Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 257 views

    Adormeo V COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    Tippy Dos Santos
    The Supreme Court ruled that Talaga was not disqualified from running for mayor in the 2001 elections. While Talaga had served two full terms from 1992 to 1998, his term was interrupted in 1998 when he lost the election to Tagarao. Serving the remainder of Tagarao's term after winning the recall election in 2000 did not constitute a third full term, but rather filled the unexpired term of Tagarao. Allowing Talaga to run for another term did not violate the three-consecutive term limit under the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Adormeo V COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    Tippy Dos Santos
    257 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that Talaga was not disqualified from running for mayor in the 2001 elections. While Talaga had served two full terms from 1992 to 1998, his term was interrupted in 1998 when he lost the election to Tagarao. Serving the remainder of Tagarao's term after winning the recall election in 2000 did not constitute a third full term, but rather filled the unexpired term of Tagarao. Allowing Talaga to run for another term did not violate the three-consecutive term limit under the Constitution.

    Original Title

    Adormeo v COMELEC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Talaga was not disqualified from running for mayor in the 2001 elections. While Talaga had served two full terms from 1992 to 1998, his term was interrupted in 1998 when he lost the election to Tagarao. Serving the remainder of Tagarao's term after winning the recall election in 2000 did not constitute a third full term, but rather filled the unexpired term of Tagarao. Allowing Talaga to run for another term did not violate the three-consecutive term limit under the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    257 views2 pages

    Adormeo V COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    Tippy Dos Santos
    The Supreme Court ruled that Talaga was not disqualified from running for mayor in the 2001 elections. While Talaga had served two full terms from 1992 to 1998, his term was interrupted in 1998 when he lost the election to Tagarao. Serving the remainder of Tagarao's term after winning the recall election in 2000 did not constitute a third full term, but rather filled the unexpired term of Tagarao. Allowing Talaga to run for another term did not violate the three-consecutive term limit under the Constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Adormeo v.

    COMELEC
    G.R. 147927 – February 4, 2002
    J. Quisumbing

    Topic: Elective officials – Term of office


    Doctrine: 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.

    Petitioner: Raymundo Adormeo


    Respondents: COMELEC and Ramon Talaga

    Case Summary: In the May 1991 elections. Talaga was elected and thereafter served 2 full terms until 1998. In the
    elections of 1998, he lost the elections to Bernard Tagarao. Within Tagarao’s term, a recall election was held and Talaga
    was declared to take over Tagarao’s position. He was to serve the remainder of Tagarao’s term until June 2001. In May of
    2001, Talaga and Adormeo again filed for candidacy for the position of city mayor. Adormeo claimed that Talaga was
    disqualified from running because had already served 3 consecutive terms, and that allowing him would be in contravention
    to the term limits provided by the Constitution for the position of city mayor.

    Issue: W/N Talaga’s service of the remainder of Tagarao’s term constituted a full term and therefor disqualifies him from
    running again? – NO

    The SC in this case held that when Tagarao won the 1998 elections, the terms of Talaga was thereby interrupted, putting a
    halt to his consecutive terms. This cannot be contemplated as 3 consecutive terms for it is clear that the two years that
    Tagarao served was not Talaga’s term. There is no violation of the Constitution by allowing Talaga to run again for another
    term of city mayor of Lucena City.

    Facts:
     May 14, 2001: Adormeo (Petitioner) and Talaga (Respondent) were the only candidates who filed their certificates
    of candidacy for Mayor of Lucena city  Talaga was the incumbent Mayor
    o Talaga was elected Mayor in May 1992  he served the full term; then again elected in 1995-1998
    o In 1998, he lost to Bernard Tagarao
     Recall election of May 2000, Talaga won again and served the unexpired term of Tagarao until
    June 30, 2001
     March 2, 2001: Adormeo filed a Petition to Dney Due Course or to Cancel Certificate of Candidacy and/or
    Disqualification of Talaga on the ground that the latter was elected and had served as city mayor for 3 consecutive
    terms
    o That such candidacy violated Section 9, Article X of the Constitution1
    o Talaga contended that he was not elected for 3 consecutive terms but only for 2  he pointed out that he
    was defeated in the 1998 elections by Tagarao; that this then interrupted his term. His service from May,
    2001 until June, 2001 for 13 months was not a full term in the contemplation of the law and the
    Constitution
     April 20, 2001: COMELEC found Talaga disqualified
    o Filed for MFR reiterating the same argument that he did not serve 3 consecutive terms  that 3
    consecutive terms means continuous service for 9 years; and that there were 2 years where Tagarao served
    as city mayor
     That is continuation of Tagarao’s mayorship cannot be counted as a full term, for he was called to
    serve after a recall election and not a regular election
     It was a separate special election specifically to remove incompetent local officials
     May 9, 2001: The COMELEC en banc ruled in favor of Talaga and reversed the First Division’s ruling

    Issues + Held:
    1. W/N the COMELEC committed GADALEJ in declaring Talaga qualified to run for Mayor in the May 2001 election
    – NO
    1
    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.
     Petitioner contends that Section 43 of the LGC disqualifies candidates who will have served for more than 3
    consecutive terms in the same position; and that voluntary renunciation ofsa 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
     SC: in the case of Lonzanida v. Comelec, this Court held that two conditions for the application of disqualification
    must concur:
    o (a) that the official concerned has been elected for 3 consecutive terms in the same local government post;
    and
    o (b) that he/she has fully served 3 consecutive terms
     Petitioner’s contention is untenable that Talaga’s running was in contravention of the Constitution
    o Petitioner quotes Fr. Bernas, a member of the Constitutional Commission  “if one is elected
    representative to serve the unexpired term of another, that unexpired term of another, that unexpired, no
    matter how short, will be considered one term for the purpose of computing the number of successive terms
    allowed.”
    o SC: this is pertinent only to members of the HOR. Unlike government officials, there is no recall election
    provided for members of Congress.
     Neither can Talaga’s victory in the recall election be deemed a violation of Section 8, Article X of
    the Constitution as a “voluntary renunciation” for clearly it is not
     Lonzanida v. Comelec “… 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 3-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.”

    Ruling: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED.

    You might also like