Albania vs. Commission on Elections and Tallado

A violation of the three-term limit rule is not a ground for a petition for disqualification under Sections 12 and 68 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 40 of the Local Government Code; it is an ineligibility that may be raised in a petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, which must be filed within 25 days from the filing of the certificate of candidacy. Suspension from office is not a ground for disqualification; Section 40(b) of the Local Government Code requires removal from office as a result of an administrative case. For the three-term limit to apply, two conditions must concur: the official must have been elected for three consecutive terms in the same local government post and must have fully served three consecutive terms; an involuntarily interrupted term is not counted as a full term. The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition as out of time and in finding no three-term limit violation.

Edgardo A. Tallado was a candidate for Governor of Camarines Norte and later served as Governor, while Sofronio B. Albania was a registered voter of Poblacion Sta. Elena, Camarines Norte. The dispute implicated the three-term limit for elective local officials under Section 8, Article X of the 1987 Constitution and Section 43 of the Local Government Code, as implemented by the Omnibus Election Code and COMELEC Resolution No. 9523 on disqualification and certificates of candidacy. The 2016 National and Local Elections provided the electoral context for the controversy.

In the May 14, 2007 National and Local Elections, Edgardo A. Tallado and Jesus O. Typoco were candidates for Governor of Camarines Norte. After the counting and canvassing of votes, Typoco was proclaimed as the winner. Tallado questioned Typoco's proclamation by filing with the COMELEC a petition for correction of a manifest error. The petition was decided in Tallado's favor on March 5, 2010, and he assumed the position of Governor of Camarines Norte from March 22, 2010 to June 30, 2010, the end of the 2007-2010 term.

Tallado ran again in the 2010 and 2013 National and Local Elections, where he won and served as Governor of Camarines Norte, respectively. On October 16, 2015, he filed his Certificate of Candidacy as Governor of Camarines Norte in the May 9, 2016 National and Local Elections.

On November 13, 2015, Sofronio B. Albania, a registered voter of Poblacion Sta. Elena, Camarines Norte, filed a petition for Tallado's disqualification from running as Governor based on Rule 25 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9523 on two grounds: (1) he violated the three-term limit rule under Section 43 of RA No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991; and (2) his suspension from office for one year without pay, together with its accessory penalties, after he was found guilty of oppression and grave abuse of authority in the Ombudsman's Order dated October 2, 2015.

In his Verified Answer, Tallado argued that since the petition was primarily based on the alleged violation of the three-term limit rule, it should have been filed as a petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy under Rule 23 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9523, in relation to Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, because the ground cited affected a candidate's eligibility. He contended that under Section 23 the petition should have been filed on November 10, 2015, but it was filed only on November 13, 2015, and therefore had prescribed and must be dismissed. He also argued that suspension from office is not a ground for a petition for disqualification. On the substantive issue, he denied violating the three-term limit rule because he did not fully serve three consecutive terms, having served as Governor for the 2007 elections only from March 22, 2010 to June 30, 2010.

The COMELEC Second Division and, on reconsideration, the COMELEC En Banc found that Tallado did not serve the full 2007-2010 term as Governor and thus could not be considered as having served one term for purposes of counting the three-term threshold. They also found that the Ombudsman imposed only suspension from office, not removal, and that the petition had been filed beyond the 25-day period from the filing of the certificate of candidacy.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Grounds for Disqualification: Petitioner argued that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ruling that the grounds relied upon—violation of the three-term limit rule and suspension from office—are not proper grounds for a petition for disqualification.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Timeliness: Petitioner argued that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that, even if the petition were considered one for denial of due course to or cancellation of Tallado's certificate of candidacy, it was filed out of time.
• Three-Term Limit Violation: Petitioner maintained that Tallado should be disqualified pursuant to Section 43 of RA No. 7160, the Local Government Code, because he had already been elected and served as Governor of Camarines Norte for three consecutive terms—2007, 2010, and 2013—and was proscribed from running for the same position in the 2016 elections as it would be his fourth consecutive term.
• Ombudsman Suspension: Petitioner argued that Tallado should be disqualified due to the Ombudsman Order dated October 2, 2015 suspending him from office for one year without pay, together with accessory penalties, after he was found guilty of oppression and grave abuse of authority.

