Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 118 views

    Aldovino V COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    batusay575
    The Supreme Court ruled that a councilor's preventive suspension due to a criminal case did not interrupt his three consecutive terms of office, and thus did not exempt him from the three-term limit. The Court distinguished an interruption of a term, which requires loss of title to office, from mere failure to render service while retaining the office. As the councilor retained his title during his temporary suspension, it did not constitute an interruption of his term. Therefore, the COMELEC erred in allowing the councilor's certificate of candidacy for a fourth term.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Aldovino V COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    batusay575
    118 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that a councilor's preventive suspension due to a criminal case did not interrupt his three consecutive terms of office, and thus did not exempt him from the three-term limit. The Court distinguished an interruption of a term, which requires loss of title to office, from mere failure to render service while retaining the office. As the councilor retained his title during his temporary suspension, it did not constitute an interruption of his term. Therefore, the COMELEC erred in allowing the councilor's certificate of candidacy for a fourth term.

    Original Description:

    asasasas

    Original Title

    Aldovino v COMELEC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that a councilor's preventive suspension due to a criminal case did not interrupt his three consecutive terms of office, and thus did not exempt him from the three-term limit. The Court distinguished an interruption of a term, which requires loss of title to office, from mere failure to render service while retaining the office. As the councilor retained his title during his temporary suspension, it did not constitute an interruption of his term. Therefore, the COMELEC erred in allowing the councilor's certificate of candidacy for a fourth term.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    118 views2 pages

    Aldovino V COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    batusay575
    The Supreme Court ruled that a councilor's preventive suspension due to a criminal case did not interrupt his three consecutive terms of office, and thus did not exempt him from the three-term limit. The Court distinguished an interruption of a term, which requires loss of title to office, from mere failure to render service while retaining the office. As the councilor retained his title during his temporary suspension, it did not constitute an interruption of his term. Therefore, the COMELEC erred in allowing the councilor's certificate of candidacy for a fourth term.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Aldovino v.

    Comelec (2009)
    Brion, J.:
    FACTS:
    Respondent Asilo was a councilor of Lucena City for 3 consecutive terms: for the years
    1998-2001, 2001-2004, and 2004-2007 terms, respectively.
    In 2005, during his third term in office, Asilo was preventively suspended by the
    Sandiganbayan for 90 days in relation to a criminal case filed against him.
    The suspension was subsequently lifted by the Supreme Court and he was able to resume
    the performance of the functions of his office and finish his term.
    Asilo filed a certificate of candidacy for the same position in the 2007 elections.
    Petitioners Aldovino et. al. sought to deny due course to the CoC or cancel it on the
    ground that Asilo has already served three terms as councilor. Hence, his filing for
    candidacy violates the three-term limit provided under Section 8, Article X of the
    Constitution and Section 43(b) of the RA 7160.
    Both the COMELECs 2nd Division and its en banc denied the petition, hence the present
    case.
    ISSUES:
    Whether the preventive suspension of an elected official is an interruption of the threelimit rule;
    RATIO/HELD:
    NO.
    The Supreme Court discussed the related jurisprudence and concluded that an
    interruption of the term of an elective official (which exempts him from the application
    of the three-term limit rule) should involve no less than an involuntary loss of title to his
    office. The Court then differentiated loss of title to the office and the failure to render
    service in relation to the concept of interruption:
    An interruption occurs when the term is broken because the office
    holder lost the right to hold on to his office, and cannot be equated
    with the failure to render service. The latter occurs during an office
    holders term when he retains title to the office but cannot exercise
    his functions for reasons established by law. Of course, the term
    "failure to serve" cannot be used once the right to office is lost;

    without the right to hold office or to serve, then no service can


    be rendered so that none is really lost. (emphasis supplied)
    The Court then proceeded to define what a preventive suspension entails; for the Court,
    preventive suspension, may it be imposed under the LGC, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
    Practices Act, or the Ombudsman Act, is a remedial measure that gives a premium to the
    protection of the service rather than to the interest of the office holder.
    But even then, preventive suspension, according to the Court, only entails a temporary
    prohibition on the exercise of the functions of the officials office since the preventively
    suspended official does not vacate and lose title to his office; loss of office is a
    consequence that only results upon an eventual finding of guilt or liability.
    As such, preventive suspension cannot be considered as an interruption in the term since
    interruption requires the loss of title to the office.
    According to the Court, the best indication that a preventive suspension is only a
    temporary prohibition to render service and not a loss of title to the office is the absence
    of a permanent replacement and the lack of the authority to appoint one since no vacancy
    exists in cases of preventive suspension.
    In view of the foregoing, the Court held that the COMELEC committed GADALEJ when
    it gave due course to Asilos CoC since his preventive suspension during his third term
    cannot be considered as an interruption of the same. As such, he is disqualified from
    running for another term in the 2007 elections as the three-term limit provided by the
    Constitution applies to him.

    You might also like