Term Limits of Local Government Officials under Philippine Law

Under the Philippine Constitution and the Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160), local government officials, including governors, mayors, and members of the local legislative bodies, are subject to term limits to promote democratic governance and prevent excessive concentration of power. The relevant laws set specific rules governing these term limits, which will be discussed below.

1. Constitutional Provision

The 1987 Philippine Constitution provides the general framework for term limits of elective local government officials. Article X, Section 8 of the Constitution states:

"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."

This provision explicitly limits local government officials to a maximum of three consecutive terms, each lasting three years. After serving three consecutive terms, an official becomes ineligible to run for the same position in the subsequent election cycle. However, after skipping one election, the official may run again for the same office.

2. Scope of Term Limits under the Local Government Code

The Local Government Code (LGC), particularly Section 43, reinforces and implements the constitutional provision on term limits. It specifies the positions subject to term limits, including:

Provincial Governors and Vice Governors
City and Municipal Mayors and Vice Mayors
Members of the Provincial Board (Sangguniang Panlalawigan)
Members of the City Council (Sangguniang Panlungsod)
Members of the Municipal Council (Sangguniang Bayan)

The Local Government Code mirrors the constitutional provision, affirming that these officials may serve for a maximum of three consecutive terms. Each term is three years long, making a total of nine years for any official who serves the maximum number of consecutive terms.

Key Features of the Term Limits in the Local Government Code:

Three consecutive terms limit: Officials can only serve three consecutive terms in the same position.
Ineligibility after three consecutive terms: After serving the maximum number of consecutive terms, the official cannot run for re-election in the same position in the next regular election.
Break in service allows re-election: After a one-term break, an official becomes eligible to run for the same office again.

3. Interpretation and Application of the Term Limits

3.1. Consecutive Terms

The term “consecutive” is a crucial element in determining whether the term limit applies. An official’s three-term limit applies only if the terms are served consecutively. If an official does not serve a full consecutive term (for example, due to resignation or removal), the incomplete term may not count toward the three-term limit, depending on the circumstances.

For example, the Supreme Court in Borja v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 133495, September 3, 1998) clarified that a “term” refers to the full three-year period for which an official is elected. Therefore, if an official serves a term that is interrupted (e.g., through resignation or removal), the interrupted term may not count as one of the three consecutive terms under the law. In this case, the official might still be eligible to run in subsequent elections without violating the term limit rule.

3.2. Voluntary and Involuntary Interruption

Another important aspect of the term limit rule is the distinction between voluntary and involuntary interruption of terms. An involuntary interruption (e.g., disqualification or removal from office through no fault of the official) may prevent that period from being counted as part of the consecutive terms. The Aldovino v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 184836, December 23, 2009) case tackled this matter, where the Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition only applies to successive full terms. If an official is disqualified, and this disqualification is subsequently lifted or the official resumes office, such period may not be counted as part of the consecutive terms for purposes of the three-term limit.

3.3. Absence of a Clear Prohibition on Running for Other Positions

It is important to note that the term limit applies only to the same position. An official who has served three consecutive terms as mayor, for example, is not prohibited from running for other local elective positions (e.g., governor or congressman). This practice has been commonly used by political families in the Philippines as a way to circumvent term limits while maintaining political control over different jurisdictions.

3.4. Substitutions and Appointments

Officials who assume office due to succession or appointment are subject to specific rules. If a Vice Mayor or Vice Governor assumes the office of Mayor or Governor due to vacancy, the period during which they hold office may or may not be counted as a full term, depending on the duration of the service. In cases where the assumption of office lasts more than half of the regular three-year term, it is typically counted as one full term for purposes of the three-term limit.

4. Jurisprudence on Term Limits

Philippine jurisprudence has clarified several ambiguities regarding the application of term limits, particularly regarding the question of what constitutes a “term.” Some key rulings include:

Borja v. COMELEC (1998): This case clarified the distinction between full and incomplete terms and provided guidance on whether incomplete terms count towards the three-term limit.
Aldovino v. COMELEC (2009): The Supreme Court ruled that an official could still run for office after serving incomplete or non-consecutive terms, provided the official did not complete three full consecutive terms.
Lonzanida v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 135150, July 28, 1999): This case discussed the effects of involuntary interruption of an official’s term and clarified that such interruptions could restart the term limit count.

5. Special Considerations for Barangay Officials

Barangay officials (Barangay Captains and members of the Sangguniang Barangay) are not covered by the three-term limit rule stated in the Constitution and the Local Government Code. Instead, their term limits and rules of office are determined by specific laws governing barangays. Currently, the term of office for barangay officials is also three years, but there is no explicit term limit set under the Constitution.

6. Key Exceptions and Loopholes

While term limits are meant to prevent political dynasties and the entrenchment of power, various strategies have emerged to circumvent the term limit provisions, including:

Shuffling positions: After serving the maximum number of terms, many officials shift to other positions (e.g., from mayor to vice mayor or governor) to remain in power, often with the support of family members holding other local government posts.
Running in different jurisdictions: Some officials move to run in nearby municipalities or cities, thereby avoiding the term limit in their original jurisdiction while maintaining political influence.

7. Conclusion

The law on term limits for local government officials in the Philippines is clearly set out in both the Constitution and the Local Government Code. It establishes a balance between the continuity of experienced governance and the need to prevent local officials from entrenching themselves in power for too long. While this system of term limits works to some extent, various legal interpretations and strategies have allowed many politicians to find ways to extend their influence beyond the set limits.