• Proper Remedy and Prescription: Respondent argued that since the petition was primarily based on the alleged violation of the three-term limit rule, it should have been filed as a petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy under Rule 23 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9523, in relation to Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, because the ground cited affected a candidate's eligibility; under Section 23, the petition should have been filed on November 10, 2015, but it was filed only on November 13, 2015, hence it had prescribed and must be dismissed.
• Suspension Not a Ground: Respondent argued that suspension from office is not a ground for a petition for disqualification.
• No Three-Term Violation: Respondent denied violating the three-term limit rule because he did not fully serve three consecutive terms, having served as Governor for the 2007 elections only from March 22, 2010 to June 30, 2010.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Grounds for Disqualification: Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the grounds relied upon—violation of the three-term limit rule and suspension from office—are not proper grounds for a petition for disqualification.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Timeliness: Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that, even if the petition were considered one for denial of due course to or cancellation of Tallado's certificate of candidacy, it was filed out of time.
• Three-Term Limit Rule: Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in failing to rule that Tallado should be disqualified under Section 43 of RA No. 7160, the Local Government Code, for allegedly violating the three-term limit rule.
• Ombudsman Suspension: Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in failing to rule that Tallado should be disqualified due to the Ombudsman Order dated October 2, 2015.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Grounds for Disqualification: No. The grounds invoked are not among the disqualification grounds under Sections 12 and 68 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 40 of the Local Government Code; suspension is not removal from office, and the three-term limit is an ineligibility cognizable under Section 78.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Timeliness: No. A petition based on the three-term limit is one to deny due course or cancel a certificate of candidacy under Section 78, which must be filed within 25 days from the filing of the certificate of candidacy; the petition was filed on November 13, 2015, after the November 10, 2015 deadline.
• Three-Term Limit Rule: No. Two conditions must concur: election for three consecutive terms and full service of three consecutive terms. Tallado did not fully serve the 2007-2010 term because he assumed office only on March 22, 2010 and served until June 30, 2010.
• Ombudsman Suspension: No. Section 40(b) of the Local Government Code requires removal from office as a result of an administrative case; mere suspension is not a disqualification and is not a bar to candidacy under Section 66(b).

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Grounds for Disqualification: In a Rule 64 petition, the primordial issue is whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse is defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or hostility; it arises when a court or tribunal violates the Constitution, law, or existing jurisprudence. The grounds for disqualification are found in Sections 12 and 68 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 40 of the Local Government Code. A reading of these provisions does not include violation of the three-term limit or suspension from office. The COMELEC Second Division therefore correctly found that the petition was not based on any statutory disqualification ground. Section 40(b) speaks of removal from office as a result of an administrative case, not suspension; Section 66(b) of RA No. 7160 provides that suspension shall not exceed the unexpired term or six months per offense and shall not be a bar to candidacy as long as the candidate meets the qualifications. No grave abuse was shown.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Timeliness: While violation of the three-term limit is not a disqualification ground, it is an ineligibility and a proper ground for a petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC has broad powers to enforce election laws, resolve election controversies, promulgate rules, and determine the true nature of cases filed before it; it examines the allegations rather than the title or caption. Since the petition was in substance one under Section 78, it had to be filed within 25 days from the filing of the certificate of candidacy. Tallado filed his COC on October 16, 2015; the 25th day was November 10, 2015. Albania filed the petition on November 13, 2015, beyond the period. The COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing it as out of time. Rule 25 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9523, invoked by petitioner, refers to disqualification grounds under Sections 12 and 68 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 40 of the Local Government Code; because the three-term limit is not among them, Rule 23 governs. Rule 23 requires filing within five days from the last day for filing of the certificate of candidacy but not later than 25 days from the time of filing of the certificate of candidacy subject of the petition.
• Three-Term Limit Rule: The three-term limit is embodied in Section 8, Article X of the Constitution and restated in Section 43 of the Local Government Code. Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code requires the certificate of candidacy to state that the person is eligible for the office; "eligible" means having all the qualifications and none of the ineligibilities. A violation of the three-term limit is an ineligibility and a proper ground for a Section 78 petition. On the merits, two conditions must concur for disqualification based on violation of the three-term limit: (1) the official concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms in the same local government post; and (2) he has fully served three consecutive terms. In this case, Tallado ran in 2007 but did not win; only after a petition for correction of manifest error was he proclaimed duly-elected Governor. He assumed the post and served the unexpired term of his opponent from March 22, 2010 until June 30, 2010. He did not hold office for the full three-year term to which he was supposedly entitled. That period did not constitute complete and full service. The period he was out of office involuntarily interrupted the continuity of his service. Since he had not fully served the 2007-2010 term, and had not been elected for three consecutive terms as Governor, there was no violation when he ran in 2016. The COMELEC En Banc's ruling was quoted with approval, applying Abundo vs. COMELEC: an involuntarily interrupted term cannot be considered as one term for purposes of counting the three-term threshold.
• Ombudsman Suspension: The Ombudsman Order suspended Tallado for one year without pay with accessory penalties after finding him guilty of oppression and grave abuse of authority. However, suspension is not among the grounds for disqualification under Sections 12 and 68 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 40 of the Local Government Code. Section 40(b) requires removal from office as a result of an administrative case. The penalty of suspension cannot bar candidacy as long as the candidate meets the qualifications for the office under Section 66(b) of RA No. 7160. Thus, the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in refusing to disqualify Tallado on that ground.

