ABUNDO vs COMELEC

FACTS:
1. For four (4) successive regular elections, namely, the 2001, 2004, 2007 and 2010 national and local elections, Abundo vied for the position of municipal mayor of Viga,
Catanduanes.
2. In the 2004 electoral derby, however, the Viga municipal board of canvassers initially proclaimed as winner one Jose Torres (Torres), who, in due time, performed the
functions of the office of mayor.
3. Abundo protested Torres' election and proclamation. Abundo was eventually declared the winner of the 2004 mayoralty electoral contest, paving the way for his
assumption of office starting May 9, 2006 until the end of the 2004-2007 term on June 30, 2007, or for a period of a little over one year... and one month.
4. Then came the May 10, 2010 elections where Abundo and Torres again opposed each other.
5. When Abundo filed his certificate of candidacy for the mayoralty seat, Torres lost no time in seeking the former's disqualification to run, predicated on the three-
consecutive term limit rule.
6. On June 16, 2010, COMELEC issued a Resolution finding for Abundo, accordingly proclaimed 2010 mayor-elect of Viga. Private respondent Ernesto R. Vega (Vega)
commenced a quo warranto action to unseat Abundo on essentially the same grounds Torres raised in his petition to disqualify.

ISSUES:

 whether the service of a term less than the full three years by an elected official arising from his being declared as the duly elected official upon an election protest is
considered as full service of the term for purposes of the application of the three consecutive term limit for elective local officials.

HELD:
 The consecutiveness of what otherwise would have been Abundo's three successive, continuous mayorship was effectively broken during the 2004-2007 term when he
was initially deprived of title to, and was veritably... disallowed to serve and occupy, an office to which he, after due proceedings, was eventually declared to have been the
rightful choice of the electorate.
 To constitute a disqualification to run for an elective local office pursuant to the aforequoted constitutional and statutory provisions, the following requisites must concur:
(1) that the official concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms in the same local government post; and
(2) that he has fully served three consecutive terms.
 the Court finds Abundo's case meritorious and declares that the two-year period during which his opponent, Torres, was serving as mayor should be considered as an
interruption, which effectively removed Abundo's case from the ambit of the three-term... limit rule.

 The three-term limit rule for elective local officials, a disqualification rule, is found in Section 8, Article X of the 1987 Constitution, which provides:
Sec. 8. 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.
NAVAL vs COMELEC

FACTS:
1. From 2004 to 2007 (1st term) and 2007 to 2010 (2nd term), Angel G. Naval had been elected and had served as a member of the Sanggunian, 2nd District,
Province of Camarines Sur.
2. On October 2009, the President approved RA No. 9716, which reapportioned the legislative districts in Camarines Sur. In particular, the 2nd District was
reapportioned such that 8 out of its 10 town constituencies are carved out and placed under the 3rd District. The 2ns District is left with the two remaining towns,
Gainza and Milaor, merged with five towns from the old 1st District.
3. In the 2010 elections (3rd term), Naval once again won but this time as a member of the Sanggunian, Third District. He served until 2013.
4. In the 2013 elections, Naval ran anew and was re-elected as Member of the Sanggunian, Third District.
5. On October 29, 2012, Nelson B. Julia invoked Section 7810 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) and filed before the COMELEC a Verified Petition to Deny Due
Course or to Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy of Naval. Julia posited that the three-term limit rule’s application is more with reference to the same local elective
post, and not necessarily in connection with an identical territorial jurisdiction.
6. Allowing Naval to run as a Sanggunian member for the fourth time, irrespective of the District, is violative of the three-term limit rule enshrined in the Constitution
and the LGC, which must be strictly construed.
7. The COMELEC Second Division cancelled Naval’s COC on the ground that Naval had committed a false material misrepresentation when he declared that he was
eligible to run when in fact he is disqualified under the three-term limit rule.
8. Thus, this petition.

ISSUE:
 Did Naval violate the three-term limit?

HELD:
 Yes. The court denies the petition.

 A republic is a representative government, a government run by and for the people. It is not a pure democracy where the people govern themselves directly. The
essence of republicanism is representation and renovation, the selection by the citizenry of a corps of public functionaries who derive their mandate from the
people and act on their behalf, serving for a limited period only, after which they are replaced or retained, at the option of their principal.

 R.A.No. 9716 plainly state that the new Second Districtis to be created, but the Third Districtis to be renamed. Verba legis non est recedendum. The terms used in
a legal provision to be construed compels acceptance and negates the power of the courts to alter it, based on the postulate that the framers mean what they say.

 The rationale behind reapportionment is the constitutional requirement to achieve equality of representation among the districts. It is with this mindset that the
Court should consider Naval’s argument anent having a new set of constituents electing him into office in 2010 and 2013.

 Naval’s ineligibility to run, by reason of violation of the three-term limit rule, does not undermine the right to equal representation of any of the districts in Camarines
Sur. With or without him, the renamed Third District, which he labels as a new set of constituents, would still be represented, albeit by another eligible person.
TOBIAS vs ABALOS

FACT:

1. Tobias, et al. filed a petition questioning the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7675, otherwise known as "An Act Converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a
Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Mandaluyong." Before the enactment of the law, Mandaluyong and San Juan belonged to the same legislative district.
2. The petitioners contended that the act is unconstitutional for violation of three provisions of the constitution.
 First, it violates the one subject one bill rule. The bill provides for the conversion of Mandaluyong to HUC as well as the division of congressional district of San
Juan and Mandaluyong into two separate districts.
 Second, it also violates Section 5 of Article VI of the Constitution, which provides that the House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two
hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law. The division of San Juan and Mandaluyong into separate congressional districts increased the
members of the House of Representative beyond that provided by the Constitution. 
 Third, Section 5 of Article VI also provides that within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative
districts based on the standard provided in Section 5.
3. Petitioners stated that the division was not made pursuant to any census showing that the minimum population requirement was attained.

ISSUE:
(1) Does RA 7675 violate the one subject one bill rule?
(2) Does it violate Section 5(1) of Article VI of the Constitution on the limit of number of representatives?
(3) Is the inexistence of mention of census in the law show a lack of constitutional requirement?

RULING: 
 The Supreme Court ruled that the contentions are devoid of merit.
 With regards to the first contention of one subject one bill rule, the creation of a separate congressional district for Mandaluyong is not a separate and distinct
subject from its conversion into a HUC but is a natural and logical consequence. In addition, a liberal construction of the "one title-one subject" rule has been
invariably adopted by this court so as not to cripple or impede legislation.
 The second contention that the law violates the present limit of the number of representatives, the provision of the section itself show that the 250 limit is not
absolute. The Constitution clearly provides that the House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than 250 members, "unless otherwise provided by
law”. Therefore, the increase in congressional representation mandated by R.A. No. 7675 is not unconstitutional.