Socrates v.

COMELEC Article X Sec 8 – Term of elective local

284 officials
G.R. No. 154152 Nov. 12, 2002 Carpio, J Miles
Petitioner/s: Respondent/s:
Vicente S. Sandoval Jr. COMELEC
Recit Ready Summary
Hagedorn served as city mayor of Puerto Princesa City, Palawan for 3 consecutive terms. He was succeeded by
Socrates. During the term of Socrates, majority of the barangay officials of the city gathered and formed a
Preparatory Recall Assembly (PRA) and issued a resolution asking for a recall election to remove Socrates from
office. COMELEC approved the resolution and issued guidelines for the election. Hagedorn submitted his
certificate of candidacy to run for mayor during the recall election, but this was challenged since petitioners
believe that if Hagedorn would win then he would be taking over Socrates’ term and that would constitute his
4th consecutive term as mayor which is prohibited by the constitution and the LGC.

SC: Can Hagedorn run in the recall election? YES

Ruling:
The clear intent of the the constitution is that only consecutive terms count in determining the three-term limit
rule. The second part of Art. X Sec 8, states that voluntary renunciation of office for any length of time does not
interrupt the continuity of service. The clear intent is that involuntary severance from office for any length of
time interrupts continuity of service and prevents the service before and after the interruption from being
joined together to form a continuous service or consecutive terms.

After three consecutive terms, an elective local official cannot seek immediate reelection for a fourth term. The
prohibited election 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. First, a subsequent election like a recall election is no longer an immediate reelection after three
consecutive terms. Second, the intervening period constitutes an involuntary interruption in the continuity of
service.
Facts
1. Mark David Hagedorn (Hagedorn) has already served 3 terms as city mayor of Puerto Princesa City,
Palawan.
2. After his term, Vicente Socrates (Socrates) became mayor.
3. During the term of Socrates, 312 out of 528 members of the then incumbent barangay officials of the
Puerto Princesa convened themselves into a Preparatory Recall Assembly (PRA) and designated
Hagedorn as their interim chair.
4. PRA then issued a resolution declaring that they lost confidence with Socrates and asked COMELEC for
a recall election.
5. COMELEC approved and then issued guidelines for the recall election, setting the campaign period from
Aug. 27- Sept. 5 (10days) but later on set the date of election to Sept. 24.
6. Hagedorn filed his certificate of candidacy. Socrates, as well as a person named Sandoval also filed their
certificates.
7. Several people questioned Hagedorn’s qualification since the constitution limits local officials to three
consecutive terms only and Hagedorn has served 3 consecutive terms previously.
8. Eventually the elections happened yet the court issued an order prohibiting COMELEC from proclaiming
a winner prior to the resolution of this case.
9. Despite the lack of proclamation, the results were tabulated and Hagedorn won with 20k votes,
Socrates got 17k while Sandoval got 13k.
Point/s of Contention
Socrates:
1. Recall election should not be conducted because there was absence of notice to 130 PRA members

1
ALS B2021
 during the meeting where the PRA resolution was passed.
2. Those who voted for a recall election are already nearing the end of their terms as barangay officials
since the resolution was passed on July 2 and the barangay elections was on July 15.
3. Hagedorn is prohibited from running again.
Issue/s Ruling
1. Whether COMELEC committed GADALEJ in approving the recall election? 1. NO
2. Whether Hagedorn can run in the recall election? 2. YES
Rationale
1. COMELEC did not commit GADALEJ
The issue of propriety of the notices sent to the PRA members is factual in nature, and the determination of the
same is therefore a function of the COMELEC. In the absence of patent error, or serious inconsistencies in the
findings, the Court should not disturb the same. The factual findings of the COMELEC, based on its own
assessments and duly supported by gathered evidence, are conclusive upon the court, more so, in the absence
of a substantiated attack on the validity of the same.

In this case, COMELEC determined that notices were actually sent to all the PRA members. Copies of the said
notice are in Volumes I and II entitled Notices to PRA. Likewise, Proof of Service for each of the said notices were
attached to the Petition and marked as Annex "G" of Volumes II and III of the Petition.

Socrates’ argument that the term of the barangay officials are about to end is also not a problem because at the
time they voted for the resolution, they were still de jure officers.

3. Hagedorn can run again in the recall election

The three term limit rule for elective local officials is found in Sec. 8 of Article X of the Constitution, it is also
reiterated in the Local Government Code Section 43(b).

These constitutional and statutory provisions have two parts. The first part provides that an elective local official
cannot serve for more than three consecutive terms. The clear intent is that only consecutive terms count in
determining the three-term limit rule. The second part states that voluntary renunciation of office for any length
of time does not interrupt the continuity of service. The clear intent is that involuntary severance from office for
any length of time interrupts continuity of service and prevents the service before and after the interruption
from being joined together to form a continuous service or consecutive terms.

After three consecutive terms, an elective local official cannot seek immediate reelection for a fourth term. The
prohibited election 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. First, a subsequent election like a recall election is no longer an immediate reelection after three
consecutive terms. Second, the intervening period constitutes an involuntary interruption in the continuity of
service.

The deliberations of the framers of the constitution discussed the similarity of the term prohibition of local
elective officials and that of senators. Senators are allowed only 2 consecutive terms. The framers expressly
acknowledged that the prohibited election refers only to the immediate reelection, and not to any subsequent
election, during the six-year period following the two term limit. 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. (Thus, Senator need to rest only for 3 years and not 6 years, then they can run again).

In the case of Hagedorn, his candidacy in the recall election on September 24, 2002 is not an immediate
reelection after his third consecutive term which ended on June 30, 2001. The immediate reelection that the
Constitution barred Hagedorn from seeking referred to the regular elections in 2001. Hagedorn did not seek
reelection in the 2001 elections.

2
ALS B2021
One cannot stitch together Hagedorn's previous three-terms with his new recall term to make the recall term a
fourth consecutive term because factually it is not. An involuntary interruption occurred from June 30, 2001 to
September 24, 2002 (Socrates’ mayorship) which broke the continuity or consecutive character of Hagedorn's
service as mayor. Interruption "for any length of time," as long as the cause is involuntary, is sufficient to
break an elective local official's continuity of service.

To make Hagedorn's recall term retroact to June 30, 2001 creates a legal fiction that unduly curtails the freedom
of the people to choose their leaders through popular elections. The concept of term limits is in derogation of
the sovereign will of the people to elect the leaders of their own choosing. Term limits must be construed
strictly to give the fullest possible effect to the sovereign will of the people.

Disposition
Hagedorn can run, and since he won the election, he should now be proclaimed by COMELEC.

3
ALS B2021