• Three-Term Limit Rule — Section 8, Article X of the 1987 Constitution and Section 43 of the Local Government Code prohibit a local elective official from serving more than three consecutive terms in the same position. The Court applied the two-condition test: (1) the official must have been elected for three consecutive terms in the same local government post, and (2) the official must have fully served three consecutive terms. An involuntary interruption, such as service only of the unexpired portion of a term after winning an election protest, prevents the term from being counted as a full term for purposes of the three-term threshold. Tallado's service from March 22, 2010 to June 30, 2010 was not full service of the 2007-2010 term, so it was not counted.
• Disqualification vs. Ineligibility — Grounds for disqualification of candidates are limited to Sections 12 and 68 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 40 of the Local Government Code. A violation of the three-term limit is not a disqualification ground; it is an ineligibility, which is a proper ground for a petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC may determine the true nature of a petition from its averments, not its title or caption. Because Albania's petition was in substance a Section 78 petition, it had to be filed within 25 days from the filing of the certificate of candidacy.
• Suspension Not a Disqualification Ground — Section 40(b) of the Local Government Code disqualifies those removed from office as a result of an administrative case. The Court distinguished removal from suspension. Under Section 66(b) of the Local Government Code, suspension is not a bar to candidacy as long as the candidate meets the qualifications for the office. The Ombudsman's one-year suspension of Tallado did not disqualify him.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — In a Rule 64 petition, the primordial issue is whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse is a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where power is exercised arbitrarily or despotically because of passion or hostility; it arises when a court or tribunal violates the Constitution, law, or existing jurisprudence. The Court found none.
• COMELEC's Power to Determine Nature of Petition — The COMELEC has broad powers to enforce election laws, resolve election controversies, and promulgate rules. It may examine the allegations of a pleading to determine its true nature, because averments rather than the title or caption are the proper gauge. This supported treating the disqualification petition as a Section 78 petition.

• "The term "grave abuse of discretion" is defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or hostility." — This defines the standard of review in the Rule 64 petition and explains why the Court would not interfere absent grave abuse.
• "We held that two conditions must concur for the application of the disqualification of a candidate based on violation of the three-term limit rule, which are: (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." — This is the ratio decidendi for the three-term limit issue and the test applied to Tallado.
• "The word "term" in a legal sense means a fixed and definite period of time which the law describes that an officer may hold an office." — Quoted from Appari, this passage supplies the definition of "term" used to conclude that Tallado's partial service was not a full term.
• "As he had not fully served the 2007-2010 term, and had not been elected for three consecutive terms as Governor, there was no violation of the three-term limit rule when he ran again in the 2016 elections." — This is the Court's conclusion on the merits of the three-term limit issue.

