MELANIO L. MENDOZA and MARIO E. IBARRA v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS elected official’s service to less than nine years and shortchange his
and LEONARDO B. ROMAN
G.R. No. 149736. December 17, 2002.En Banc
Provision:
Local Government Code, Sec. 43. Term of Office. — (a) The term of office of all
local elective officials elected after the effectivity of this Code shall be three (3)
years, starting from noon of June 30, 1992 or such date as may be provided for by
law, except that of elective barangay officials: Provided, That all local officials first
elected during the local elections immediately following the ratification of the 1987
Constitution shall serve until noon of June 30, 1992.
(b) No local elective official shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms in
the same position. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall
not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of service for the full term for
which the elective official concerned was elected.
 petition for certiorari filed by petitioners Melanio L. Mendoza and Mario E. Ibarra,
seeking to set aside COMELEC resolution to declare respondent Leonardo B.
Roman’s election as governor of Bataan on May 14, 2001 as null and void for
allegedly being contrary to Art. X, §8 of the Constitution1
 petition Dismissed (8-7 vote)
Those who voted to dismiss are:
 VITUG, J., joined by YNARES-SANTIAGO, J - as revealed by the records of the
Constitutional Commission, the Constitution envisions a continuous and an
uninterrupted service for three full terms before the proscription applies.
Therefore, not being a full term, a recall term should not be counted or used as
a basis for the disqualification whether served prior (as in this case) or
subsequent (as in the Socrates case) to the nine-year, full three-term limit.
 MENDOZA, J., joined by  QUISUMBING, J. - a term during which succession to
a local elective office takes place or a recall election is held should not be
counted in determining whether an elective local official has served more than
three consecutive terms. He argued that the Constitution does not prohibit
elective local officials from serving for more than three consecutive terms
because, in fact, it excludes from the three-term limit interruptions in the
continuity of service, so long as such interruptions are not due to the voluntary
renunciation of the office by an incumbent.
o Hence, the period from June 28, 1994 to June 30, 1995, during which
respondent Leonardo B. Roman served as governor of Bataan by
virtue of a recall election held in 1993, should not be counted. Since on
May 14, 2001 respondent had previously served as governor of Bataan
for only two consecutive terms (1995–1998 and 1998–2001), his
election on that day was actually only his third term for the same
position
 PANGANIBAN, J., joined by PUNO, J. - a recall term should not be considered
as one full term, because a contrary interpretation would in effect cut short the
1
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.
constituents.
o The desire to prevent monopoly of political power should be balanced
against the need to uphold the voters’ obvious preference who, in the
present case, is Roman who received 97 percent of the votes cast.
o in a democracy the people should, as much as legally possible, be
governed by leaders freely chosen by them in credible elections.
o in election cases, when two conflicting legal positions are of almost
equal weight, the scales of justice should be tilted in favor of the
people’s overwhelming choice
 AZCUNA, J., joined by BELLOSILLO, J. - it is clear from the constitutional
provision that the disqualification applies only if the terms are consecutive and
the service is full and continuous. Hence, service for less than a term, except
only in case of voluntary renunciation, should not count to disqualify an elective
local official from running for the same position. This case is different from
Socrates, where the full three consecutive terms had been continuously served
so that disqualification had clearly attached
Those who voted to grant the petition:
 SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J., joined by DAVIDE, C.J., AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CORONA, and CALLEJO, SR., JJ. - the recall term served by respondent
Roman, comprising the period June 28, 1994 to June 30, 1995, should be
considered as one term. Since he thereafter served for two consecutive terms
from 1995 to 1998 and from 1998 to 2001, his election on May 14, 2001 was
actually his fourth term and contravenes Art. X, §8 of the Constitution. For this
reason, she voted to grant the petition and to declare respondent’s election on
May 14, 2001 as null and void
 CARPIO, J., joined by CARPIO-MORALES, J. - a recall term constitutes one
term and that to totally ignore a recall term in determining the three-term limit
would allow local officials to serve for more than nine consecutive years contrary
to the manifest intent of the framers of the Constitution. He contended that
respondent Roman’s election in 2001 cannot exempt him from the three-term
limit imposed by the Constitution
PETITION DISMISSED.
SEPARATE OPINIONS
VITUG
Leonardo B. Roman held the post of Governor of Bataan province a number of times:
 1986–1988 Appointed OIC Governor of Bataan by former President Corazon
 1988–1992 Elected Governor
 1994–1995 Elected Governor during the RECALL election in 1993, assumed
office on 28 June 1994 and served up to 1995.
