PNB, 38 SCRA 429)
99. Where must election cases involving city and
File complaints for violation of election laws
d.
Regulate the enjoyment or utilization of all franchises for the operation of transportation and other public utilities, media of communication..
98. Which court has jurisdiction over election cases involving municipal and barangay officials?
Election cases involving municipal official shall be filed before the RTC whose decision may be appealed to the COMELEC. Those involving barangay officials shall be filed with the MTC whose decision is likewise subject to appeal to the COMELEC whose decision in both instances is final and not appealable.
99. Where must election cases involving city and provincial officials be filed?
It must be filed with the COMELEC, not with the courts.
99-a. May the COMELEC EN BANC decide on Appeal the Decision of RTC Agoo, La Union, regarding the election protest involving candidates for Municipal mayor because the Division where the appeal was raffled could not decide it due to the inhibition of its members resulting in no quorum therein?
No. The COMELEC en banc could only decide Motions for Reconsideration from a Decision of a Division of the COMELEC.(SANDRA
ERIGUEL VS. COMELEC, February 26, 2010)
100. Does the President have discretion on the release of the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) for the Local Government Service Equalization Fund (LGSEF) and may she validly impose conditions for the release thereof?
No, local governments have fiscal autonomy under Art. X of the 1987 Constitution. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of PROVINCE OF BATANGAS VS.
HON. ALBERTO ROMULO, ET AL., May 27, 2004, automatic release of funds of Local Government Units, particularly the IRA, is mandated with no conditions imposed for its release. To allow the President to impose conditions for the release of the IRA amounts to control to local government units when the President’s power over local government units is confined to general supervision, not power of control as enunciated in Drilon vs.
Lim, 235 SCRA 135.
100-A. May the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources validly reverse and set aside the “small-scale mining permit” issued by a Provincial Governor without violating Section 4, Art. X of the Constitution which provides that the President shall have general supervision only, not control, over local governments?
Yes. Paragraph 1 of Section 2, Article XII (National Economy
In CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Prepared by: Atty. Larry D. Gacayan provides that “[t]he exploration,
development and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State “.
Moreover, paragraph 3 of Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution provides that “[t]he Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by Filipino citizens x x x.” Pursuant to Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, R.A. No. 7076 or the People's Small-Scale Mining Act of 1991, was enacted, establishing under Section 4 thereof a People's Small-Scale Mining Program to be implemented by the DENR Secretary in coordination with other concerned government agencies. (LEAGUE OF PROVINCES OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs. DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT and NATURAL RESOURCES and HON. ANGELO T.
REYES, in his capacity as Secretary of DENR, GR. No.
175368, APRIL 11, 2013)
101. What are the requirements for a valid change of residence for purposes of the requirement on “residence”
under the Local Government Code?
In the case of DUMPIT-MICHELENA VS. COMELEC, 475 SCRA 290, it was held that to validly effect a change of residence, there must be animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi. The intent to remain in the new domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of time, must be voluntary and the residence at the new domicile must be actual.
102. Is the 3-term limit of elected local officials applicable to a term acquired through succession?
No, the 3-term limit applies only if the official was DULY ELECTED
to the said position for three (3) consecutive terms, not by succession. (BENJAMIN BORJA VS.
COMELEC, and JOSE T. CAPCO, JR., G.R. No. 133495, September 3, 1998,
295 SCRA 157)
102-a. Montebon was elected Municipal Councilor of Tuburan, Cebu during the 1998, 2001 and 2004 elections. He was number councilor in the election of 2004. In 2005, the Vice Mayor died and he took over the said position by way of succession in accordance with the Local Government Code. May he validly run again for Municipal Councilor during the May, 2007 elections?
Yes, because there was
“INVOLUNTARY RENUNCIATION” of his 3rd terms. It was not voluntary which could have resulted in the counting of his election in 2004 as his 3rd term. He was forced by law to vacate his position as Municipal Councilor. (MONTEBON VS.
COMELEC, April 8, 2008)
102-b. Nicasio Bolos, Jr.
was elected Barangay Captain of Barangay Biking, Dauis, Bohol during the 1994, 1997 and 2002 Barangay elections. Without having completed his 3rd term, he ran for Municipal Councilor of Dauis, Bohol during the 2004 National and Local Elections and won. His term ended on June 30, 2007. Is he qualified to run for Barangay Captain of his barangay during the barangay elections of October, 2007?
In CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Prepared by: Atty. Larry D. Gacayan No more because he
was elected to three consecutive terms. His non-completion of his 3rd term WAS VOLUNTARY when her run for Municipal Councilor. (BOLOS, JR.
VS. COMELEC, March 17, 2009) 102-c. Hagedorn was elected and served for three (3) consecutive terms as Mayor of Puerto Princesa City but did not run during his supposed 4th term. However, after just a year in office of his successor, a recall election was held. May Hagedorn run in the recall elections without violating the 3-consecutive rule provision of the Constitution?