• Lonzanida vs. Commission on Elections, 370 Phil. 625, 636 (1999) — Cited for the two conditions required for application of the disqualification based on violation of the three-term limit rule.
• Aldovino, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, 623 Phil. 876 (2009) — Cited for the meaning of "term" as a period of time during which an official has title to office and can serve.
• Abundo vs. COMELEC — Quoted with approval by the COMELEC En Banc; held that an involuntarily interrupted term cannot be considered as one term for purposes of counting the three-term threshold and that a winner in an election protest is entitled only to serve the unexpired portion of the term. (Citation not provided in the text.)
• Appari vs. Court of Appeals — Cited for the definition of "term" as a fixed and definite period of time which the law describes that an officer may hold an office. (Citation not provided in the text.)
• Gaminde vs. Commission on Audit — Cited for the rule that term means the time during which the officer may claim to hold office as of right and fixes the interval after which incumbents succeed one another. (Citation not provided in the text.)
• Arnado vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 210164, August 18, 2015, 767 SCRA 168, 195 — Cited for the standard of grave abuse of discretion in a Rule 64 petition.
• Aznar vs. Commission on Elections, 264 Phil. 307, 318 (1990) — Cited for the requirement that a petition under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code comply with the prescribed filing period.
• Typoco vs. Commission on Elections, 628 Phil. 288 (2010) — Cited as the decision in respondent's favor on the petition for correction of manifest error, which led to his assumption of the unexpired 2007-2010 term.

• Section 8, Article X, 1987 Constitution — Provides that the term of elective local officials, except barangay officials, is three years and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms; voluntary renunciation of office for any length of time is not considered an interruption in the continuity of service for the full term for which he was elected. Applied to define the three-term limit.
• Section 43, RA No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) — Restates the three-term limit: no local elective official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms in the same position; voluntary renunciation is not considered an interruption. Applied to the alleged violation.
• Section 74, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code) — Requires the certificate of candidacy to state that the person is eligible for the office. The Court interpreted "eligible" as having all the qualifications and none of the ineligibilities to run for the public office. Applied to treat the three-term limit violation as an ineligibility.
• Section 78, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code) — Allows a verified petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy on the exclusive ground that a material representation required under Section 74 is false; the petition must be filed not later than 25 days from the filing of the certificate of candidacy. Applied to classify Albania's petition and to dismiss it as out of time.
• Sections 12 and 68, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code) — Enumerate grounds for disqualification of candidates. The Court found that neither violation of the three-term limit nor suspension from office is included among these grounds.
• Section 40, RA No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) — Lists disqualifications for elective local positions. Section 40(b) disqualifies those removed from office as a result of an administrative case. Applied to hold that suspension is not removal and therefore not a disqualification ground.
• Section 66(b), RA No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) — Provides that the penalty of suspension shall not exceed the unexpired term or six months for every administrative offense, and shall not be a bar to the candidacy of the respondent so suspended as long as he meets the qualifications for the office. Applied to Tallado's suspension.
• Rule 23, COMELEC Resolution No. 9523 — Governs petitions to deny due course to or cancel certificates of candidacy; requires filing within five days from the last day for filing of the certificate of candidacy but not later than 25 days from the time of filing of the certificate of candidacy subject of the petition. Applied because the petition was in substance a Section 78 petition.
• Rule 25, COMELEC Resolution No. 9523 — Governs disqualification of candidates and refers to disqualifications provided by law or the Constitution; the petition may be filed any day after the last day for filing of certificates of candidacy but not later than the date of proclamation. Held inapplicable because the grounds invoked were not disqualification grounds.
• Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65, Rules of Court — Governs the petition for certiorari filed with the Supreme Court. The primordial issue is whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chairperson); Justices Antonio T. Carpio; Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.; Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro; Lucas P. Bersamin; Mariano C. Del Castillo; Jose Catral Mendoza; Bienvenido L. Reyes; Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe; Marvic M.V.F. Leonen; Francis H. Jardeleza; Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa; Samuel R. Martirez; and Noel Gimenez Tijam. The caption notes a Separate Concurring Opinion by Justice Leonen, but the text of that opinion is not included in the provided material. The text annotates Samuel R. Martirez as "On wellness leave."