 1995–1998 Elected Governor and served up to 1998
 1998–2001 Elected Governor and served up to 2001
On 22 February 2001, private respondent Roman again filed a certificate of
candidacy for the same post in the 14th May 2001 regular elections. On 16 May
2001, Leonardo Roman was proclaimed by the Provincial Board of Canvassers of
Bataan.
In order that the three-consecutive term limit can apply, two conditions must concur:
 elective local official concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms to
the same local government position
 served three consecutive full terms, albeit a voluntary renunciation of the office
for any length of time shall not be deemed to be an interruption in the continuity
of the service for the full term for which he is elected
The Constitutional Commission, in its deliberations, referred to a full nine (9) years of
service for each elective local government official in the application of the prohibition,
envisioning at the same time a continuous and uninterrupted period of nine years by
providing for only one exception, i.e., when an incumbent voluntarily gives up the
office.
If involuntary severance from the service which results in the incumbent’s being
unable to finish his term of office because of his ouster through valid recall
proceedings negates "one term" for purposes of applying the three-term limit, then
the balance of the term assumed by the newly elected local official in a recall election
should not also be held to be one term in reckoning the three-term limit. In both
situations, neither the elective local official who is unable to finish his term nor the
elected local official who only assumes the balance of the term of the ousted local
official following the recall election could be considered to have served a full three-
year term set by the Constitution.
The COMELEC has consistently held that the term of a newcomer in recall elections
cannot be counted as a full term and may not thus be included in counting the three-
term limit prescribed under the law.
Respondent Roman has won the election to the post of Governor of Bataan with a
comfortable margin against his closest opponent.
 Where a candidate appears to be the clear choice of the people, doubts on the
candidate’s eligibility, even only as a practical matter, must be so resolved as to
respect and carry out, not defeat, the paramount will of the electorate.
 While the Constitution would attempt to prevent the monopolization of political
power, indeed a wise rule, the precept of preserving the freedom of choice of
the people on who shall rightfully hold the reins of government for them is no
less than fundamental in looking at its overriding intent.
MENDOZA
 it is error to think that, because a regular election is held between the end of
three terms and the term during which a recall election is held, there occurs
thereby "an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for which
[the official concerned] was elected" within the meaning of Art. X, § 8.
o it is "the continuity of the service for the full term" — not "the continuity
of a full term" — that is in question. We are talking here of "interruption
in the continuity of service," which can only refer to service which is
being rendered. For after service for three consecutive terms has been
rendered there can be no more interruption of service. The local official
concerned, who has served for three consecutive terms, can run in a
recall election not because of any break in his service but because the
term to which he is elected is less than three years.
 in applying the three-term limit, the term during which succession takes place or
a recall election is held should not be counted, either with the three consecutive
terms preceding, or with the three consecutive terms succeeding, such term. It
should not be counted not because of any interruption in the continuity of the
service but because such term is for less than three years. Hence, the
unexpired portion of a term, whether filled by succession or by election in a
recall, cannot be considered one full term.
o ITC: since respondent Roman’s first election in 1993 was in
consequence of a recall and not a regular election and he had not fully
served three consecutive terms when he was elected on May 14, 2001,
I submit with respect that his last election is valid.
 the cases of Borja, Jr. and Arcos are on all fours with the instant case. In these
cases it was held that a vice mayor who had succeeded to the office of mayor
can serve for three more consecutive terms as such if elected after the
expiration of the term during which he had served by succession. There is no
reason why the result should be different simply because in this case
respondent became governor by virtue of election in a recall, rather than by
succession, before winning in three consecutive regular elections.
o Succession and recall election are alike. They are both modes of
succession for the purpose of automatically filling permanent vacancies
in elective local offices to prevent a hiatus in office
o The local official who succeeds to the office or is elected in a recall
simply finishes the term of his predecessor.
o This is in contrast to a special election called to fill a vacancy either in
the House of Representatives or in the Senate. There the person
elected wins a term even though it is for less than three years (in the
case of Representatives) or six years (in the case of Senators)
because, between the time the vacancy occurs and a special election
is held, there is an appreciable period during which the vacancy exists
so that the unexpired portion of the term is considered one term. There
is no automatic succession in such case. It is even possible that the
vacancy will not be filled because no special election has been
called.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
 Two ideas emerge from a consideration of the proceedings of the Constitutional
Commission:
o first is the notion of service of term, derived from the concern about the
accumulation of power as a result of a prolonged stay in office.
o second is the idea of election, derived from the concern that the right of
the people to choose those whom they wish to govern them be
preserved
PANGANIBAN
 The dissenters’ overriding concern is the possibility that an elective local official,
like Respondent Roman who first served a recall term, may be elected to and
hold the same position longer than three consecutive terms. With all due
respect, I believe that such concern is largely misplaced.
