Lonzanida vs COMELEC and MULI G.R. No. 135150. July 28, 1999

Lonzanida vs COMELEC and MULI  G.R. No. 135150.  July 28, 1999

FACTS:

Romeo Lonzanida was duly elected and served two consecutive terms as municipal mayor of San Antonio, Zambales prior to the May 8, 1995 elections. In the May 1995 elections Lonzanida ran for mayor of San Antonio, Zambales and was again proclaimed winner.  He assumed office and discharged the duties thereof.  His proclamation in 1995 was however contested by his then opponent Juan Alvez who filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court of Zambales, which in a decision dated January 9, 1997 declared a failure of elections.

On November 13, 1997 the COMELEC resolved the election protest filed by Alvez and after a revision and re-appreciation of the contested ballots declared Alvez the duly elected mayor of San Antonio, Zambales.

In the May 11, 1998 elections Lonzanida again filed his certificate of candidacy for mayor of San Antonio.  On April 21, 1998 his opponent Eufemio Muli timely filed a petition to disqualify Lonzanida from running for mayor of San Antonio in the 1998 elections on the ground that he had served three consecutive terms in the same post.  On May 13, 1998, petitioner Lonzanida was proclaimed winner.

ISSUES:

1)Whether or not Lonzanida had served three consecutive terms as mayor of San Antonio, Zambales and he is therefore disqualified to run for the same post for the fourth time?

2)Whether or not the COMELEC ceased to have jurisdiction over the petition for disqualification after he was proclaimed winner in the 1998 mayoral elections?

RULING:

ON THE FIRST ISSUE.

            This Court held that two conditions for the application of the disqualification must concur:  

1) 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. 

It stated:

“To recapitulate, 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.  Consequently, 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.”

“The two requisites for the application of the three term rule are absent… After a re-appreciation and revision of the contested ballots the COMELEC itself declared by final judgment that petitioner Lonzanida lost in the May 1995 mayoral elections and his previous proclamation as winner was declared null and void… It has been repeatedly held by this court that a proclamation subsequently declared void is no proclamation at all^[5] and while a proclaimed candidate may assume office on the strength of the proclamation of the Board of Canvassers he is only a presumptive winner who assumes office subject to the final outcome of the election protest…”

“Second, the petitioner cannot be deemed to have served the May 1995 to 1998 term because he was ordered to vacate his post before the expiration of the term.  The respondents’ contention that the petitioner should be deemed to have served one full term from May 1995-1998 because he served the greater portion of that term has no legal basis to support it; it disregards the second requisite for the application of the disqualification, i.e., that he has fully served three consecutive terms.”

ON THE SECOND ISSUE:

Section 6 of RA 6646 specifically mandates that:

“Sec. 6.  Effects of disqualification Case.- 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.  If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the court or commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong.”

“This court held that the clear legislative intent is that the COMELEC should continue the trial and hearing of the disqualification case to its conclusion i.e., until judgment is rendered.  The outright dismissal of the petition for disqualification filed before the election but which remained unresolved after the proclamation of the candidate sought to be disqualified will unduly reward the said candidate and may encourage him to employ delaying tactics to impede the resolution of the petition until after he has been proclaimed.”

“…In Aguam v. COMELEC this Court held- ‘Time and again this Court has given its imprimatur on the principle that COMELEC is with authority to annul any canvass and proclamation which was illegally made.  The fact that a candidate proclaimed has assumed office, we have said, is no bar to the exercise of such power.  It of course may not be availed of where there has been a valid proclamation.  Since private respondent’s petition before the COMELEC is precisely directed at the annulment of the canvass and proclamation, we perceive that inquiry into this issue is within the area allocated by the Constitution and law to COMELEC xxx Really, were a victim of a proclamation to be precluded from challenging the validity thereof after that proclamation and the assumption of office thereunder, baneful effects may easily supervene.’”

“It must be emphasized that the purpose of a disqualification proceeding is to prevent the candidate from running or, if elected.  From serving, or to prosecute him for violation of the election laws.  Obviously, the fact that a candidate has been proclaimed elected does not signify that his disqualification is deemed condoned and may no longer be the subject of a separate investigation.”

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is granted.

QUERY:

WHEN CAN AN ELECTED OFFICIAL BE DEEMED TO HAVE FULLY SERVED THE THREE TERM LIMIT? 

ANS:

1) 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.

“…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.  Consequently, 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.”