The Supreme Court has declared that conversion of a municipality into a city does not interrupt the term of office of the incumbent elected officials or affect the three-term limit imposed on them by the Constitution.
The SC ruling means that if a town mayor has served for three consecutive terms or for nine consecutive years and in between his or her terms the municipality was converted into a city, he or she cannot run again for mayor for another term.
The high court cited Section 8, Article X of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that “the term of office of elective local officials… shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms.”
“The intention behind the three-term limit rule is not only to abrogate the ‘monopolization of political power’ and prevent elected officials from breeding ‘proprietary interest in their position’ but also to ‘enhance the people’s freedom of choice,’” the SC ruled, in a decision penned by Senior Justice Antonio T. Carpio, involving the case of Mabalacat City in Pampanga.
The SC reiterated its previous ruling that “the conversion of a municipality into a city does not constitute an interruption of the incumbent official’s continuity of service.”
“We held that to be considered as interruption of service, the ‘law contemplates a rest period during which the local elective official steps down from office and ceases to exercise power or authority over the inhabitants of the territorial jurisdiction of a particular local government unit,’” it said, as it affirmed the Aug. 3, 2016 resolution of the first division of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) and the May 26, 2017 resolution of the Comelec en banc.
Court records showed that Marino P. Morales was elected and served as mayor of the then municipality of Mabalacat for three consecutive terms from 2007 to2010, 2010 to2013, and 2013 to 2016.
On May 15, 2012 during Morales’ second term, Congress passed Republic Act No. 10164 which converted Mabalacat town into Mabalacat City. RA 10164 was ratified by the town residents in a plebiscite.
On Dec. 8, 2015, Morales filed his certificate of candidacy (COC) for mayor of Mabalacat City for the 2016 elections as a substitute candidate for Wilfredo Feliciano.
Mayoralty candidate Pyra Lucas filed a petition to cancel Morales’ COC with an argument that he (Morales) had served three consecutive terms prior to the 2016 elections.
In his answer, Morales insisted that he did not violate the three-term rule because the conversion of Mabalacat town into a city interrupted his term.
He maintained that his term as mayor of Mabalacat City was not a continuation of his term as mayor of Mabalacat town.
On May 10, 2016, Morales was proclaimed elected city mayor with Christian C. Halili as elected vice mayor.
On May 20, 2016, Crisostomo Garbo intervened in the case before the Comelec and pointed out that he obtained the second highest number of votes and should be proclaimed city mayor.
For his part, Halili also intervened with an allegation that since he is the incumbent city vice mayor, he should be proclaimed mayor.
The Comelec’s First Division, in a resolution dated Aug. 3, 2016, cancelled Morales’ COC and declared that all votes cast in his favor were stray votes.
It directed the city board of canvassers to reconvene, annul Morales’ proclamation, and proclaim the qualified candidate with the next highest number of votes.
The Comelec en banc allowed the interventions filed by Garbo and Halili. On May 26, 2017, it ordered the proclamation of Garbo as the duly-elected city mayor.
Morales and Halili elevated the Comelec’s ruling before the SC.
The high court found that Morales misrepresented his eligibility “because he knew full well that he had been elected, and had served, as mayor of Mabalacat, Pampanga for three consecutive terms; yet, he still certified that he was eligible to run for mayor for the next succeeding term.”
“Morales’ representation in his COC that he was eligible to run as mayor constitutes false material representation as to his qualification or eligibility for the office, which is a ground for a petition to deny due course to or cancel a COC,” it said.
“Where a material COC misrepresentation under oath is made, thereby violating both our election and criminal laws, we are faced as well with an assault on the will of the people of the Philippines as expressed in our laws. In a choice between provisions on material qualifications of elected officials, on the one hand, and the will of the electorate in any given locality, on the other, we believe and so hold that we cannot choose the will of the electorate,” the SC added.
“Accordingly, we find that Morales’ COC is void ab initio, and he was never a candidate at all, and all votes for him were considered stray votes,” the SC ruled.