Socrates v. Comelec Case Digest

Socrates v. Comelec
GR No. 154512

Digest by Kirk Yngwie Enriquez


Facts:

On July 2, 2002, 312 out of 528 members of then incumbent barangay officials of the Puerto Princesa convened themselves into a Preparatory Recall Assembly (PRA) at the Brgy. San Jose Gymnasium from 9:00am – 12:00noon. The PRA was convened to initiate the recall of Victorino Dennis M. Socrates, petitioner, who assumed office as Puerto Princesa’s mayor on June 30, 2011. Mark David Hagedorn, the president of the Association of Baranagy Captains was designated as interim chair. The PRA passed Resolution No. 01-02 (Recall Resolution) which declared its loss of confidence in Socrates and called for his recall and requested the Comelec to schedule the recall election for mayor within 30 days of receipt of the Recall Resolution. On July 16, 2002, Socrates filed with the Comelec a petition to nullify and deny due course to the Recall Resolution, but it was dismissed by the Comelec en banc on August 14, 2002. Comelec gave due course to the Recall Resolution and scheduled the recall election on September 7, 2002. The Comelec fixed the campaign period from August 27 to September 5, 2002 (10 days).

On August 23, 2002, Edward Hagedorn filed his certificate of candidacy for mayor in the recall election.

On August 17, 2002, Ma. Flores F. Adovo and Merly E. Gilo filed a petition before Comelec to disqualify Hagedorn and cancel his certificate of candidacy (and 2 other petitions were filed), on the ground that Hagedorn is disqualified from running for a 4th consecutive term”, having been elected and having served mayor of the city for 3 consecutive full terms immediately prior to the instant recall election for the same post.

In a resolution promulgated on September 20, 2002, the Comelec First Division dismissed for lack of merit the petitions and declared Hagedorn qualified to run in the recall election. The Comelec also reset the election from September 7 to September 24, 2002.

G.R. NO. 154512

Petitioner Socrates seeks to nullify the Comelec resolution dated August 14, 2002 which gave due course to the Recall Resolution and scheduled the recall election on September 7, 2002.
Socrates alleges that Comelec gravely abused its discretion in upholding the Recall Resolution on the following grounds:

Not all members of the PRA were notified.
The proof of service notice was palpably and legally deficient.
Members of the PRA were themselves seeking a new electoral mandate from their constituents.
The adoption of the resolution was exercised with grave abuse of authority.
The PRA proceedings were conducted in a manner that violated his and the public’s constitutional right to information.

G.R. NO. 154683

Petitioner Vicente Sandoval Jr. seeks to annul Comelec Resolution 5673 dated August 21, 2002 insofar as it fixed the recall election on September 7, 2002 and gave only the candidates a 10-day campaign period.

In a resolution dated September 3, 2002, the Court directed the Comelec to give the candidates additional 15 days from September 7, 2002 within which to campaign. Accordingly, on September 9, 2002, the Comelec en banc issued Resolution No 5708 giving the candidates additional 15 days to campaign and reset the recall election to September 24, 2002.

G.R. NO. 155083-84

Petitioners Adovo, Gilo, and Ollave assail the resolutions by Comelec dated September 20 and 23 declaring Hagedorn qualified to run for mayor in the recall election. They argue that Comelec gravely abused its discretion in upholding Hagedorn’s qualification to run for mayor in the recall election despite constitutional and statutory prohibitions against a 4th consecutive term.

The Court, on September 23, 2002, ordered Comelec to desist from proclaiming any winning candidate in the recall election. In the meantime, Hagedorn garnered the highest number of votes in the recall election with 20,338 votes, followed by Socrates with 17,220 votes, and Sandoval with 13,241 votes. Hagedorn then filed motions to lift the order restraining Comelec from proclaiming the winning candidate and allow him to assume office.

Issues:
Whether Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the Recall Resolution and scheduling the recall election for mayor of Puerto Princesa (G.R. No. 154512).

Whether Hagedorn is qualified to run for mayor in the recall election of Puerto Princesa on September 24, 2002 (G.R. No. 155083-84).

Ruling:

In G.R. No. 154683, the issue of whether Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in fixing the campaign period of only 10 days has become moot, since the Court has ordered Comelec to give the candidates additional 15 days to campaign.

No. The Court is bound by the findings of fact of the Comelec on matters within the competence and expertise of the Comelec. Comelec found that the proponents for the recall sent notices of the convening of PRA to the members thereof pursuant to Section 70 of the Local Government Code. Notices were also posted in conspicuous areas particularly at the Barangay Hall. Proponents likewise utilized the broadcast mass media in the dissemination of the convening of the PRA. The City Election Officer of Puerto Princesa City also certified that upon a thorough and careful verification of the signatures in the Recall Resolution, majority of the members of the PRA approved said resolution.

Socrates also admits receiving notice of the PRA meeting and event sent his representative and counsel who were present during the PRA proceedings. Socrates also had the right to examine public documents relative to the PRA such as the resolution, minutes, journal, and attendance sheets but he did not do so and he does not claim that Comelec denied him that right.

Yes. Section 8 Article X of the Constitution states that the term of elective officials shall be by 3 years and no such official shall serve for more than 3 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. Section 43(b) of RA 7160 or Local Government Code also provides that no local elective official shall serve for more than 3 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. After 3 consecutive terms, an elective local official cannot seek immediate reelection for a 4th term. The prohibition refers to the next regular election for the same office following the end of the third consecutive term. Any subsequent election, like a recall election, is no longer covered by the prohibition for two reasons: (1) a subsequent election like a recall election is no longer an immediate reelection after 3 consecutive terms, and (2) the intervening period constitutes an involuntary interruption in the continuity of service.

What the Constitution prohibits is an immediate reelection for a 4th term following 3 consecutive terms. The Constitution, however, does not prohibit a subsequent reelection for a 4th term as long as the reelection is not immediately after the end of the 3rd consecutive term. Also, the framers of the Constitution did not intend the period of rest of an elective official who has reached his term limit to be the full extent of the succeeding term.

In the case of Hagedorn, his candidacy in the recall election on September 24, 2002 is not an immediate reelection after his 3rd consecutive term which ended on June 30, 2001. After Hagedorn ceased to be mayor on June 30, 2001, he became a private citizen until the recall election of September 24, 2002. The period when Hagedorn was a private citizen was an interruption in the continuity of Hagedorn’s service as mayor, because it was due to a legal prohibition which was involuntary. Also, Hagedorn’s recall does not retroact to include the tenure in the office of Socrates. An official elected in recall election serves the unexpired term of the recalled official. This unexpired term is in itself one term for purposes of counting the three-term limit. Otherwise, an elective local official who serves a recall term can serve for more than 9 consecutive years comprising the recall term plus the regular three full terms.