For Your Data Adovo Vs Comelec, G.R. Nos. 155083-84 Example Brief Summary
February 01, 2019
Edit
Adovo vs COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 155083-84 illustration brief summary
November 12, 2002
Facts: On July 2, 2002, the therefore incumbent barangay officials of the Puerto Princesa convened themselves into a Preparatory Recall Assembly. The PRA was convened to initiate the recollect of Mayor Socrates of Puerto Princesa. On passing a resolution declaring loss of confidence, the PRA requested COMELEC to schedule a recollect election. Socrates filed a petition to nullify resolution to COMELEC, only was dismissed for lack of merit. Socrates filed a petition to the Supreme Court seeking to nullify COMELEC resolution alleging grave abuse of discretion, PRA gave no due honor too his too the public's constitutional correct to information.
Hagedorn filed a certificate for candidacy. Adovo et al., filed a petition for disqualification alleging that Hagedorn is disqualified from running for a 4th consecutive term, having been elected too having served equally mayor of the metropolis for iii (3) consecutive total price right away prior to the moment recollect election for the same post. COMELEC dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Hence the moment consolidated petition
Issue:
(1) whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion inwards giving due course of report to the Recall Resolution too scheduling the recollect election for mayor of Puerto Princesa
(2) whether Hagedorn is qualified to operate for mayor inwards the recollect election of Puerto Princesa on September 24, 2002 too has violated the three-term rule
Ruling:
(Issue 1): The Supreme Court ruled that COMELEC did non commit a grave abuse of discretion. Records showed that due honor was given. The proponent sent notices, too said honor was equally good posted inwards conspicuous places equally good equally utilizing broadcast majority media inwards the dissemination of the convening of the PRA.
(Issue 2): The Supreme Court ruled that Hagedorn was qualified to operate for office. After iii consecutive terms, an elective local official cannot assay immediate reelection for a 4th term. The prohibited election refers to the side past times side regular election for the same percentage next the cease of the 3rd consecutive term. Any subsequent election, similar a recollect election, is no longer covered past times the prohibition for ii reasons. First, a subsequent election similar a recollect election is no longer an immediate reelection later iii consecutive terms. Second, the intervening menstruum constitutes an involuntary intermission inwards the continuity of service.
Therefore, the petition are dismissed