TERM OF OFFICE:

Sec. 43. Term of Office.

No local elective official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms in the same position.
Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an inter-
ruption in the continuity of service for the full term for which the elective official concerned was
elected.

The maximum term of office of an elective official is 3 terms (9 years) The rationale behind the
three-term limit rule are the prohibition of political dynasty and to give chance to other people
who wants to serve

Borja v Comelec

Incumbent mayor, Cesar Borja, died after serving 1 ½ years of his term. He was succeeded by
Capco, who was the Vice Mayor at that time. Thereafter, Capco ran for election as mayor, was
elected for 2 succeeding elections. On its 3rd term, he filed his certificate of candidacy which
was opposed by by Benjamin Borja and contend that it was Capco’s 4th term already.

Court held that it was not a violation of the three term limit because Capco merely occupied
the unexpired portion of Cesar Borja’s term by operation of law. He was not reasonably elected
for that unexpired portion hence we shouldn’t count 1 and ½ years as a term by virtue of law.

Lonzanida v comelec

Mayor Lonzanida was elected and served for 2 consecutive terms, however, in his 3rd term,
after serving 1 ½ years in office, he was removed by the comelec by virtue of disqualification
because of failure of election. There is failure of election when there is violation, vote buying,
threat or intimidation. In this case, due to failure of election, all votes that was cast to Lonzani-
da are considered stray votes and thus he was removed as mayor. After 3rd term, he again
filed his COC for the same position however it was opposed. Lozanida’s case involves local
position. Compare it with the national position in the case of Erap. Erap was elected as presi-
dent and was supposed to serve 6 years but he only served 2 years. After he was pardoned by
GMA, Erap filed again his COC to run for Presidency. He raised the argument in Lonzanida’s
case, that he was not able to serve full term as. In lonzanida, court held that Lonzanida did not
violate the three term limit rule because Lonzanida did not fully served his 1995-1998 mayoral
term as he was ordered to vacate his post before the expiration of the term.

In the case of Erap, Atty Ulep said that by analogy, ruling in the Lonzanida case can be used
because Erap voluntarily vacated the malacañang. But, the court did not rule on the case until
after election and rendered the case moot and academic.

In lonzanida’s case, he was disqualified and was declared as stray votes. Hence, law on suc-
cession in this case is not applicable because in reality, lonzanida is not a candidate since he
was disqualified. Unlike in Kare, in case of death, law on succession will apply.

EXAMple: Case of a Congressman in Pasig which never reached the Supreme Court

A and B filed COC for Congressman. A was proclaimed as winner but B filed an election
protest before HRET. However, on the 364the day of A’s term, HRET decided that the real
winner was B. Thus, B was declared as 1 day congressman.

Q: Can we consider the 1 day as interruption of the term?

Q2: can we consider the 1 day as a term equivalent as a term?

Q3: can be ask A for his salary?

Q4: what about the bills and laws sponsored by A? considering he was not considered as legit
winner?

Ruling in Lonzanida was reiterated in Dizon’s case.

Bolos vs. Comelec

It is a case where an incumbent brgy chairman filed COC for municipal councilor and won. He
assumed office and leave post as a brgy chairman. It was held in this case that, functions of a
brgy chairman and a councilor are inconsistent with each other thus a person cannot serve
both position at the same tome.

Adormeo v comelec

Talaga was elected as mayor for 1992 and 1995. On 1998, talaga lost from tagarao but on a
recall election, talaga won. It was held that a recall process is an interruption in the term pro-
vided that the other party is qualified.

Latasa v comelec

Supreme Court ruled that the conversion of a municipality to a city does not constitute an inter-
ruption of the incumbent official’s continuity of service. The reason behind this is that the con-
verted city has the same geographical area and therefore has the same inhabitants who will
vote.

Aldovino v comelec

Aldovino was elected as a councilor. During his 3rd term, he was preventively suspended for 90
days. When such suspension was lifted, Aldovino serve the rest of his term and in the next
election, he again filed his COC. Court held that preventive suspension is not an interruption. It
is not a penalty and it is only temporary in character.***

Abundo v comelec

Requisite of 3 term limit are the following:

1.) that the official concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms to the same local
government post, and

2.) that he has fully served three consecutive terms.

Hence, An elective local official is not barred from running again in for same local government
post, UNLESS two conditions concur.

Naval v comelec

Reapportionment of legislative district does not interrupt.

VACANCIES AND SUCCESSION

1. PERMANENT

⁃ public official is permanently disqualified to render office either by physical, resignation,

abandonment or for any other reasons.

2. TEMPORARY

⁃ where local official temporarily vacate for reasonable cause such as when the official
travels.

Exam: What is the difference of the ff:

1. ACTING GOVERNOR

2. ACTING “AS” GOVERNOR

3. Officer in Charger (OIC)

⁃ QUALIFYING WORD: “AS” There is a big difference. (Found in the official gazette)

Panis v CSC

Appointment of vacancy is not necessarily to public official only. It may be extended to private
individual.

