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
Issue:
(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
Ruling:
(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