This article talks about the three-term limit rule which states that a local elective official cannot serve for more than three consecutive terms.
As a measure to prevent politicians for perpetuating themselves in power, there is a three-term limit rule for local elective officials. This is enshrined in Article X, Sec. 8 of the Constitution which states:
”Section 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. “
This can also be found in Sec. 43 of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code, which provides:
Sec. 43. Term of Office. —
x x x x
(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.
Although the three-term limit rule simply states that a local elective official cannot serve for more than three consecutive terms, its interpretation has been subject of numerous discussion and debate in cases going up all the way to the Supreme Court. In Lonzanida vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 135150, 28 July 1999, the Supreme Court held that in order for the bar to apply, two conditions 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.
If both these conditions are not met, then the local elective official can run for the coming term. The bone of contention usually lies in determining whether there has been an interruption in the term of office to prevent the application of the three-term limit. In the case of Abundo vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 201716, 08 January 2013, the Supreme Court amply discussed:
”There has, in fine, to be a break or interruption in the successive terms of the official after his or her third term. An interruption usually occurs when the official does not seek a fourth term, immediately following the third. Of course, the basic law is unequivocal that a “voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall NOT be considered an interruption in the continuity of service for the full term for which the elective official concerned was elected.” This qualification was made as a deterrent against an elective local official intending to skirt the three-term limit rule by merely resigning before his or her third term ends. This is a voluntary interruption as distinguished from involuntary interruption which may be brought about by certain events or causes”.
Thus, where a Vice-Mayor became Mayor because the latter died during his term, such will not violate the three-term limit if he runs for Mayor since it is not enough that an individual has served three consecutive terms in an elective local office, he must also have been elected to the same position for the same number of times before the disqualification can apply [Borja vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 133495, 03 September 1998]. Likewise, a mayor serving the unexpired term after winning in the recall elections is not counted as a term because there was an interruption in the continuity of his office and that the prohibited election refers to the next regular election for the same office following the end of the third consecutive term and, hence, any subsequent election, like recall election, is no longer covered [Socrates v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 154512, 12 November 2002]. Moreover, a municipal mayor who was unseated and ordered to vacate his office by reason of an election protest before the expiration of his term amounts to an involuntary relinquishment of office which prevented the application of the three-term limit [Lonzanida vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 135150, 28 July 1999]. However, the three-term limit rule will apply if the mayor has fully served three terms even if the court declared his opponent as the rightful winner after the term of the contested office has expired [Rivera vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 167591, 09 May 2007].
It must be noted that the preventive suspension of public officials does not interrupt their term for purposes of the three-term limit rule because a preventive suspension cannot simply be a term interruption because the suspended official continues to stay in office although he is barred from exercising the functions and prerogatives of the office within the suspension period [Aldovino vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 184836, 23 December 2009]. Also, the abolition of an elective local office due to the conversion of a municipality to a city does not, by itself, work to interrupt the incumbent official’s continuity of service. Thus, the three-term limit rule will apply [Latasa vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 154829, 10 December 2003].
This is the three-term limit rule for local elective officials under the Constitution, Local Government Code and Supreme Court decisions.
About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices
If you need assistance on Philippine election law matters, we can help you. Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines. You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines. You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.
