.
COMELEC,
133
SCRA
352,
citing
Lino
Luna
vs.
Rodriguez,
39
Phil.
208;
Benito
vs.
COMELEC,
235
SCRA
436;
Rodriguez
vs.
COMELEC,
119
SCRA
465;
Bince,
Jr.,
vs.
COMELEC,
242
SCRA
273.
7.Annexes
"A"
and
"B"
to
the
supplement
to
the
motion
for
reconsideration,
Rollo,
pp.
54-55.
8.261
SCRA
224
(1996).
9.Section
17
of
R.A.
6646
(The
Electoral
Reform
Law
of
1987):
SEC.
17.
Certificate
of
Votes
as
Evidence.
The
provisions
of
Sections
235
and
236
of
Batas
Pambansa
Blg.
881
notwithstanding,
the
certificate
of
votes
shall
be
admissible
in
evidence
to
prove
tampering,
alteration,
falsification
or
any
anomaly
committed
in
the
election
returns
concerned,
when
duly
authenticated
by
testimonial
or
documentary
evidence
presented
to
the
board
of
canvassers
by
at
least
two
members
of
the
board
of
election
inspectors
who
issued
the
certificate:
Provided,
That
failure
to
present
any
certificate
of
votes
shall
not
be
a
bar
to
the
presentation
of
other
evidence
to
impugn
the
authenticity
of
the
election
returns.
10.SEC.
231.Canvass
by
the
board
The
board
of
canvassers
shall
meet
not
later
than
six
o'clock
in
the
afternoon
of
election
day
at
the
place
designated
by
the
Commission
to
receive
the
election
returns
and
to
immediately
canvass
those
that
may
have
already
been
received.
It
shall
meet
continuously
from
day
to
day
until
the
canvass
is
completed,
and
may
adjourn
but
only
for
the
purpose
of
awaiting
the
other
election
returns
from
other
polling
places
within
its
jurisdiction.
Each
time
the
board
adjourns,
it
shall
make
a
total
of
all
the
votes
canvassed
so
far
for
each
candidate
for
each
office,
furnishing
the
Commission
in
Manila
by
the
fastest
means
of
communication
a
certified
copy
thereof,
and
making
available
the
data
contained
therein
to
the
mass
media
and
other
interested
parties.
As
soon
as
the
other
election
returns
are
delivered,
the
board
shall
immediately
resume
canvassing
until
all
the
returns
have
been
canvassed.
The
respective
board
of
canvassers
shall
prepare
a
certificate
of
canvass
duly
signed
and
affixed
with
the
imprint
of
the
thumb
of
the
right
hand
of
each
member,
supported
by
a
statement
of
the
votes
and
received
by
each
candidate
in
each
polling
place
and,
on
the
basis
thereof,
shall
proclaim
as
elected
the
candidates
who
obtained
the
highest
number
of
votes
cast
in
the
province,
city,
municipality
or
barangay.
Failure
to
comply
with
this
requirement
shall
constitute
an
election
offense.
Subject
to
reasonable
exceptions
the
board
of
canvassers
must
complete
their
canvass
within
thirty-six
hours
in
municipalities,
forty-
eight
hours
in
cities
and
seventy-two
hours
in
provinces.
Violation
hereof
shall
be
an
election
offense
punishable
under
Section
264
hereof.
With
respect
to
the
election
for
President
and
Vice-President
the
provincial
and
city
boards
of
canvassers
shall
prepare
in
quintuplicate
a
certificate
of
canvass
supported
by
a
statement
of
votes
received
by
each
candidate
in
each
polling
place
and
transmit
the
first
copy
thereof
to
the
Speaker
of
the
Batasang
Pambansa.
The
second
copy
shall
be
transmitted
to
the
Commission,
the
third
copy
shall
be
kept
by
the
provincial
election
supervisor
or
city
election
registrar;
the
fourth
and
the
fifth
copies
of
each
of
the
two
accredited
political
parties.
(Sec.
169,
1978
EC)
SEC.
233.
