**Facts:**
1. **Election and Succession:**
– Jose T. Capco, Jr. was elected as the Vice-Mayor of Pateros on January 18, 1988, scheduled to serve until June 30, 1992.
– On September 2, 1989, Capco became the Mayor of Pateros by operation of law following the death of Mayor Cesar Borja.
2. **Mayoral Elections:**
– Capco ran and was elected Mayor in the May 11, 1992 elections, serving until June 30, 1995.
– He was re-elected in May 8, 1995, for another term until June 30, 1998.
3. **Candidacy for a Fourth Consecutive Term:**
– On March 27, 1998, Capco filed a certificate of candidacy for Mayor for the May 11, 1998 elections.
– Benjamin U. Borja, Jr., a rival candidate, sought Capco’s disqualification, arguing Capco had already served three consecutive terms.
4. **COMELEC Decision:**
– The Second Division of the Commission on Elections initially disqualified Capco.
– Upon Capco’s appeal, the COMELEC en banc reversed the decision, voting 5-2 in favor of Capco’s eligibility, asserting that Capco’s succession to mayorship in 1989 did not constitute an elected term.
5. **Election Result and Appeal:**
– Capco won the May 11, 1998 elections with 16,558 votes against Borja’s 7,773 votes.
– Borja petitioned for certiorari to the Supreme Court to contest the COMELEC’s decision.
**Issues:**
The Supreme Court had to resolve whether Capco, by successively holding the position of Mayor first by succession and then by election twice, was in violation of the three-term limit set under Article X, Section 8 of the Constitution and Section 43(b) of the Local Government Code.
**Court’s Decision:**
1. **Interpretation of “Term” for Electoral Purposes:**
– The Court established that the term referred to in both the Constitution and Local Government Code pertains to the terms to which an official was elected.
– Capco’s assumption to mayorship via succession did not count as a term he was elected for, thus not counting towards the three-term limit.
2. **Preservation of People’s Choice:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized people’s freedom to elect competent leaders should not be unduly restricted by mechanical application of term limits.
– The Constitution aimed to limit the continuous electoral service to prevent abuse but also to protect the electorate’s freedom to choose.
3. **Ruling:**
– The Supreme Court dismissed Borja’s petition, affirming COMELEC’s resolution and Capco’s eligibility to serve another term.
**Doctrine:**
The Court reaffirmed the interpretation that elective term limits apply only to terms obtained by election, not by succession, to uphold electoral freedom and prevent monopolization of power.
**Class Notes:**
– **Constitutional Term Limits:** Applies only to positions and terms for which officials were elected. Elected terms count.
– **Succession vs. Election:** Succession by operation of law (e.g., due to predecessor’s death) doesn’t count as an elected term.
– **Freedom of Choice:** Voters retain the right to choose their leaders unless legally barred by a strict interpretation of term limits.
**Historical Background:**
This case was situated within the Philippine democratic system’s constitutional arrangement post-Marcos dictatorship. The 1987 Constitution aimed to prevent political dynasties and excessive concentration of power in a single officeholder while respecting electoral sovereignty. The nuances in duties and the nature of succession versus election indicated the flexibility the Constitution offers in promoting democratic values and electoral participation.
Leave a Reply