G.R. No. 247806. November 09, 2021
VLADIMIR ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO, YEN MAKABENTA, MARY WENDY A. DURAN, MANOLITO CORONADO, SOCORRO MARICEL NAMIA NEPOMUCENO, JEF NALUS AQUINO, ANTONIO SANTOS, AND CESAR EVANGELISTA, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioners filed a special civil action for mandamus to compel the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to enforce the constitutional term limits for Senators (no more than two consecutive terms) and Members of the House of Representatives (no more than three consecutive terms) under Article VI, Sections 4 and 7 of the 1987 Constitution. They contend that many legislators have circumvented these limits by running for office again after taking a hiatus or rest period upon completing the maximum consecutive terms. Petitioners submitted lists of such Senators and House Members. They argue the COMELEC failed in its ministerial duty to enforce election laws by allowing these termed-out officials to run for reelection. They seek a declaration that the reelection of such officials is unconstitutional, an order for COMELEC to deny due course to their Certificates of Candidacy for the May 2022 elections and beyond, and the abandonment of the precedent set in Socrates v. Commission on Elections. Petitioners assert standing based on a public right and duty, claim mandamus is proper as COMELEC’s duty is ministerial, and argue the case presents a novel question of transcendental importance. The COMELEC, in its Comment, argues that mandamus is improper as determining candidate eligibility is not a ministerial duty but a quasi-judicial function, that petitioners lack standing and there is no actual case, and that the correct remedy is a petition under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. On the substantive issue, COMELEC maintains the constitutional provisions, by using the word “consecutive,” allow reelection after a break in service, which aligns with the framers’ intent and existing jurisprudence.

ISSUE

Whether the Petition for Mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the Commission on Elections to enforce term limits by denying due course to the Certificates of Candidacy of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives who have served the maximum number of consecutive terms but seek reelection after a hiatus.

RULING

No. The Petition for Mandamus is not the proper remedy.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The COMELEC’s duty to receive and acknowledge Certificates of Candidacy is ministerial. However, the act of denying due course to or canceling a Certificate of Candidacy is not ministerial; it is a quasi-judicial function that requires the exercise of judgment after notice and hearing. The determination of whether a candidate has violated term limits involves an examination of eligibility, which is not a patent defect visible on the face of the certificate. The proper remedy for petitioners is to file a verified petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, based on a false material representation regarding eligibility. Furthermore, the Court found that the petition presented no actual case or controversy ripe for adjudication, as it was filed well before the filing of certificates of candidacy for the May 2022 elections and sought a speculative, generalized relief against unnamed officials. The Court declined to rule on the substantive interpretation of the term limit provisions, as the procedural infirmities were dispositive. The Court also noted that abandoning the doctrine in Socrates v. Commission on Elections was not warranted, as the petition failed to demonstrate compelling reasons for doing so.