When
the
election
returns
are
delayed,
lost
or
destroyed.In
case
its
copy
of
the
election
returns
is
missing,
the
board
of
canvassers
shall,
by
messenger
or
otherwise,
obtain
such
missing
election
returns
from
the
board
of
election
inspectors
concerned,
or
if
said
returns
have
been
lost
or
destroyed,
the
board
of
canvassers,
upon
prior
authority
of
the
Commission,
may
use
any
of
the
authentic
copies
of
said
election
returns
or
a
certified
copy
of
said
election
returns
issued
by
the
Commission,
and
forthwith
direct
its
representative
to
investigate
the
case
and
immediately
report
the
matter
to
the
Commission.
The
board
of
canvassers
notwithstanding
the
fact
that
not
all
the
election
returns
have
been
received
by
it,
may
terminate
the
canvass
and
proclaim
the
candidates
elected
on
the
basis
of
the
available
election
returns
if
the
missing
election
returns
will
not
affect
the
result
of
the
election.
(Sec.
171,
1978
EC)
SEC
234.
Material
defects
in
the
election
returns.
If
it
should
clearly
appear
that
some
requisites
in
form
or
date
have
been
omitted
in
the
election
returns,
the
board
of
canvassers
shall
call
for
all
the
members
of
the
board
of
election
inspectors
concerned
by
the
most
expeditious
means,
for
the
same
board
to
effect
the
correction:
Provided,
That
in
case
of
the
omission
in
the
election
returns
of
the
name
of
any
candidate
and/or
his
corresponding
votes,
the
board
of
canvassers
shall
require
the
board
of
election
inspectors
concerned
to
complete
the
necessary
data
in
the
election
returns
and
affix
therein
their
initials:
Provided,
further,
that
if
the
votes
omitted
in
the
returns
can
not
be
ascertained
by
other
means
except
by
recounting
the
ballots,
the
Commission,
after
satisfying
itself
that
the
identity
and
integrity
of
the
ballot
box
have
not
been
violated,
shall
order
the
board
of
election
inspectors
to
open
the
ballot
box,
and,
also
after
satisfying
itself
that
the
integrity
of
the
ballots
therein
has
been
duly
preserved,
order
the
board
of
election
inspectors
to
count
the
votes
for
the
candidate
whose
votes
have
been
omitted
with
notice
thereof
to
all
candidates
for
the
position
involved
and
thereafter
complete
the
returns.
The
right
of
a
candidate
to
avail
of
this
provision
shall
not
be
lost
or
affected
by
the
fact
that
an
election
protest
is
subsequently
filed
by
any
of
the
candidates.
(Sec.
172,
1978
EC)
SEC.
235.
When
election
returns
appear
to
be
tampered
with
or
falsified.
If
the
election
returns
submitted
to
the
board
of
canvassers
appear
to
be
tampered
with,
altered
or
falsified
after
they
have
left
the
hands
of
the
board
of
election
inspectors,
or
otherwise
not
authentic,
or
were
prepared
by
the
board
of
election
inspectors
under
duress,
force,
intimidation,
or
prepared
by
persons
other
than
the
member
of
the
board
of
election
inspectors,
the
board
of
canvassers
shall
use
the
other
copies
of
said
election
returns
and,
if
necessary,
the
copy
inside
the
ballot
box
which
upon
previous
authority
given
by
the
Commission
may
be
retrieved
in
accordance
with
Section
220
hereof.
If
the
other
copies
of
the
returns
are
likewise
tampered
with,
altered,
falsified,
not
authentic,
prepared
under
duress,
force,
intimidation,
or
prepared
by
persons
other
than
the
members
of
the
board
of
election
inspectors,
the
board
of
canvassers
or
any
candidate
affected
shall
bring
the
matter
to
the
attention
of
the
Commission.
The
Commission
shall
then,
after
giving
notice
to
all
candidates
concerned
and
after
satisfying
itself
that
nothing
in
the
ballot
box
indicate
that
its
identity
and
integrity
have
been
violated,
order
the
opening
of
the
ballot
box
and,
likewise
after
satisfying
itself
that
the
integrity
of
the
ballots
therein
has
been
duly
preserved
shall
order
the
board
of
election
inspectors
to
recount
the
votes
of
the
candidates
affected
and
prepare
a
new
return
which
shall
then
be
used
by
the
board
of
canvassers
as
basis
of
the
canvass.
