Hagedorn and Bayron still qualified to run in 2010

By Cheryl A. Galili

Hagedorn and Bayron with constitutional lawyers Garcia and Coronel during a media conference late last week.

LEGAL EAGLES for incumbents Puerto Princesa Mayor Edward S. Hagedorn and Vice Mayor Lucilo R. Bayron said both are still qualified to race against anyone interested in their positions in 2010.

In a media conference called late last week by Hagedorn, constitutional lawyers Sandra Marie Coronel and George Garcia said their clients are eligible to run based on provisions in the Constitution.

Hagedorn became mayor through a recall election in 2002 against former mayor Dennis P. Socrates and another candidate, Sandy Sandoval, while Bayron became vice mayor after winning an election protest against the late Fernando U. Batul.

Garcia explicated that Hagedorn’s term started in 2004 because under the provisions of the law, “a recall election is a special term and should not be included for the purpose of counting the services rendered.”

Distinguishing the terms and tenure of an elective official, Garcia further explained that under Section 8, Article X of the Constitution, the term of office of elective officials, except barangay officials, shall be three years, and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms.

Hagedorn assumed his post after winning in the recall, Garcia stated. He was again elected in the same position in the 2004 election and in 2007.

“Ang legal opinion nagsasabing puwedeng tumakbo si Mayor Hagedorn sapagkat entitled pa siya sa huli niyang termino sa 2010 at 2013 (The legal opinion states that Mayor Hagedorn can still run because he is entitled to his last term in 2010 to 2013),” the lawyer said.

Coronel also said that as early as 1998, the Supreme Court has been consistent in ruling that less than three consecutive years in office is not considered a term.

The Constitution states that an elected official should serve three consecutive terms.

“Kapag recall, hindi iyan covered ng term. Ang sagot with respect to Mayor Hagedorn’s case, walang kaduda-duda na siya ay puwedeng tumakbo (If it’s recall, it’s not covered to be a term. The answer in the case of Mayor Hagedorn is that he is very qualified to run),” Coronel said as a matter of fact.

The two lawyers’ statements is supported by the opinion from the Law Department of the Commission on Election (Comelec), which states that “for three-term limit for local government officials to apply, two conditions of the requisites must occur: that the official concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms in the same local government post, and that he has fully served three consecutive terms.”

Garcia also cited a case of Socrates vs. Comelec where there was a pronouncement that a recall term in itself is one term although less than three years. In the Mendoza & Ibarra vs. Comelec & Roman, the Supreme Court (SC), voting 8-7, dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by petitioners Melanie L. Mendoza and Mario Ibarra seeking to set aside the resolution of the Comelec dated August 15, 2001, in EPC No. 2001-5 and to declare respondent Leonardo Roman’s election as governor of Bataan as null and void for allegedly being contrary to Article X of the Constitution.

The SC’ ruling states that the recall election is not counted as a full term and therefore, for purposes of the three term limit, was not included in the counting. It constituted an interruption in the service of the full term of three years of a local elective official.

It further added that “a recall term should not be counted or used as a basis for disqualification whether served prior or subsequent to the nine-year, full three-term limit.

“Considering Mayor Hagedorn’s case which is similar to that of Governor Roman of Bataan, he is still qualified to run in the 2010 election as he is considered to be still in his second term for purposes of applying the three-term limit for local elective officials,” he said.

On Bayron’s case, Coronel reiterated two conditions of the requisites that must occur: first, that the official concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms in the same local government post, and that he has fully served three consecutive terms.

Bayron was “declared the rightful winner in the election protest case”, and only served the unexpired portion of 2001-2004 term of the office of the Vice Mayor, such service is by virtue of the valid election hence, the first condition was met.

With respect to the second condition, Coronel said “we opine that it cannot be considered as a full term and therefore, should not be included in determining the applicability of the three-term limit.”

Since Bayron only served the unexpired portion of the Office of the Vice Mayor, the second condition did not attach hence, he can still validly run in 2010.

“Walang duda na si vice mayor ay puwedeng tumakbo ulit sa 2010 (There’s no doubt that the vice mayor can run again in 2010),” Garcia stated.

Coronel and Garcia believe that in the end, the rule of law will prevail and the two leaders will qualify to run again as mayor and vice mayor of the city.