Adormeo V Comelec

ADORMEO v.
COMELEC (2002)
Petition: Petition for certiorari with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/ or
temporary restraining order
Petitioner: Raymundo M. Adormeo
Respondents: Ramon Y. Talaga Jr.
Ponencia: Quisumbing, J.
DOCTRINE:
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. 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 (cited in Borja Jr. vs COMELEC).
The two conditions for the application of the disqualification must concur: a) 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 (cited
Lonzanida vs. COMELEC).
FACTS:
1.
2.
Raymundo Adormeo and Ramon Talaga Jr. were the only candidates who filed
their certificates of candidacy for mayor of Lucena City in the May 14,
2001 elections. Talaga Jr. was then the incumbent mayor.
Talaga, Jr. was elected mayor in May 1992 (served full term) then got re-elected
in 1995-1998. However, in the 1998 election, he lost to Bernard G. Tagarao.
3.
In the recall election of May 12, 2000, he again won and served the unexpired
term of Tagarao until June 30, 2001.
4.
On March 2, 2001, Adormeo filed with the Office of the Provincial Election
Supervisor, Lucena City a Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel Certificate of
Candidacy and/or Disqualification of Ramon Y. Talaga, Jr., on the ground that
Talaga Jr. was elected and had served as city mayor for three (3) consecutive
terms as follows: (1) May 1992 election served full term; (2) May 1995-1998
election - served full term; (3) May 12, 2000 recall election - served only the
unexpired term of Tagarao. This is in violation of Art. 10 Sec. 8 of the 1987
Constitution.
5.
6.
On March 9, 2001, Talaga Jr. responded that he was not elected City Mayor for 3
consecutive terms but only for 2 consecutive terms. He pointed to his defeat in
the 1998 election by Tagarao. Because of his defeat the consecutiveness of his
years as mayor was interrupted, and thus his mayorship was not for three
consecutive terms of 3 years each. Respondent added that his service from May
12, 2001 until June 30, 2001 for 13 months and 18 days was not a full term.
On April 20, 2001, the COMELEC disqualified Ramon Y. Talaga, Jr. for the
position of city mayor on the ground that he had already served three (3)
consecutive terms, and his CoC was ordered withdrawn and/or cancelled.
7.
On April 27, 2001, private respondent filed an MR = recall recall election was not
a regular election, but a separate special election specifically to remove
incompetent local officials.
8.
On May 3, 2001, petitioner filed his opposition to private respondents MR stating

therein that serving the unexpired term of office (of Tagarao) is considered as one
(1) term. Petitioner further contended that Article 8 of the Constitution speaks of
term and does not mention tenure.
9.
On May 9, 2001, the COMELEC en banc ruled in favor of private respondent

Ramon Y. Talaga Jr. It reversed the First Divisions ruling and held that 1)
respondent was not elected for three (3) consecutive terms because he did not
win in the May 11, 1998 elections; 2) that he was installed only as mayor by
reason of his victory in the recall elections; 3) that his victory in the recall
elections was not considered a term of office and is not included in the 3-term
disqualification rule, and 4) that he did not fully serve the three (3) consecutive
terms, and his loss in the May 11, 1998 elections is considered an interruption in
the continuity of his service as Mayor of Lucena City.
10. On May 19, 2001, after canvassing, Talaga Jr. was proclaimed as the duly
elected Mayor of Lucena City.
ISSUE: Whether or not Talaga Jr. had already served 3 consecutive terms in office
and is therefore disqualified to run for mayor of Lucena City in the May 14, 2001
elections
PROVISION:
Article 10 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. (Also stated in LGC Sec 43)
RATIO/HELD: No, Talaga Jr. has not served 3 consecutive terms; still qualified to run
for mayor
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. 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 (cited in Borja Jr. vs COMELEC).
The two conditions for the application of the disqualification must concur: a) 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 (cited
Lonzanida vs. COMELEC).
COMELECs ruling that private respondent was not elected for three (3) consecutive
terms should be upheld. The continuity of his mayorship was disrupted by his defeat
in the 1998 elections, not by voluntary renunciation.
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.
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.
DISPOSITION: Instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. The resolution of public

respondent Commission on Elections dated May 9, 2001, in Comelec SPA No.
01-055 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

Adormeo V Comelec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adormeo V Comelec

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adormeo V Comelec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADORMEO v.

On May 3, 2001, petitioner filed his opposition to private respondents MR stating

On May 9, 2001, the COMELEC en banc ruled in favor of private respondent

DISPOSITION: Instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. The resolution of public

You might also like