The euphoria of the 2016 elections may have died down but some legal issues are yet to be resolved by the courts and the Comelec. A number of these cases may relate to the proper interpretation of the “three-term limit rule” for local elective officials.
This disqualification rule, as enshrined under Section 8, Article X of the 1987 Constitution and reiterated in Sec. 43 (b) of the Local Government Code of 1991, prohibits local elective officials from serving more than three (3) consecutive terms in the same position. It ensures that there is a change in leadership every after three consecutive terms of a local elective official to give chance to some other qualified individuals. Although the rule appears to be simple, the same has been a fertile ground for disputes stemming from varying interpretations of said rule.
In Abundo v. Comelec (2012), the Supreme Court laid down the following requisites for the applicability of the rule: (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 Abundo ruling likewise summarized various cases where the applicability of this rule was tested. These cases relate to: (1) assumption of office by operation of law, (2) assumption of office after winning a recall election, (3) conversion of a municipality to a city, and (4) declaration of the proclaimed candidate as the losing party in an election contest, and other analogous cases.
ASSUMPTION OF OFFICE BY OPERATION OF LAW
In Borja, Jr. v. Comelec (1998), Capco was elected vice-mayor but he eventually succeeded as mayor by operation of law due to the death of the incumbent mayor. Capco was then elected as mayor for two more terms after his assumption by operation of law. On his third attempt to re-election, his disqualification was sought. The Supreme Court held that “it is not enough that an individual 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.” Thus, the initial assumption by operation of law was not counted for purposes of the three-term limit rule.
ASSUMPTION OF OFFICE AFTER WINNING IN A RECALL ELECTION
In Socrates v. Comelec (2002), Hagedorn was elected and served as mayor for three consecutive terms. After that Hagedorn opted not to run for the next elections, in which Socrates eventually won. However, while serving his term, Socrates faced recall proceedings. Hagedorn ran for the former’s unexpired term, so Socrates sought his disqualification. The Supreme Court upheld Hagedorn’s candidacy to run in the recall election, since after his third term “he became a private citizen until the recall election” where he won.
CONVERSION OF A MUNICIPALITY INTO A CITY
In Latasa v. Comelec (2003), Latasa served as Mayor of the Municipality of Digos for three consecutive terms. During his third term, Digos was converted to a component city. When he filed his candidacy for city mayor, the Supreme Court ruled that “the conversion of a municipality to a city does not constitute an interruption of the incumbent official’s continuity of service.” Thus, the rule was applied.
LOSING IN AN ELECTION CONTEST
In Lonzanida v. Comelec (1999), Lonzanida was elected and served as mayor for three terms from 1989-1998. However, his proclamation relative to the 1995 election (for his 3rd term) was declared as null on the ground of failure of elections. Three months before the 1998 elections, Lonzanida vacated the mayoralty post. In the May 1998 elections, Lonzanida again filed his certificate of candidacy. This was questioned by his opponent.
The Supreme Court held that “Lonzanida cannot be considered as having been duly elected to the post in the May 1995 elections since his assumption of office as mayor cannot be deemed to have been by reason of a valid election but by reason of a void proclamation.” It was also stated that “Lonzanida did not fully serve the 1995-1998 mayoral term having been ordered to vacate his post before the expiration of the term, a situation which amounts to an involuntary relinquishment of office.” Thus, the rule did not apply.
Contrast this to Ong v. Alegre (2006), Ong was elected and served as mayor for three terms from 1995-2004. During the 1998 elections, the Comelec nullified Ong’s proclamation on account that he lost during the 1998 elections. Nonetheless, the decision became final and executory on July 4, 2001 when Ong had fully served the 1998-2001 term and was in fact already starting to serve the 2001-2004 term. In 2004, he filed his certificate of candidacy for the same position which his opponent questioned. Ong invoked the ruling in Lonzanida.
The Supreme Court held that “his assumption of office as mayor for the term 1998-2001 constitutes service for the full term.”Lonzanida did not apply because the conditions are different. Ong was deemed to have served for a full term because Ong’s proclamation was voided only after the expiry of the term. It was further noted that “the decision declaring Ong as not having won the 1998 elections was without practical and legal use and value.” “His proclamation as the duly elected mayor in the 1998 mayoralty election coupled by his assumption of office and his continuous exercise of the functions thereof from start to finish of the term, should legally be taken as service for a full term in contemplation of the three-term limit rule.”
Based on the foregoing, the rule is applicable for as long as a local elective official (1) has been elected and (2) had served for three consecutive terms in the same position. As such, an official who merely assumed office by operation of law can run for the same position for three consecutive terms since he was not elected to the position. Likewise, an officer who has been elected and had served three consecutive terms will not be disqualified to run for a recall election for the same position since there has been an interruption in the continuity of terms of office after his third term. Lastly, an official who did not serve a full term for having been declared to have lost an election contest can still run for the same position since the requirements are not complied with.
On the other hand, the rule is applicable to disqualify a local elective official to run for a fourth consecutive term over the same position even if the municipality has been converted into a city, or when a local elective official has been declared to have lost an election only after he had already served his full term.
Reynold L. Orsua is an Associate of the Litigation and Dispute Resolution (LDRD) of the Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices (ACCRALAW).
source: Businessworld
No comments:
Post a Comment