Menzon v petilla

DUAL CAPACITY

Governor act as Board member too may be compensated based on which ever is the highest
salary because it is favorable to him.

Sangguniang bayan v CA

Resignation requires intention to relinquish, act of relinquishment and approval of the head of
office to validate such resignation. Otherwise, if he abandons an office without an approval, he
can be charged of dereliction of duty or AWOL.

Gamboa v aguirre

ABANDONMENT being a specie of resignation. (case of Estrada also)

FARINAS v BARBA

Domingo, the #1 councilor in the town of san Nicolas. His wife is working in USA. Pamilya o
Politica? He loves his wife so he resigned and went to America too. BARBA is the mayor and
Farinas as governor of ilocos norte. Mayor Barba appoint Palaflox in the position. Governor
Farinas appoint another person.

Court held that neither of the 2 appointees can assume Domingo’s place because the proce-
dure of appointment was violated. Mayor shall make a recommendation to be approved by the
governor.

MIRANDA v CARREON

A government officer or employee may be removed from the service on two grounds:

1. unsatisfactory conduct and

2. want of capacity.

On the other hand, inefficiency cannot be a ground for removal (it may be a ground for suspen-
sion - administrative) What is the difference between

1. INEFFICIENCY- #1 tamad

2. LOAFING – “umiikot pero di ginagawa trabaho pero pakielamero”

3. MOON LIGHTING- teacher but during recess nagtitinda

RECALL

What is a Recall? It is a mode of removal of elective local officials on the grounds of loss of
trust and confidence. All elective local government officials may be recalled, from governor to
brgy. Councilors. The only ground for recall of local government officials is loss of trust and
confidence. BABAERO? If result to loss of trust and confidence, then yes, the official can be
recalled unless he prove that it has nothing to do with his position.

SEC. 74. Limitations on Recall. —

(b) No recall shall take place

1. within one (1) year from the date of the official’s assumption to office

2. or one (1) year immediately preceding a regular local election.”

The reasons behind the limitation are to give opportunity to prove himself and because con-
duct of recall is very expensive. THUS: recall can only happen in the 2nd year of the 1st term. It
is also important to know that Procedure or conduct of a recall is a political question. No body
can contest that.

WHAT IS THE PROCEEDURE FOR RECALL:

Previously, there are 2 modes for Recall.

1. Thru signing a petition on the part of 25% of voters of the locality

2. Convening of the preparatory recall assembly

Now, PRA is removed

1. get 25% of signatures of all voters of the locality

2. signatures be authenticated by comelec (totoo bang registered or buhay pa ba?)

3. there has to be an announcement as to who will participate in the recall process

4. Must be conducted no less than by the COMELEC

Goh v Bayron

Lack of fund doesn’t frustrate recall election because Constitution guarantee COMELEC’s fis-
cal autonomy.

PARAS v COMELEC

SANGUNIANG KABATAAN ELECTION is not within the meaning of regular election because
members of SK are not qualified voters. They are minors only and in consultative character.

Angobung v comelec

Can a recall be conducted by a single person? No, it requires a signature of atleast 25% of
voters.

Claudio v comelex

Campaign period is not included in the regular local election. Regular local election refers to
the entire period of the election itself.

Alfiado v comelec

In 1998, Miranda won as Mayor and Navarro as Vice mayor. However miranda’s COC was de-
clared void hence Vice Mayor Navarro assumes office of Miranda. However, before Navarro
assumes the office, officials convened to recall the vice mayor. The court held that it renders
the recall MOOT AND ACADEMIC. Recall process pertains to the person not the position. The
proper remedy in this case is to file another recall process against the now Mayor, Navarro.

SOCRATES v COMELEC

City of Puerto Princessa.

Hagedorn was elected and served as mayor for three consecutive terms. After that Hagedorn
opted not to run for the next elections, in which Socrates eventually won. However, while serv-
ing his term, Socrates faced recall proceedings. Hagedorn ran for the former’s unexpired term,
so Socrates sought his disqualification. The Supreme Court held that Hagedorn is eligible to
run in the recall election since the 1 and ½ year when Socrates was the mayor is an interrup-
tion of the term. Thus if theres is a gap between last term of public office and his intended
election it will serve to break the 3 term limit rule, hence should be allowed to run. The 1 and ½
year can not be considered as 1 term. Therefore even if in effect it appears that he served 4
terms but in truth he only served unexpired term of Socrates.

LOCAL INTIATIVE process whereby the people directly introduces amendments, modification
or even alteration of existing ordinances. It bypass member of sanggunian.

REFERENDUM: process whereby the people can reject legislation through an election for that
process.

Miriam case

Lambino v comelec

National initiative

It is initiated by persons or group of persons through signatures of all voters of the country. Ini-
tiative can only happen in local level not in NATIONAL.

GROUNDS FOR ADMIN DISIPLINARY ACTION

Preventive suspension

It is a scheme to impose discipline against a local official for administrative infractions especial-
ly if evidence of guilt is strong. Maximum number of days for imposing preventive suspension
is 90 days, and minimum is 60 days for purposes of single infractions. There is no indefinite
preventive suspension because it violates due process clause and amount to a dismissal from
his service.

