SC Rules On Three-Term Limit

By Rey G. Panaligan
January 25, 2013, 8:01pm
MANILA, Philippines --- Less than four months into the May 13 national elections, the Supreme
Court (SC) handed down a decision that clarified the three-term limit imposed by the
Constitution on all local elective officials.
In a unanimous full court decision written by Justice Presbitero J. Velasco Jr., the SC reiterated
its previous ruling that for the disqualification to apply, 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.
The SC also said that an election protest is considered an involuntary interruption in the threeterm limit even if the subject of the protest would finally assume the post after the case is
resolved.
The three-term limit for local elective officials is found in Section 8, Article X of the 1987 as
reiterated in Section 43(b) of Republic Act No. 7160, known as the Local Government Code
(LGC).
The Constitution provides that the term of office of elective local officials, except barangay
officials... shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive
terms and that 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 SC revisited its previous rulings on the three-term limit for local elective officials in the
petition filed by Mayor Abelardo Abundo Sr. of Viga, Catanduanes.
Abundo ran for mayor in four successive elections 2001, 2004, 2007, and 2010. In 2001 and
2007, he emerged winner and assumed the post of mayor.
In the 2004 election, however, Abundos rival, Jose Torres, was initially proclaimed winner.
Abundo protested Torres proclamation and succeeded in the case until he assumed the
mayoralty position on May 9, 2006 or for a period of a little over one year until June 30, 2007.
In the 2010 election, the rivalry between Abundo and Torres again ensued. Torres filed a
disqualification case against Abundo on the basis of the three-term limit.
On June 16, 2010, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) ruled in favor of Abundo who
defeated Torres by 219 votes. He was proclaimed mayor-elect of Viga town.

On May 21, 2010, a certain Ernesto Vega filed a quo warranto action against Abundo before the
regional trial court (RTC) based in Virac. Vegas action has almost the same grounds as the
disqualification case filed by Torres.
The RTC said that Abundo was ineligible to serve as mayor with a ruling that he had served
three terms in the 2001, 2004, and 2007 elections.
Both the rulings of Comelecs second division on February 8, 2012 and its en banc on May 10,
2012 affirmed the decision of the RTC prompting Abundo to elevate the issue before the SC.
Vice Mayor Emeterio Tarin and first councilor Cesar Cervantes assumed the post of mayor and
vice mayor, respectively, on July 3, 2012, the same day the SC issued a temporary restraining
order (TRO) that stopped the implementation of the Comelecs decision against Abundo.
Ruling in favor of Abundos petition and reversing the decision of the Comelec, the SC said that
the almost two-year period which Abundos opponent actually served as mayor is and ought to
be considered an involuntary interruption of Abundos continuity of service.
An involuntary interrupted term, cannot, in the context of the disqualification rule, be
considered as one term for purposes of counting the three-term threshold, the SC ruled.
With the ruling, the SC ordered the immediate reinstatement of Abundo to his post as mayor and
the reversion of Tarin and Cervantes to their original posts as vice mayor and first councilor of
Viga town.
In its decision, the SC also listed down the prevailing jurisprudence on issues affecting the
consecutiveness of terms and or involuntary interruption. These are:
1. When a permanent vacancy occurs in an elective position and the official merely assumed the
position pursuant to the rules on succession under the Local Government Code, then his service
for the unexpired portion of the term of the replaced official cannot be treated as one full term as
contemplated under the subject constitutional and statutory provision that service cannot be
counted n the application of any term limit. If the official runs again for the same position he
held prior to his assumption of the higher office, then his succession to said position is by
operation of law and is considered an involuntary severance or interruption.
2. An elective official, who has served for three consecutive terms and who did not seek the
elective position for what could be his fourth term, but later won in a recall election, had an
interruption in the continuity of the officials service. For, he had become in the interim, i.e.,
from the end of the 3rd term up to the recall election, a private citizen.
3. 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 officials continuity of service.

4. Preventive suspension is not a term-interrupting event as the elective officers continued stay
and entitlement to the office remain unaffected during the period of suspension, although he is
barred from exercising the functions of his office during this period.
5. When a candidate is proclaimed as winner for an elective position and assumes office, his term
is interrupted when he loses in an election protest and is ousted from office, thus disenabling him
from serving what would otherwise be the unexpired portion of his term of office had the protest
been dismissed. The break or interruption need not be for a full term of three years or for the
major part of the 3-year term; an interruption for any length of time, provided the cause is
involuntary, is sufficient to break the continuity of service.

In the 2004 election, however, Abundos rival, Jose Torres, was initially proclaimed winner.
Abundo protested Torres proclamation and succeeded in the case until he assumed the
mayoralty position on May 9, 2006 or for a period of a little over one year until June 30, 2007.
Abundo ran for mayor in four successive elections 2001, 2004, 2007, and 2010. In 2001 and
2007, he emerged winner and assumed the post of mayor.

Jose and Juan both ran for mayor during 2004 local election. Juan won and was proclaimed as
winner. Jose filed an election protest and succeeded in the case until he assumed the mayoralty
post on May 9, 2006 or for period of a little over one year until June 30, 2007. In 2007 and 2010
elections, Jose ran and won as mayor. Can he run again for mayor in May 2013 election?
Yes. There was involuntary interruption of Joses continuity of service when Juan served the two
year period as mayor.
Ruling in favor of Abundos petition and reversing the decision of the Comelec, the SC said that
the almost two-year period which Abundos opponent actually served as mayor is and ought to
be considered an involuntary interruption of Abundos continuity of service.

Ruling in favor of Abundos petition and reversing the decision of the Comelec, the SC said that
the almost two-year period which Abundos opponent actually served as mayor is and ought to
be considered an involuntary interruption of Abundos continuity of service.
An involuntary interrupted term, cannot, in the context of the disqualification rule, be
considered as one term for purposes of counting the three-term threshold, the SC ruled.

6. When an official is defeated in an election protest and said decision becomes final after said
official had served the full term for said office, then his loss in the election contest does not
constitute an interruption since he has managed to serve the term from start to finish. His full
service, despite the defeat, should be counted in the application of term limits because the
nullification of his proclamation came after the expiration of the term.