 PET: in establishing term limits, the Constitution intended to prevent a local
official from holding the same office for a period longer than three consecutive
terms or a total of nine years
 Note, however, that whether the initial accession to office was by virtue of
succession/operation of law or by virtue of a recall election, the same evil
(monopoly of political power) might still arise at some point down the road.
o the manner in which local officials first got into office is of no moment,
whether or not they will later proceed to monopolize political power and
perpetuate themselves in office. More plainly, one unusual mode of
entry into public office would be simplistically favored over another if
one official is allowed to serve more than three terms, on the ground
that the excess was by virtue of a legal succession to a vacant office;
and to disallow another from so serving, simply because the excess
was by reason of a recall election. Specifically, assumption of office by
operation of law would be favored over that by recall election.
o such line of reasoning puts a higher premium on an accidental or
opportunistic succession to office (for example, through the death of
the incumbent local official) over a collective and earnest expression of
the people’s sovereign will (as through a recall election).
 term limits should refer and strictly apply to the normal or expected duration of
electoral terms, barring unexpected or unforeseen contingencies such as acts of
nature or political upheavals as in this case.
o the framers of the Constitution — in their deliberations on Article X,
Section 8 — "were as much concerned with preserving the freedom of
choice of the people as they were with preventing the monopolization
of political power."
 after having won the last election by an overwhelming margin, Mr. Roman is
unarguably the choice of the voters. This Court cannot simply turn a deaf ear to,
much less stifle, the people’s voice. Elections and the contests attendant thereto
involve public interest of the highest priority. Thus, technicalities and procedural
barriers should not be allowed to stand, if they constitute an obstacle to the
determination of the true will of the electorate in the choice of their elective
officials.
 petitioners have not  demonstrated that the ineligibility of respondent governor is
so patently antagonistic to constitutional and legal principles that overriding it
and thereby giving effect to the people’s will would ultimately be more prejudicial
to the democratic fundamentals and juristic traditions of our country.
 to unseat herein Respondent Leonardo B. Roman, the sitting governor of
Bataan, would constitute an unwelcome judicial imposition upon the people. To
do so would be to remove the one who has won the clear popular mandate in an
honest and credible election and to install in his place, by judicial fiat, an
obscure candidate who has been absolutely rejected by the electorate, or
another official (the vice governor) whom nobody voted for governor.
SANDOVAL (DISSENT)
 the object of the three-term limit is to forestall the accumulation of massive
political power by an elective local official who intends to perpetuate himself in
office. Another purpose is to broaden the choices of the electorate of the
candidates who will run for office, and to infuse new blood in the political arena
by disqualifying officials from running for the same office after serving 9
consecutive years
o The courts, in construing the Constitution, should consider the object
sought to be accomplished by its adoption, and the evils, if any, sought
to be prevented or remedied.
 respondent Roman served as governor of Bataan from 1986 up to the present.
To date, he has perpetuated himself in the said position for more than sixteen
years. Is this not precisely the vice that the framers of the Constitution intended
to avert in prescribing the three-term limit rule? To say that a recall term is not a
full term is to provide a fertile ground for circumventing the three-term limit rule.
As in the construction of statutes, the Constitution should be construed not so
much according to the letter that killeth but in line with the purpose for which it
has been enacted. The Constitution is to be given such construction as will
advance its object, suppress or prevent the evil it seeks to avoid, and secure the
benefits intended. The interpretation of the Constitution should be done with a
view to realizing its fundamental objective. 
 This Court, just a month ago, emphatically declared in Socrates 18 that although
an official elected in a recall election serves the unexpired term of the recalled
official, this "unexpired term is in itself one term for purposes of counting the
three-term limit." It went further in saying that a "local official who serves a recall
term should know that (such) term is in itself one term although less than three
years. This is the inherent limitation he takes by running and winning in the
recall election." It now boggles my mind why the majority has made a complete
turn-around and totally disregarded this significant pronouncement which could
have given life to the constitutional mandate.