Purpose of preventive suspension?

1. For purposes of preserving the evidence and

2. to avoid the exercise of influence against witnesses.

Espiritu v melgar

GROUNDS for preventive suspension are the ff:

1. When there is reasonable ground to believe that the respondent has committed the infrac-
tions or acts complained of;

2. When the evidence of guilt is strong;

3. When the gravity of the offense so warrants; or

4. When the continuance in office or service of the respondent will impair public service or
could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and
other evidence.

Llamas v Orbos

Executed clemency is also available in administrative cases. If president can grant executive
clemency in criminal cases, all the more to administrative cases.

AGUINALDO v SANTOS

DOCTRINE OF FORGIVENESS AND CONDONATION

This states that whenever an elective official has pending case and ran for election then wins,
in effect, such case is condoned. The electorate knew of the pending but despite the knowl-
edge, they still voted for the official. They are in effect condoning suspected infractions. How-
ever, this has been abandoned in CARPIO-MORALES case wherein it held that public office is
a public trust. There is no prescriptive period to file a case of graft and corruption against gov’t
officials.

GREGO v COMELEC

Elective officials may be removed only in criminal charges and not on administrative infractions.

FLORES v Pampanga

Who has power to impose Preventive Imprisonment?

President can suspend Provincial officials

Govs can suspend Mayor, VM, and councilor

Mayor can suspend Brgy. Elected officials such as Chairmans and councilors

Gonzaga v sandiganbayan

It held that preventive suspension is limited to a maximum period of ninety days? Such period
pertains to the period of investigation. The fact finding committee must finish its investigation
with the period, otherwise if no decision was made, official shall be automatically reinstated or
actual reinstatement to his former position. With regard to Police officers, 60 days is the maxi-
mum period because they always carry firearms so they can intimidate the person. Pending
investigation, official’s salary is withheld. After, When he is found to be not guilty, it must be re-
funded to him. If guilty, consider that is has been forfeited.

CALINGIN v CA

Implementation of Preventive suspension as s rule is immediately executory. Also, ombudsman

can issue preventive suspension even without preliminary investigation by charter of ombuds-
man because what is stated there is so revolting and thus considered a prima facie evidence of
a crime. however such rule is not absolute since it can be tolled by temporary restraining order
such as in the case of binay. He barricaded the whole city hall. DILG was not able to serve pre-
ventive suspension and he secured TRO. HENCE CALINGIN CASE NOT ABSOLUTE AND IT
CAN BE TOLLED BY A TRO.

GLORIA v CA

KINDS OF PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION

1. pending investigation

2. pending appeal.

Additional: is there such a thing as PRE suspension hearing? YES.

KATARUNGAN PAMBARANGAY LAW

723 SCRA 674

Katarungan pambarangay law is summary in character and to prevent the clogging of dockets.
(#1 Drugs case, #2 BP 22 Bouncing Checks)

Lupon Court of Law

1. File a complaint = 1. File a complaint
2. Respondent file an answer =
2. Respondent file an answer
Result either

a. Settle - end case

b. If no settlement - chairman of lupon

will issue a certification to file a real
action
3. If settle but did not comply - writ of
execution must be filed to court
3. Mediation/Judicial Dispute Resolution
(JDR)
4. If mediation fails, conduct a pretrial
conference
 5. Trial proper (3 years)

a. Plainiffs evidence

b. Direct and Cross examination

c. Defendants evidence

d. Direct and Cross examination

6. Formal offer of exhibits

7. Decision

8. Appeal - RTC, CA, SC (for 10 years then it will

be remanded to the court of origin, so in total, it
will take almost 12-13 years)

SIGNIFICANT FEATURES

1. whenever a case is filed in court without passing to LUPON, such case shall dismissed
due to premature or lack of action

2. Artificial persons are not covered by KPL, they are not in the jurisdiction of LUPON be-
cause they have no heart so they cannot exercise power of persuasion of settlement.

3. Lawyers are absolutely prohibited from appearing at Lupon unless he is the complainant.
The reason behind such prohinition is that lawyers are so contentious that do not pro-
mote settlement and they are very adversarial.

• Instances where right to counsel is not allowed

a. Lupon

b. Small claims court (400 and below)

4. Only criminal cases where penalty of 1 year imprisonment is within its jurisdiction

5. Cases involving adjunct or corollary remedies like injuction, attachment, etc. are not with-
in the jurisdiction of LUPON

Q: MAY MEMBERS OF RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS BE COME MEMBERS OF LUPON?

A: NO because it will violate the principle of Separation of church and state.

Q: What if brgy. Chairman is the respondent himself in the case filed in Lupon?

A: Chairman cannot possibly preside in a case to which he is a respondent because of conflict

of interest. According to the DOJ, the chairman of the next barangay (left or right) shall pre-
side.

UY case

Supreme court held that while it is true that only cases arising from a barangay can be taken in
that specific barangay. However, it can also be filed in the work place even if the complainant is
not a resident of the said work place.