Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Adovo vs COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 155083-84 case brief summary

Adovo vs COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 155083-84 case brief summary
November 12, 2002

Facts: On July 2, 2002, the then incumbent barangay officials of the Puerto Princesa convened themselves into a Preparatory Recall Assembly. The PRA was convened to initiate the recall of Mayor Socrates of Puerto Princesa. On passing a resolution declaring loss of confidence, the PRA requested COMELEC to schedule a recall election. Socrates filed a petition to nullify resolution to COMELEC, but was dismissed for lack of merit. Socrates filed a petition to the Supreme Court seeking to nullify COMELEC resolution alleging grave abuse of discretion, PRA gave no due notice and his and the public's constitutional right to information.
Hagedorn filed a certificate for candidacy. Adovo et al., filed a petition for disqualification alleging that Hagedorn is disqualified from running for a fourth consecutive term, having been elected and having served as mayor of the city for three (3) consecutive full terms immediately prior to the instant recall election for the same post. COMELEC dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Hence the instant consolidated petition

(1) whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the Recall Resolution and scheduling the recall election for mayor of Puerto Princesa
(2) whether Hagedorn is qualified to run for mayor in the recall election of Puerto Princesa on September 24, 2002 and has violated the three-term rule

(Issue 1): The Supreme Court ruled that COMELEC did not commit a grave abuse of discretion. Records showed that due notice was given. The proponent sent notices, and said notice was likewise posted in conspicuous places as well as utilizing broadcast mass media in the dissemination of the convening of the PRA.
(Issue 2): The Supreme Court ruled that Hagedorn was qualified to run for office. 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.

Therefore, the petition are dismissed

No comments:

Post a Comment

Search Thousands of Case Briefs and Articles.