Latasa Vs Comelec Digest

Latasa vs.
Comelec
Facts:
Petitioner Latasa, was elected mayor of the Municipality of Digos, Davao del Sur in the elections
of 1992, 1995, and 1998. In February 2001, he filed his certificate of candidacy for city mayor for
the 2001 elections. He stated therein that he is eligible therefor, and likewise disclosed that he
had already served for three consecutive terms as mayor of the Municipality of Digos and is now
running for the first time for the position of city mayor.
Sunga, also a candidate for city mayor in the said elections, filed before the COMELEC a
petition to deny petitioner's candidacy since the latter had already been elected and served for
three consecutive terms. Petitioner countered that this fact does not bar him from filing a
certificate of candidacy for the 2001 elections since this will be the first time that he will be
running for the post of city mayor.
The Comelecs First Division denied petitioner's certificate of candidacy. However, his motion for
reconsideration was not acted upon by the Comelec en banc before election day and he was
proclaimed winner. Only after the proclamation did the Comelec en banc issue a resolution that
declared him disqualified from running for mayor of Digos City, and ordered that all votes cast in
his favor should not be counted.
Petitioner appealed, contending that when Digos was converted from a municipality to a city, it
attained a different juridical personality separate from the municipality of Digos. So when he
filed his certificate of candidacy for city mayor, it should not be construed as vying for the same
local government post.
Issue:
Is petitioner Latasa eligible to run as candidate for the position of mayor of the newly-created
City of Digos immediately after he served for three consecutive terms as mayor of the
Municipality of Digos?
Held:
As a rule, in a representative democracy, the people should be allowed freely to choose those
who will govern them. Article X, Section 8 of the Constitution is an exception to this rule, in that it
limits the range of choice of the people.
Section 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be
determined by law, shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more than three
consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be
considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was
elected.
An elective local official, therefore, is not barred from running again in for same local
government post, unless two conditions concur: 1.) that the official concerned has been elected
for three consecutive terms to the same local government post, and 2.) that he has fully served
three consecutive terms.
True, the new city acquired a new corporate existence separate and distinct from that of the
municipality. This does not mean, however, that for the purpose of applying the subject
Constitutional provision, the office of the municipal mayor would now be construed as a different
local government post as that of the office of the city mayor. As stated earlier, the territorial
jurisdiction of the City of Digos is the same as that of the municipality. Consequently, the
inhabitants of the municipality are the same as those in the city. These inhabitants are the same
group of voters who elected petitioner Latasa to be their municipal mayor for three consecutive
terms. These are also the same inhabitants over whom he held power and authority as their
chief executive for nine years.
The framers of the Constitution specifically included an exception to the peoples freedom to
choose those who will govern them in order to avoid the evil of a single person accumulating
excessive power over a particular territorial jurisdiction as a result of a prolonged stay in the
same office. To allow petitioner Latasa to vie for the position of city mayor after having served
for three consecutive terms as a municipal mayor would obviously defeat the very intent of the
framers when they wrote this exception. Should he be allowed another three consecutive terms
as mayor of the City of Digos, petitioner would then be possibly holding office as chief executive
over the same territorial jurisdiction and inhabitants for a total of eighteen consecutive years.
This is the very scenario sought to be avoided by the Constitution, if not abhorred by it.(Latasa
vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 154829, 10 December 2003)
Note:
It cannot be denied that the Court has previously held in Mamba-Perez v. COMELEC that
after an elective official has been proclaimed as winner of the elections, the COMELEC has no
jurisdiction to pass upon his qualifications. An opposing party's remedies after proclamation
would be to file a petition for quo warranto within ten days after the proclamation. Time and
again, this Court has held that rules of procedure are only tools designed to facilitate the
attainment of justice, such that when rigid application of the rules tend to frustrate rather than
promote substantial justice, this Court is empowered to suspend their operation. We will not
hesitate to set aside technicalities in favor of what is fair and just.

Latasa Vs Comelec Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Latasa Vs Comelec Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Latasa Vs Comelec Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Latasa vs.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.