(Sec.
173,
1978
EC)
SEC.
236.
Discrepancies
in
election
returns.
In
case
it
appears
to
the
board
of
canvassers
that
there
exists
discrepancies
in
the
other
authentic
copies
of
the
election
returns
from
a
polling
place
or
discrepancies
in
the
votes
of
any
candidate
in
words
and
figures
in
the
same
return,
and
in
either
case
the
difference
affects
the
results
of
the
election,
the
Commission,
upon
motion
of
the
board
of
canvassers
or
any
candidate
affected
and
after
due
notice
to
all
candidate
concerned,
shall
proceed
summarily
to
determine
whether
the
integrity
of
the
ballot
box
had
been
preserved,
and
once
satisfied
thereof
shall
order
the
opening
of
the
ballot
box
to
recount
the
votes
cast
in
the
polling
place
solely
for
the
purpose
of
determining
the
true
result
of
the
count
of
votes
of
the
candidates
concerned.
(Sec.
174,
1978
EC)
SEC.
238.
Canvass
of
remaining
or
unquestioned
returns
to
continue.
In
cases
under
Sections
233,
234,
235,
and
236
hereof,
the
board
of
canvassers
shall
continue
the
canvass
of
the
remaining
or
unquestioned
election
returns.
If,
after
the
canvass
of
all
the
said
returns,
it
should
be
determined
that
the
returns
which
have
been
set
aside
will
affect
the
result
of
the
election,
no
proclamation
shall
be
made
except
upon
orders
of
the
Commission
after
due
notice
and
hearing.
Any
proclamation
made
in
violation
hereof
shall
be
null
and
void.
(New)
11.Bashier
vs.
Commission
on
Election,
43
SCRA
238.
12.Bocobo
vs.
COMELEC,
191
SCRA
576.
13.Section
4,
Article
IX-C,
1987
Constitution.
14.Gador
vs.
Commission
on
Elections,
95
SCRA
431.
15.Section
4.
Periods
for
filing
certificate
of
candidacy
and
petition
for
registration
and/or
manifestation
to
participate
under
the
party-list
system.
The
certificate
of
candidacy
and
petition
for
registration
and/or
manifestation
to
participate
under
the
party-list
system
shall
be
filed
as
follows:
(a)
.
.
.
.
(b)
For
Member
of
the
House
of
Representatives,
provincial,
city
or
Municipal
positions
in
areas
other
than
the
ARMM,
starting
January
11,
1998
up
to
midnight
of
March
27,
1998.
(c)
.
.
.
16.Section
11.
Substitute
candidate
in
case
of
death,
disqualification
or
withdrawal
of
another.
If
after
the
last
day
for
the
filing
of
certificates
of
candidacy,
an
official
candidate
of
a
registered
political
party
dies,
withdraws
or
is
disqualified
for
any
cause,
he
may
be
substituted
by
a
candidate
belonging
to,
and
nominated
by,
the
same
political
party.
No
substitution
shall
be
allowed
for
an
independent
candidate,
nor
for
an
official
party
candidate
who
withdraws
his
candidacy
on
April
04,
1998,
and
thereafter
(thirty-seven
calendar
days
before
the
elections).
The
substitute
candidate
nominated
by
the
political
party
concerned
may
file
his
certificate
of
candidacy
as
herein
provided
for
the
office
affected
not
later
than
mid-day
of
the
day
of
the
election.
If
the
death
or
disqualification
should
occur
between
the
day
before
the
election
and
mid-day
of
election
day,
the
substitute
candidate
may
file
the
certificate
with
any
board
of
election
inspectors
in
the
political
subdivision
where
he
is
a
candidate,
or
in
the
case
of
candidates
for
President,
Vice-President
or
Senator
with
the
Law
Department
of
the
Commission
on
Elections
in
Manila.
No
person
who
has
Withdrawn
his
candidacy
for
a
position
shall
be
eligible
as
substitute
for
any
other
position.
17.See
note
10.
18.254
SCRA
514.
19.SEC.
44.
Permanent
Vacancies
in
the
Offices
of
the
Governor,
Vice-Governor,
Mayor,
and
Vice-Mayor.