 In the law of public officers, there is a settled distinction between term and
tenure. Term means the time during which the officer may claim to hold the
office as a matter of right. Upon the other hand, tenure represents the period
during which the incumbent actually holds office. Tenure may be shorter than
term for reasons within or beyond the power of the incumbent. 19 In the case of
herein respondent who was elected in a recall election, his tenure was only for
the remaining term of the recalled official, then Governor Garcia. Be that as it
may, his election is still for a particular term inasmuch as during the unserved
period of the recalled official, he has a claim to hold such office as a matter of
right. In short, his service for the remaining period is considered tenure for the
full term for which he was elected.
 The political system of our country is one of democratic and republican
government. A democratic government is necessarily a government of laws.
Also, in a republican government, these laws are decreed by the people through
their representatives and through them, the people dictate the qualifications as
well as the disqualifications for service in government positions. Respondent is
clearly disqualified to serve as governor of the Province of Bataan for 2001 to
2004 as he has exceeded the allowable term limit for local elective officials. The
will of a majority or plurality of the voters of the province of Bataan should not be
considered to have cured such disqualification. To do so will seriously violate
the fundamental law itself. Simply put, the will of respondent Roman’s
constituency should not prevail over the will of the entire Filipino people as
expressed in the Constitution.
CARPIO (DISSENT)
 the framers of the 1987 Constitution unmistakably intended a recall term, which respondent Roman won overwhelmingly, for this constitutional issue could also
is the unexpired term of the recalled official, to be considered as one term for have been raised in a case where the margin of victory was whisker-thin.
counting term limits
 the framers of the Constitutional Commission intended the three-term limit to
mean a maximum service of nine consecutive years. This intent is clear, definite
and unequivocal. To rule that a recall term should be totally ignored in counting
the three-term limit will allow local officials to be elected to serve for more than
nine consecutive years contrary to the manifest intent of the framers of the
Constitution. This is exactly what will happen if respondent Roman’s recall term
is not counted in computing the three-term limit, for Roman will then serve as
Governor for more than ten consecutive years.
o The framers of the Constitution have fixed the term limit of elective
local officials at three consecutive terms, with a clear intention that the
total shall not exceed nine years. They have also intended that election
to an unexpired term shall be considered as one term for purposes of
counting the three-term limit. The intention of the framers of the
Constitution, just like the intention of legislators who draft a statute,
certainly deserves great weight. When such intention is clear, definite
and unequivocal, the intention becomes controlling as it expresses the
true spirit of the Constitution or the law. 
 the 1987 Constitution does not require a public official, whether elective or
appointive, to serve his full term in order to be disqualified from re-election or
reappointment. A clear example is a Vice-President who succeeds by operation
of law as President. If the Vice-President succeeds to the Presidency to serve
an unexpired term of more than four years, he is disqualified from running for
President
 the instant case is not a situation where the official succeeded by operation of
law to the office and served the unexpired term of his predecessor 
o To say that the recall term is a stray term, belonging to no elected
official in counting the three-term limit, is to ignore reality. A recall term
arises from a special election for a fixed term of office — the unexpired
term of the recalled official. The official elected in a recall election has
the same functions and powers as an official elected to the same office
in a regular election. The recall term is a legal and political fact that
cannot just be dismissed as a stray term
 to consider a recall term as a stray term will encourage a person disqualified
because of the three-term limit to agitate for the recall of his immediate
successor. We held in Socrates that such a person can run in a recall election. If
he wins and his recall term is not counted in computing the three-term limit, then
he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by agitating for a recall election.
This will remove the stability of the term of office of his immediate successor,
and subject the people to too many elections within a short period. But if the
recall term is counted as one term, then the truncated term serves as an
inherent limitation and natural disincentive to those who would otherwise agitate
for a recall election because they cannot wait for the next regular elections.
 that respondent Roman won as Governor in the 2001 elections cannot serve to
exempt him from the three-term limit mandated by the Constitution. The vote of
the people of Bataan, while overwhelmingly for Roman, cannot overcome the
vote of the people of the entire Philippines when they ratified the Constitution
that now mandates the three-term limit. Besides, we must resolve the
constitutional issue here without regard to the accidental circumstance that