Term Limits | LGUs | LAW ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

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:

1. Three consecutive terms limit: Officials can only serve three consecutive terms in the same position.

2. 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.

3. 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.

Term Limits | LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

Law on Public Officers: Term Limits (Political Law and Public International Law)

1. Introduction to Term Limits

Term limits refer to the constitutional or statutory restrictions imposed on public officers, preventing them from serving in a particular office beyond a specified number of terms or years. This principle aims to prevent the monopolization of public power, ensure democratic rotation of leadership, and promote accountability.

In the context of Philippine political law, term limits are primarily governed by the 1987 Constitution, various statutes, and case law that interpret these provisions.

2. Constitutional Basis for Term Limits

The 1987 Philippine Constitution explicitly provides for term limits in various elective offices. The objective of these term limits is to prevent the perpetuation of individuals in power and to promote a more dynamic political environment.

Key provisions in the Constitution related to term limits include:

• Article VI, Section 4 (Members of the House of Representatives):

  "No member of the House of Representatives shall serve for more than three consecutive terms."

• Article VI, Section 7 (Senators):

  "No Senator shall serve for more than two consecutive terms."

• Article VII, Section 4 (President and Vice President):

  "The President shall not be eligible for any re-election. No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time." "The Vice President shall not serve for more than two consecutive terms."

• Article X, Section 8 (Local Government Officials):

  "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."

3. Elective Officials and Their Term Limits

A. President

• The President has a six-year term and is not eligible for re-election.
• A person who has served as President for more than four years due to succession is ineligible for election as President.

B. Vice President

• The Vice President serves a six-year term and can be re-elected, but cannot serve more than two consecutive terms.

C. Senators

• Senators have a six-year term, with a maximum of two consecutive terms.
• After serving two consecutive terms, a Senator must sit out for at least one term before being eligible for election again.

D. Members of the House of Representatives

• Members of the House of Representatives serve for three years and are limited to three consecutive terms.
• Like Senators, after serving the maximum number of consecutive terms, they must sit out for at least one term before they can run for the same office again.

E. Local Government Officials

• Local officials (i.e., governors, mayors, members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Sangguniang Bayan, Sangguniang Panlungsod) serve for a three-year term and are limited to three consecutive terms in the same position.

4. Interpretation of "Consecutive Terms"

The Supreme Court has clarified that a "term" refers to the official tenure of a public officer, and "consecutive terms" means serving in a position without any break or interruption. Key jurisprudence includes:

• Aldovino, Jr. v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 184836, December 23, 2009):

  The Court held that an elective official can run for the same office again if there is an interruption in their service or if they sit out one term. The term limit resets once the official is out of office for a full term.

• Borja, Jr. v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 133495, September 3, 1998):

  It was ruled that a public official who has served three consecutive terms may run for a higher position or for a different elective office, without violating the term limit rule.

5. Computation of Term Limits

The following principles are relevant in the computation of term limits:

1. Full Term Requirement: Only full terms are counted toward the term limit. If an official assumes office due to succession or other circumstances and serves less than the full term, it does not count as a "term" for purposes of the term limit.

   Example: A Vice President who assumes the presidency for less than four years may still run for the presidency in the next election.

2. Interruptions and Non-Consecutive Terms: The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that term limits only apply to consecutive terms. If an official skips an election or is not re-elected, they are free to run again in future elections.

3. Succession and Term Limit Application: An official who succeeds to a position by law, such as when a Vice President succeeds the President, may still be eligible for re-election under specific conditions, depending on the length of the term they served. For example, a Vice President who assumes the presidency and serves for less than four years may run for a full six-year term.

6. Remedies for Violations of Term Limits

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has the authority to enforce term limits in the Philippines. An official who files a certificate of candidacy despite being ineligible due to term limits can be disqualified by COMELEC.

• Disqualification Cases: Violations of term limits can lead to disqualification proceedings. An interested party may file a petition before COMELEC seeking to disqualify a candidate who has violated term limit provisions.

• Judicial Review: Disqualification decisions by COMELEC may be appealed to the Supreme Court under its power of judicial review.

7. Exceptions and Special Considerations

A. Barangay Officials

• The term limits for barangay officials are not specifically provided in the Constitution but are subject to legislation by Congress. This means that the law governing the term limits of barangay officials is flexible and can be amended by the legislative body.

B. Recall Elections

• In recall elections, officials can be removed from office before the expiration of their term. However, if they are recalled and re-elected, the subsequent term is still counted for purposes of term limits.

C. Appointed Officials and Term Limits

• Appointed officials are not subject to term limits since their tenure is at the discretion of the appointing authority. However, if an appointed official runs for elective office, the term limit provisions applicable to that position will apply.

8. Public International Law and Term Limits

While public international law does not directly mandate term limits for public officials, international conventions such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) emphasize democratic governance, periodic elections, and accountability of leaders. Term limits can be viewed as part of ensuring that democratic processes are upheld and that no individual monopolizes power, which aligns with international human rights standards.

In regional contexts, international bodies such as the Organization of American States (OAS) and the African Union (AU) have spoken against attempts by leaders to extend their term limits, viewing such actions as a threat to democratic stability.

9. Conclusion

Term limits are a fundamental feature of Philippine political law, aimed at ensuring a healthy rotation of leaders, preventing the concentration of power, and upholding democratic principles. The Philippine Constitution provides explicit term limits for various national and local offices, which are strictly interpreted by the courts. Violations of these term limits result in disqualification from candidacy, with remedies available through COMELEC and judicial review. In a broader sense, term limits reflect the nation's commitment to democratic governance, in line with both constitutional mandates and international democratic norms.