(a)
If
a
permanent
vacancy
occurs
in
the
office
of
the
governor
or
mayor,
the
vice-governor
or
vice-mayor
concerned
shall
become
the
governor
or
mayor.
If
a
permanent
vacancy
occurs
in
the
offices
of
the
governor,
vice-governor,
mayor
or
vice-mayor,
the
highest
ranking
sanggunian
member
or,
in
case
of
his
permanent
inability,
the
second
highest
ranking
sanggunianmember,
shall
become
the
governor,
vice-governor,
mayor
or
vice-mayor,
as
the
case
may
be.
Subsequent
vacancies
in
the
said
office
shall
be
filled
automatically
by
the
other
sanggunian
members
according
to
their
ranking
as
defined
herein.
(b)
.
.
.
(c)
.
.
.
(d)
.
.
.
xxx
xxx
xxx."
|||
(Recabo,
Jr.
v.
COMELEC,
G.R.
No.
134293,
[June
21,
1999],
368
PHIL
277-296)
EN
BANC
[G.R.
No.
96817.
June
25,
1991.]
AGUSTIN
B.
DOCENA,
petitioner,
vs.
THE
SANGGUNIANG
PANLALAWIGAN
OF
EASTERN
SAMAR,
GOVERNOR
LUTGARDO
B.
BARBO,
VICE
GOVERNOR
CAMILO
A.
CAMENFORTE,
BOARD
MEMBERS
MARCOS
ALIDO,
NONATO
GERNA,
ISMAEL
KHO,
MARCELINO
C.
LIBANAN,
NICOLAS
PIMENTEL,
GENEROSO
YU
and
ATTY.
SOCRATES
B.
ALAR,
respondents.
Zaldy
B.
Docena
for
petitioner.
D
E
C
I
S
I
O
N
CRUZ,
J
p:
Two
persons
are
claiming
the
same
position
in
the
Sangguniang
Panlalawigan
of
Eastern
Samar
by
virtue
of
separate
appointments
thereto
extended
to
them
by
the
same
authority.
The
first
appointment
was
replaced
by
the
second
appointment,
which
was
subsequently
withdrawn
to
reinstate
the
first
appointment,
but
this
was
later
itself
recalled
in
favor
of
the
second
appointment.
To
add
to
the
confusion,
the
Sangguniang
Panlalawigan
has
joined
the
fray
and
taken
it
upon
itself
to
decide
who
as
between
the
two
claimants
is
entitled
to
the
office.
The
case
arose
when
Luis
B.
Capito,
who
had
been
elected
to
and
was
serving
as
a
member
of
the
Sangguniang
Panlalawigan
of
Eastern
Samar
(SPES),
died
in
office
and
petitioner
Agustin
B.
Docena
was
appointed
to
succeed
him.
The
appointment
was
issued
on
November
19,
1990,
1
by
Secretary
Luis
T.
Santos
of
the
Department
of
Local
Government
and
read
in
full
as
follows:
Republic
of
the
Philippines
Department
of
Local
Government
PNCC
Bldg.,
EDSA
Corner
Reliance
St.,
Mandaluyong,
Metro
Manila
OFFICE
OF
THE
SECRETARY
November
19,
1990
S
i
r:
Pursuant
to
the
provisions
of
existing
laws,
you
are
hereby
appointed
MEMBER
OF
THE
SANGGUNIANG
PANLALAWIGAN,
PROVINCE
OF
EASTERN
SAMAR.
By
virtue
hereof,
you
may
qualify
and
enter
upon
the
performance
of
the
duties
of
the
office,
furnishing
this
Office
and
the
Civil
Service
Commission
copies
of
your
oath
of
office.
Very
truly
yours,
By
Authority
of
the
President.
LUIS
T.
SANTOS
Secretary
Mr.
AGUSTIN
B.
DOCENA
Thru:
The
Honorable
Governor
Province
of
Eastern
Samar
Pursuant
thereto,
the
petitioner
took
his
oath
of
office
before
Speaker
Ramon
V.
Mitra
of
the
House
of
Representatives
on
November
22,
1990,
2
and
assumed
office
as
member
of
the
SPES
on
November
26,
1990.
