View full case

FRANCIS G. ONG v. JOSEPH STANLEY ALEGRE

FACTS:

This case involves two separate petitions to nullify and set aside certain issuances of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc. The first petition was filed by Francis G. Ong, challenging the COMELEC en banc resolution granting the motion for reconsideration of Joseph Stanley Alegre. The second petition was filed by Rommel Ong, seeking to stop the COMELEC from enforcing its en banc resolution pending the outcome of the first petition. The petitions were consolidated by the Court per its en banc resolution.

The dispute arose when Alegre filed a petition to disqualify Francis as a candidate for mayor of San Vicente, Camarines Norte in the May 10, 2004 elections. Alegre argued that Francis had served three consecutive full terms as mayor, which violated the three-consecutive term rule. The May 1998 elections saw Alegre and Francis running against each other for the same position, with Francis being proclaimed the winner. However, Alegre filed an election protest, and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) later declared Alegre as the duly elected mayor for the 1998 term. The COMELEC's First Division dismissed Alegre's petition to disqualify Francis, stating that the 1998-2001 mayoralty term could not be considered Francis' as he was not duly elected. Alegre filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that there was a misapplication of the three-term rule.

On May 7, 2004, the COMELEC en banc issued a resolution reversing the First Division's resolution, declaring Francis as disqualified to run for mayor and ordering the deletion of his name from the official list of candidates. The next day, Francis, who received a copy of the resolution, sought help from his political party, the Nationalist People's Coalition, and his older brother Rommel was nominated as the substitute candidate. Rommel filed his own certificate of candidacy on the same day, past the filing deadline. Alegre then filed a petition to deny due course to or cancel Rommel's certificate of candidacy.

Atty. Evillo C. Pormento, counsel for the Ong brothers, requested the inclusion of Rommel's name in the official certified list of candidates for mayor, citing the COMELEC's inaction on Alegre's petition. The request was granted.

The case involves a dispute over the mayoralty post in San Vicente, Camarines Norte. The Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Alegre as the winning candidate for mayor on May 11, 2004. However, Francis filed a petition for certiorari before the Court, challenging the COMELEC's en banc resolution which declared him disqualified and ordered the deletion of his name from the official list of candidates. His brother Rommel also filed a petition questioning the denial of due course to his certificate of candidacy as a substitute for Francis. The COMELEC later dismissed Alegre's petition to deny due course to Rommel's certificate of candidacy as moot and academic. The main issue revolves around whether Francis's assumption of office as Mayor of San Vicente for the previous term should be considered as full service for the purpose of the three-term limit rule. The resolution of the issues raised will determine who is entitled to hold the position of mayor.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in declaring petitioner Francis disqualified to run for Mayor and ordering the deletion of his name from the official list of candidates

  2. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to Rommel's certificate of candidacy as a substitute for his brother Francis

  3. Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying Francis from running for the mayoralty post of San Vicente and denying due course to his certificate of candidacy based on the three-term limit rule.

RULING:

  1. The Court held that Francis is disqualified to run for Mayor and his name should be deleted from the official list of candidates. The assumption of office by Francis as Mayor of San Vicente from July 1, 1998, to June 30, 2001, should be considered as service for the full term in contemplation of the three-term limit. The Court emphasized that Francis was duly elected as mayor in the May 1998 election and his assumption of office and continuous exercise of the functions thereof should be legally taken as service for a full term. The Court also ruled that the ruling of the RTC-Daet, Camarines Norte that Francis' opponent "won" in the 1998 mayoralty race was without practical and legal use and value, as it was made after the term of the contested office had expired.

  2. The Court held that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying Francis and denying due course to his certificate of candidacy. Unlike the cases of Lonzanida and Borja, there was no interruption or break in the continuity of Francis' service during the 1998-2001 term. He never ceased discharging his duties as mayor for the entire duration of the term. Therefore, his service during this term cannot be discounted, and applying the three-term limit rule would result in injustice and inequality.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The three-term limit rule for elective local officials prohibits local elective officials from serving for more than three consecutive terms in the same position. (Section 8, Article X of the 1987 Constitution)

  • For the three-term limit to apply, the official concerned must have been elected for three consecutive terms in the same local government post and must have fully served three consecutive terms. (Section 43 (b) of the Local Government Code)

  • The assumption of office and continuous exercise of the functions thereof should be considered as service for a full term in contemplation of the three-term limit.

  • The three-term limit rule for local elective officials does not apply if there is an interruption or break in the continuity of service.

  • A candidate whose certificate of candidacy has been cancelled or not given due course cannot be substituted by another belonging to the same political party.

  • There can be no valid substitution for a candidate excluded by disqualification and denial and cancellation of his certificate of candidacy.

  • A person with a cancelled certificate of candidacy is no candidate at all.

  • Only an official candidate of a registered or accredited party may be substituted.