‘Final and executory’ : Comelec denies petition vs Gov Lacwasan’s candidacy

By Gina Dizon

The Commission on Elections ruled “final and executory” denying the petition opposing certificate of candidacy of Gov.  Bonifacio C. Lacwasan Jr for the position of governor of Mountain Province in the May 12,2025 elections.

Following the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Johnny Lausan, the Comelec en banc in their Jan. 15, 2025 decision, ruled their resolution dated Jan. 7, 2025 was ‘final and executory in accordance with rules of procedure that a decision or resolution  of the Comelec en banc in special actions shall become final and executory after five days from receipt of resolution  unless  restrained by the Supreme Court.”

The Comelec noted no restraining order was issued by the Supreme Court within five days from receipt of the parties that would preclude the Jan. 7, 2025 resolution by the Comelec en banc being ‘final and executory’ under Comelec rules on procedure and resolution 11046.

 The MR filed by petitioner Lausan was denied by the Comelec en banc that affirmed the ruling of the Comelec First Division having denied said motion for lack of merit.

Earlier, petitioner Lausan in his complaint to the First Division December last year claimed that Lacwasan violated the three-term limit rule on filing of candidacy.

The First Division junked the petition ruling that Lacwasan did not violate the 3-term-limit in their Dec. 11,2024 ruling.

“Clearly, Lacwasan was appointed and not elected as governor of Mountain Province,” the First Division stated in their resolution.

A consequent ruling of the Comelec en banc affirmed the decision of the First Division on Jan.  7, 2025.

 Lausan in his petition claimed that Lacwasan violated the 3-term limit rule claiming that  at the end of  the 2022-2025  term, Lacwasan fully served three terms and barred from running again for the fourth time.

But the Comelec en banc ruled: “We find no cogent reason to depart from the assailed resolution of the Commission (First Division)”.

The First Division of the Comelec ruled Lacwasan was not subject to the 3-term limit rule since he assumed his position as vice governor of Mountain Province and served in that capacity in the full 2016-2019 term.

“Clearly, Lacwasan was appointed and not elected as governor of Mountain Province,” the First Division stated in their ruling dated Jan. 7,2025.

Lacwasan assumed the gubernatorial post till June 30, 2019 following the death of the late Gov. Leonard Mayaen in March 31,2016.

He was subsequently elected and won in two consecutive terms as provincial governor in the 2019 and 2022 elections.

The First Division noted Supreme Court jurisprudence citing two requisites for the applicability of the disqualification under the three-term limit.

One, the official concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms in the same local government post; and second, the official concerned has fully served three consecutive terms.

The Comelec in its ruling  also noted  section 8 of  the 1987 Constitution which stated: “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.”

The Comelec clarified that Lacwasan “did not lose title of the Office of the Vice Governor when he was appointed as Acting Governor in 2016 as he was merely prevented from exercising the functions of his office by reason of his assumption of the post of Governor as provided for and by operation of law” when a permanent vacancy arose due to the untimely death of former winning Gov. Mayaen in the 2016 elections.

The petitioner claimed Lacwasan in his COC constituted false material representation because  he (Lacwasan)  is ineligible on account of the three term limit rule.

The Comelec en banc ruled the motion for reconsideration had no valid ground and that the assailed resolution was neither without sufficient basis found in the records nor of the law.