3
The
record
does
not
show
why,
but
on
November
27,
1990,
private
respondent
Socrates
B.
Alar
was
appointed,
also
by
Secretary
Luis
T.
Santos,
to
the
position
already
occupied
by
Docena.
4
The
appointment
read
in
full
as
follows:
Republic
of
the
Philippines
Department
of
Local
Government
PNCC
Bldg.,
EDSA
Corner
Reliance
St.,
Mandaluyong,
Metro
Manila
OFFICE
OF
THE
SECRETARY.
November
27,
1990
Sir:
Pursuant
to
the
provisions
of
existing
laws,
you
are
hereby
appointed
MEMBER
OF
THE
SANGGUNIANG
PANLALAWIGAN,
PROVINCE
OF
EASTERN
SAMAR.
By
virtue
hereof,
you
may
qualify
and
enter
upon
the
performance
of
the
duties
of
the
office,
furnishing
this
Office
and
the
Civil
Service
Commission
with
copies
of
your
oath
of
office.
Very
truly
yours,
By
Authority
of
the
President.
LUIS
T.
SANTOS
Secretary
Atty.
SOCRATES
ALAR
Thru:
The
Honorable
Governor
Eastern
Samar
On
December
18,
1990,
the
SPES
passed
Resolution
No.
75
5
recognizing
Alar
rather
than
Docena
as
the
legitimate
successor
of
the
late
Board
Member
Capito.
The
following
day,
the
SPES
was
in
effect
reversed
by
Secretary
Santos
when
he
addressed
the
following
letter
to
Alar:
6
Republic
of
the
Philippines
Department
of
Local
Government
PNCC
Bldg.,
EDSA
Corner
Reliance
St.,
Mandaluyong,
Metro
Manila
OFFICE
OF
THE
SECRETARY
December
19,
1990
Mr.
Socrates
Alar
Borongan,
Eastern
Samar
Dear
Mr.
Alar:
It
appearing
from
perusal
of
records
that
an
appointment
dated
November
19,
1990
was
already
issued
to
Mr.
AGUSTIN
DOCENA
as
member
of
the
Sangguniang
Panlalawigan
of
Eastern
Samar,
vice:
Luis
Capito,
the
appointment
issued
to
you
dated
November
27,
1990
as
member
of
the
same
sanggunian,
is
hereby
recalled
effective
the
date
of
issue.
Please
be
guided
accordingly.
Very
truly
yours,
LUIS
T.
SANTOS
Secretary
cc:
The
Honorable
Governor
Borongan,
Eastern
Samar.
The
Sangguniang
Panlalawigan
Borongan,
Eastern
Samar.
Mr.
Agustin
Docena
Borongan,
Eastern
Samar
This
action
was
affirmed
in
a
First
Indorsement
dated
January
4,
1991,
signed
by
Head
Executive
Assistant
Arturo
V.
Agundo
of
the
Department
of
Local
Government,
7
in
which
he
declared
"by
authority
of
the
Secretary"
that:
1.
Records
show
that
the
Secretary
has
appointed
Mr.
Agustin
B.
Docena
as
Sangguniang
Panlalawigan
Member
as
of
November
19,
1990;
the
Secretary
has
extended
another
appointment
to
the
same
post
in
favor
of
Atty.
Socrates
Alar
on
November
27,
1990;
the
Secretary,
on
December
19,
1990,
has
recalled
the
appointment
of
Atty.
Socrates
Alar
on
the
basis
of
the
earlier
appointment
extended
in
favor
of
Mr.
Docena.
cdll
In
view
of
the
foregoing,
the
appointment
of
Mr.
Agustin
Docena
stands
and
should
be
recognized.
The
reaction
of
the
SPES
was
to
pass
Resolution
No.
1
dated
January
8,
1991,
8
where
it
reiterated
its
previous
recognition
of
Alar
and
declared
that
"the
recall
order
issued
by
Secretary
Santos,
dated
December
19,
1990,
recalling
the
appointment
of
Atty.
Alar
has
no
legal
basis
in
fact
and
in
law
and
issued
to
fit
his
whimsical,
capricious
and
wishy-washy
desires
to
the
detriment
of
decency
and
due
process
of
law."