No. An elective official, who has served for three consecutive terms and who did not seek the elective position for what could be his fourth term, but later won in a recall election, had an interruption in the continuity of the official’s service. For, he had become in the interim, i.e., from the end of the 3rd term up to the recall election, a private citizen (Adormeo vs. COMELEC, February 4, 2002 and Socrates vs. COMELEC and Edward Hagedorn, , November 12, 2002).
102-D. For four (4) successive regular elections, namely, the 2001, 2004, 2007 and 2010 national and local elections, Abundo vied for the position of municipal mayor of Viga, Catanduanes. In both the 2001 and 2007 runs, he emerged and was proclaimed as the winning mayoralty candidate and fully served the corresponding terms as mayor. In the 2004 elections, however, the Viga municipal board of canvassers initially proclaimed as winner one Jose Torres (Torres),
who, in due time, performed the functions of the office of mayor.
Abundo protested Torres’ election and proclamation. Abundo was eventually declared the winner of the 2004 mayoralty electoral contest, paving the way for his assumption of office starting May 9, 2006 until the end of the 2004-2007 term on June 30, 2004-2007, or for a period of a little over one year and one month. May he validly run for the same position in the May, 2010 elections?
Yes. He has not served
3-consecutive terms. The
consecutiveness of what otherwise would have been Abundo’s three successive, continuous mayorship was effectively broken during the 2004-2007 term when he was initially deprived of title to, and was veritably disallowed to serve and occupy, an office to which he, after due proceedings, was eventually declared to have been the rightful choice of the electorate.
The three-term limit rule for elective local officials, a disqualification rule, is found in Section 8, Article X of the 1987 Constitution, which 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 fullterm for which he was elected. (Emphasis supplied.)
In CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Prepared by: Atty. Larry D. Gacayan To constitute a disqualification
to run for an elective local office pursuant to the aforequoted constitutional and statutory provisions, the following requisites must concur.
(1) that the official concerned has been elected for three
consecutive
terms in the same local government post; and (2) that he has fully served
three consecutive terms . (MAYOR ABELARDO ABUNDO., SR. VS. COMELEC & ERNESTO
VEGA, G.R. No. 201716, JANUARY 08, 2013)
102-e. He was elected for 3-consecutive terms as Municipal Mayor of Digos, Davao del Sur. Her served 9 years as such. Before the end of his 3rd term, Digos was converted into a component city.
May he run again for City Mayor?
No. The abolition of an elective local office due to the conversion of a municipality to a city does not, by itself, work to interrupt the incumbent official’s continuity of service. He is barred by the 3-consecutive rule.
(Latasa vs. COMELEC, December 10, 2003).
102-f. He was elected for 3-consecutive terms but was the subject of a preventive suspension by the Ombudsman for several months during one of his terms. Is he qualified for a 4th term?
No. Preventive suspension is not a term-interrupting event as the elective officer’s continued stay and entitlement to the office remain unaffected during the period of suspension, although he is barred from exercising the functions of his office
during this period (Aldovino, Jr. vs.
COMELEC, December 23, 2009).
102-g. A candidate for mayor was elected to 3-consecutive terms. In one of his terms 3 terms, however, he was proclaimed winner but he was ousted from office due to an election protest several months before the end of his term. May he run again for a “supposed” 4th term?
Yes. When a candidate is proclaimed as winner for an elective position and assumes office, his term is interrupted when he loses in an election protest and is ousted from office, thus disenabling him from serving what would otherwise be the unexpired portion of his term of office had the protest been dismissed. The break or interruption need not be for a full term of three years or for the major part of the 3-year term; an interruption for any length of time, provided the cause is involuntary, is sufficient to break the continuity of service. (Lonzanida vs. COMELEC, 311 SCRA 602 and Dizon vs.
COMELEC )
102-h. Mayor Morales was elected for 3 consecutive terms and had FULLY SERVED said 3 terms. However, in one of said terms, his opponent protested and was declared the real winner, not Morales. Unfortunately, said decision removing Morales from office became final only after he had fully served the same. May he run again for a “4th term”?
No more. The case of Lonzanida is not applicable because he was not able to serve the full term and his opponent took over the rest of one of his terms thus “disenabling” him to full serve 3 consecutive terms. When
In CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Prepared by: Atty. Larry D. Gacayan an official is defeated in an election
protest and said decision becomes final after said official had served the full term for said office, then his loss in the election contest does not constitute an interruption since he has managed to serve the term from start to finish. His full service, despite the defeat, should be counted in the application of term limits because the nullification of his proclamation came after the expiration of the term (Ong vs. COMELEC, January 23, 2006 and Rivera vs. COMELEC &
MARINO “BOKING “ MORALES,