ATTY. VENANCIO Q. RIVERA III AND ATTY. NORMANDICK DE GUZMAN, PETITIONERS, VS. COMELEC AND MARINO “BOKING” MORALES, RESPONDENTS.

Rivera versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a consolidated disposition of two petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, both brought against the Commission on Elections and against Marino "Boking" Morales, the long-serving mayor of Mabalacat, Pampanga. The first petition, filed by Attorneys Venancio Rivera and Normandick de Guzman, attacks the resolution of the Commission on Elections En Banc that set aside the cancellation of Morales' certificate of candidacy. The second, filed by Anthony Dee, a rival mayoral candidate, attacks the resolutions dismissing his quo warranto case and his appeal. The case matters because it fixes the doctrine on the three-term limit for local elective officials: a proclamation later declared void does not erase a term actually served in full, and a disqualified candidate's votes are stray votes that cannot be transferred to the defeated rival.

Procedural History

On January 10, 2004, Attorneys Rivera and De Guzman filed with the Second Division of the Commission on Elections a petition to cancel Morales' certificate of candidacy. On May 6, 2004, the Second Division ruled that Morales was disqualified, having already served three consecutive terms, and cancelled his certificate. Morales moved for reconsideration with the Commission on Elections En Banc, which, on March 14, 2005, granted the motion, set aside the Second Division's resolution, and held that Morales' service for the second term was that of a de facto officer, so that his continuity of service was severed. That resolution is the subject of the first petition for certiorari.

Meanwhile, after Morales was proclaimed mayor for the term commencing July 1, 2004, Anthony Dee filed a petition for quo warranto with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Angeles City. The trial court dismissed the petition on November 22, 2004, holding that Morales had not served the three-term limit because he was not the duly elected mayor for the 1998 to 2001 term. Dee appealed to the Commission on Elections First Division, which dismissed the appeal on July 29, 2005. The Commission on Elections En Banc affirmed on November 8, 2005. Dee then filed the second petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court consolidated the two petitions because they rest on the same facts and issues.

Facts

Morales was elected mayor of Mabalacat for the term from July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1998. He ran again and was proclaimed winner for the term from July 1, 1998 to June 30, 2001. His proclamation was protested by Anthony Dee before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Angeles City, which in a decision dated April 2, 2001 declared the proclamation void and found Dee the duly elected mayor. That decision became final and executory on August 6, 2001. Morales also served a preventive suspension ordered by the Ombudsman from January 16, 1999 to July 15, 1999. Despite the protest, Morales assumed office and discharged the duties of mayor for the entire 1998 to 2001 term.

Morales was elected again for the term from July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2004. He then filed a certificate of candidacy for the May 2004 elections, seeking what would be a fourth consecutive term. It was this candidacy that prompted the petition to cancel his certificate on the ground that he had already served three consecutive terms.

Morales defended himself by claiming that he served the second term only as a caretaker or de facto officer, because his proclamation had been declared void and because he had been preventively suspended. The Commission on Elections En Banc accepted this reasoning, and the trial court and the Commission on Elections First Division likewise held that his service for the second term should not be counted.

Issues

• Whether or not Morales' service for the 1998 to 2001 term, despite his proclamation having been declared void, counts as a full term for purposes of the three-term limit.
• Whether or not Morales is disqualified from running for a fourth consecutive term as mayor of Mabalacat.
• Whether or not the votes cast for Morales, a disqualified candidate, should be counted, and who should serve the remaining portion of the 2004 to 2007 term.

Applicable Provisions

Section 8, Article X of the Constitution provides:

The term of the office of elected local officials shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms.

This is the constitutional anchor of the three-term limit that Morales is said to have violated.

Section 43 (b) of Republic Act Number 7160, the Local Government Code, provides:

No local official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms in the same position.

This statutory provision implements the constitutional limit and supplies the rule the Court applies to Morales.

Section 6 of Republic Act Number 6646 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.

This governs the effect of Morales' disqualification on the votes cast in his favor.

Section 44 of the Local Government Code provides:

If a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the governor or mayor, the vice-governor or the vice-mayor concerned shall become the governor or mayor.

This determines who fills the vacancy left by Morales' disqualification.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Morales' service for the 1998 to 2001 term counts as a full term. It relied on its earlier ruling in Ong versus Alegre, which presented identical facts: a candidate whose proclamation was later declared void but who served the entire term. The Court ruled that such assumption of office constitutes service for the full term and should be counted. The Court distinguished Lonzanida versus Commission on Elections, where the official was ordered to vacate before the term expired, producing an effective interruption of service. Here, Morales was never unseated during the term; he served from start to finish. The Court stressed that whether as caretaker or de facto officer, he exercised the powers and enjoyed the privileges of the office.

On the second issue, the Court held that Morales is disqualified from running for a fourth consecutive term. Having been elected and having served three consecutive terms, he fell squarely within the constitutional and statutory prohibition. The Court noted that he had been mayor continuously since July 1, 1995, and that by June 30, 2007 he would have served twelve continuous years. It recalled the purpose of the limit, as explained in Latasa versus Commission on Elections: to prevent the excessive accumulation of power and to require a rest period during which the official steps down from office.

On the third issue, the Court held that Morales cannot be considered a candidate in the May 2004 elections, so the votes cast for him should not be counted and must be considered stray votes. Following Labo versus Commission on Elections, the Court ruled that the second-place candidate cannot be proclaimed as a substitute winner. A permanent vacancy therefore occurred, to be filled by the vice-mayor in accordance with Section 44 of the Local Government Code. The quo warranto petition became moot because Morales was already disqualified from continuing to serve.

Doctrine

A candidate who is elected, assumes office, and serves the entire term is deemed to have served a full term for purposes of the three-term limit, even if his proclamation is later declared void in an election protest. What matters is whether there was an effective interruption of service; a mere declaration of nullity after the term has been fully served does not erase the term. The three-term limit requires two conditions: that the official was elected for three consecutive terms in the same position, and that he fully served those three consecutive terms. A disqualified candidate's votes are stray votes and cannot be counted, and the defeated rival cannot be proclaimed in his place; the vacancy is filled by the vice-mayor.

Disposition

The petition in the first case was granted, Morales' certificate of candidacy was cancelled, and the vice-mayor elect of Mabalacat was declared mayor for the remaining duration of the term; the petition in the second case was dismissed for being moot.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a proclamation later declared void is no proclamation at all, but a term actually served in full still counts against the three-term limit. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between Lonzanida, where there was an involuntary interruption, and Ong versus Alegre, where the official served the full term despite a void proclamation.