On
the
same
date,
Provincial
Prosecutor
Dario
S.
Labrador
had
rendered
an
opinion
that
the
recall
order
of
Secretary
Santos
was
"void
ab
initio"
because
Alar's
right
to
the
office
"had
become
vested."
9
It
is
not
clear
if
Secretary
Santos
agreed
with
these
views,
but
at
any
rate
he
issued
on
February
20,
1991,
another
recall
order,
10
this
time
addressed
to
Docena,
reading
in
full
as
follows:
Republic
of
the
Philippines
Department
of
Local
Government
PNCC
Bldg.,
EDSA
Corner
Reliance
St.,
Mandaluyong,
Metro
Manila
OFFICE
OF
THE
SECRETARY
February
20,
1991
MEMORANDUM
TO:
MR.
AGUSTIN
DOCENA
second
appointment
on
December
19,
1990,
was
null
and
void
ab
initio
for
lack
of
previous
hearing.
Curiously,
they
do
not
have
the
same
view
of
the
recall
of
Docena's
appointment
on
February
20,
1991,
which
was
also
issued
without
hearing.
From
the
tenor
of
the
appointment
extended
to
Docena
on
November
19,
1990,
there
is
no
question
that
it
was
intended
to
be
permanent,
to
fill
the
permanent
vacancy
caused
by
Capito's
death.
As
such,
it
was
to
be
valid
for
the
unexpired
portion
of
the
term
of
the
deceased
member,
who
was
entitled
to
serve
"until
noon
of
June
30,1992,"
in
accordance
with
Article
XVIII,
Section
2,
of
the
Constitution.
The
said
appointment
had
been
accepted
by
Docena,
who
had
in
fact
already
assumed
office
as
member
of
the
SPES,
as
per
certification
of
the
Provincial
Secretary.
11
For
all
legal
intents
and
purposes,
the
petitioner's
appointment
had
already
become
complete
and
enforceable
at
the
time
it
was
supposed
to
have
been
"superseded"
by
the
appointment
in
favor
of
Alar.
The
respondents
are
ambivalent
about
the
power
of
the
Secretary
of
Local
Government
to
recall
his
appointments.
They
described
the
appointment
as
"whimsical,
capricious
and
wishy-washy"
but
they
had
no
similar
complaints
about
the
recall
of
Docena's
appointment
although
also
apparently
indecisive.
On
the
contrary,
they
maintained
a
deep
silence
about
this
other
recall
and
insisted
simply
that
the
subsequent
appointment
of
Alar
had
invalidated
the
earlier
appointment
of
Docena.
It
is
noteworthy
that
absolutely
no
reason
was
given
for
the
recall
of
Docena's
appointment
(or
for
that
matter,
the
recall
of
Alar's
appointment).
It
appears
that
after
appointing
Docena
and
later
twice
sustaining
his
title
to
the
office,
Secretary
Santos
simply
had
a
change
of
heart
and
decided
to
award
the
position
to
Alar.
LLpr
This
is
not
the
way
things
are
done
in
a
democracy.
Docena's
appointment
having
been
issued
and
accepted
earlier,
and
the
petitioner
having
already
assumed
office,
he
could
not
thereafter
be
just
recalled
and
replaced
to
accommodate
Alar.
The
appointment
was
permanent
in
nature,
and
for
the
unexpired
portion
of
the
deceased
predecessor's
term.
Docena
had
already
acquired
security
of
tenure
in
the
position
and
could
be
removed
therefrom
only
for
any
of
the
causes,
and
conformably
to
the
procedure,
prescribed
by
the
Local
Government
Code.
12
These
requirements
could
not
be
circumvented
by
the
simple
process
of
recalling
his
appointment.
Whatever
gave
the
SPES
the
impression
that
the
questioned
appointments
were
revocable
at
will
can
only
be
left
to
conjecture;
what
is
certain
is
that
it
was
not
based
on
careful
legal
study.
The
Provincial
Prosecutor's
opinion
that
the
office
had
"become
vested"
in
Alar
suffers
from
the
same
flaw
and
a
lack
of
understanding
of
the
nature
of
a
public
office.
