G.R. No. 163295 & G.R. No. 163354; January 23, 2006
FRANCIS G. ONG, Petitioner, vs. JOSEPH STANLEY ALEGRE and COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondents. ROMMEL G. ONG, Petitioner, vs. JOSEPH STANLEY ALEGRE and COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Joseph Stanley Alegre and petitioner Francis Ong were rival candidates for mayor of San Vicente, Camarines Norte in the May 2004 elections. Alegre filed a petition to disqualify Francis based on the three-consecutive-term limit, alleging Francis had served three full terms from 1995-1998, 1998-2001, and 2001-2004. The COMELEC First Division initially dismissed the petition, ruling the 1998-2001 term could not be counted because Francis was not duly elected for that term. This was based on a prior election protest where the Regional Trial Court declared Alegre the rightful winner for the 1998 elections, a decision which became final only on July 4, 2001, after Francis had already served the entire term.
The COMELEC en banc, upon reconsideration, reversed the First Division. It declared Francis disqualified, ordered the deletion of his name from the ballot, and directed that votes for him not be counted. Upon receiving this resolution, Francis’s political party nominated his brother, Rommel Ong, as a substitute candidate. Rommel filed his certificate of candidacy past the legal deadline. Alegre then filed a petition to cancel Rommel’s certificate, but local election officials included Rommel’s name on the list of candidates. COMELEC Commissioner Garcillano subsequently issued a memorandum ordering the implementation of the en banc resolution disqualifying Francis and, consequently, Rommel as his substitute.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether Francis Ong violated the three-consecutive-term limit, thereby disqualifying him from running in the May 2004 elections.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that Francis Ong was not disqualified. The legal logic hinges on the interpretation of “service” for the purpose of the three-term limit. The Court reiterated the doctrine from Borja, Jr. v. COMELEC and Lonzanida v. COMELEC: for the disqualification to apply, two conditions must concur: (1) the official was elected for three consecutive terms, and (2) he served three consecutive terms. The Court emphasized that “service” under the term limit rule presupposes a valid election and a right to the office.
Here, while Francis physically discharged the duties from 1998 to 2001, he was not the duly elected mayor for that term. The final judicial pronouncement established that Alegre was the legally elected winner. Therefore, Francis’s assumption of office was merely by presumption, which was later conclusively overturned. Consequently, the 1998-2001 period cannot be considered a term of service for the purpose of the constitutional prohibition. Since he only served two consecutive full terms where he was duly elected (1995-1998 and 2001-2004), the three-term limit was not violated. The COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying him. The petitions were granted, and the COMELEC resolutions disqualifying Francis Ong and the related orders against Rommel Ong were annulled and set aside.