Political
rather
than
legal
considerations
seem
to
have
influenced
the
action
of
the
provincial
government
in
rejecting
the
petitioner's
claim
despite
its
obvious
merit.
The
respondents
also
argue
that
the
petitioner
should
have
sought
to
enforce
his
claimed
right
in
a
petition
not
for
mandamus
but
for
quo
warranto,
as
his
purpose
is
to
challenge
Alar's
title
to
the
disputed
office.
That
is
only
secondary
in
this
case.
The
real
purpose
of
the
present
petition
is
to
compel
the
respondent
SPES
to
recognize
and
admit
Docena
as
a
member
of
the
body
by
virtue
of
a
valid
appointment
extended
to
him
by
the
Secretary
of
Local
Government.
Mandamus
is
employed
to
compel
the
performance
of
a
ministerial
duty
to
which
the
petitioner
is
entitled.
In
arguing
that
the
recognition
and
admission
of
the
petitioner
is
not
a
ministerial
duty,
the
respondents
are
asserting
the
discretion
to
review,
and
if
they
so
decide,
reject,
the
Secretary's
appointment.
They
have
no
such
authority.
Faced
with
a
strictly
legal
question,
they
had
no
right
and
competence
to
resolve
it
in
their
discretion.
What
they
should
have
done
was
reserve
their
judgment
on
the
matter,
leaving
it
to
the
courts
of
justice
to
decide
which
of
the
conflicting
claims
should
be
upheld.
As
a
local
legislative
body
subject
to
the
general
supervision
of
the
President
of
the
Philippines,
the
SPES
had
no
discretion
to
rule
on
the
validity
of
the
decisions
of
the
Secretary
of
Local
Government
acting
as
her
alter
ego.
dctai
Even
assuming
that
the
proper
remedy
is
a
petition
for
quo
warranto,
the
Court
may
in
its
own
discretion
consider
the
present
petition
as
such
and
deal
with
it
accordingly.
We
find
that
as
a
petition
for
quo
warranto,
it
complies
with
the
prescribed
requirements,
to
wit,
that
it
be
filed
on
time
and
by
a
proper
party
asserting
title
to
the
office
also
claimed
by
the
respondent.
Acting
thereon,
we
hold
that
Docena
has
proved
his
right
to
the
disputed
office
and
could
not
be
legally
replaced
by
Alar.
The
Court
will
make
no
award
of
damages,
there
being
no
sufficient
proof
to
overcome
the
presumption
that
the
respondents
have
acted
in
good
faith
albeit
erroneously.
Nevertheless,
the
petitioner
is
entitled
to
the
payment
of
the
salaries
and
other
benefits
appurtenant
to
the
office
of
a
Member
of
the
Sangguniang
Panlalawigan
of
Eastern
Samar,
from
the
time
of
his
assumption
of
office
and
until
he
is
actually
admitted
or
reinstated.
LLpr
WHEREFORE,
the
petition
is
GRANTED.
The
petitioner
is
DECLARED
the
lawfully
appointed
member
of
the
Sangguniang
Panlalawigan
of
Eastern
Samar,
which
is
hereby
DIRECTED
to
admit
or
reinstate
him
as
such.
The
temporary
restraining
order
dated
January
31,
1991,
is
LIFTED.
No
costs.
SO
ORDERED.
Fernan,
C.J.,
Narvasa,
Melencio-Herrera,
Gutierrez,
Jr.,
Paras,
Feliciano,
Gancayco,
Padilla,
Bidin,
Grio-Aquino,
Medialdea,
Regalado
and
Davide,
Jr.,
JJ.,
concur.
Sarmiento,
J.,
is
on
leave.
Footnotes
1.Rollo,
p.
10.
2.Ibid.,
p.
11.
3.Id.,
p.
11.
4.id.,
p.
12.
5.id.,
p.
14.
6.id.,
p.
15.
7.id.,
p.
16.
8.id.,
p.
17.
9.Comment
of
Private
Respondent,
Annex
2.
10.Ibid.,
Annex
1.
11.Rollo,
p.
12.
12.Sections
60,
61,
61,
B.P.
337.
|||
(Docena
v.
Sangguniang
Panlalawigan
of
Eastern
Samar,
G.R.
No.
96817,
[June
25,
1991])