7. Term Limits (See also RA 12232)

Term Limit

No Senator shall serve for more than 2 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 (PHIL. CONST., art. VI, § 4.)

Disqualifications

• Three-term limit for local elective officials
• Term limit rule is not a ground for a petition for disqualification, however it is an ineligibility which is a proper ground to deny due course to or to cancel a Certificate of Candidacy under Section 78 of the OEC. (Albania v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 226792, 6 June 2017).
• Two conditions must concur for the application of the disqualification of a candidate based on violation of the three-term limit rule, which are: (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 (Albania v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 226792, 6 June 2017).
• When it was only upon the favorable decision on his petition for correction of manifest error that a candidate was proclaimed as the duly-elected official, he is deemed not to have served office for the full term of three years to which he was supposedly entitled, since he only assumed the post and served the unexpired term of his opponent. (Albania v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 226792, 6 June 2017)
• An involuntary interrupter term, as in the case of assumption of office only after winning an election protest, cannot, in the context of the disqualification rule, be considered as one term for purposes of counting the three-term threshold, since before the favorable ruling the candidate did not actually occupy or serve in the office while the opponent occupied it. Abundo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 201716, 8 January 2013)
• A provincial board member’s election to the same position for the third and fourth time, but now in representation of the renamed district, is a violation of three-term limit rule. (Naval v. COMELEC; GR No. 207851, 8 July 2014)

Term Limit

No member of the HOR shall serve for more than 3 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.

Note:

• The President is not eligible for any reelection.
• 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 [Section 4, Article VII, 1987 Constitution].
• “Succeeded as President” — refers to a person who assumes the presidency by succession and serves the unexpired term; ineligible to run for President if he has served for more than four years. A person elected President in a special election is elected to the office, not a successor, and is subject to the prohibition on presidential reelection.

The Acting President is not included. So even if he served for more than 4 years, he can be elected as the President.

Term of Office: 3 years

Term length: Local elective officials generally serve three years; barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan officials serve four years. (1987 Constitution, Art. X, Sec. 8; R.A. No. 12232).

Consecutive-term limit: No local elective official shall serve for more than 3 consecutive terms in the same position.

Updated: An executory administrative dismissal interrupts an elective official’s term for term-limit purposes (Tallado v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 246679, 2 March 2021).

For the three-term rule to apply, the local official must have:

• Fully served the term
• Been elected to the same local government post for three consecutive terms, whether through regular or qualifying special elections

Updated: An executory administrative dismissal interrupts an elective official’s term because the official temporarily loses title to the office (Tallado v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 246679, 2 March 2021).

The following are not considered as interruptions in term:

• Voluntary renunciation of a term. A councilor assuming the office of vice-mayor through succession is not considered a voluntary renunciation of his position as councilor. It is clear therefore that voluntary renunciation of a term does not cancel the renounced terms in the computation of the three term limit; conversely, involuntary severance from office for any length of time short of the full term provided by law amounts to an interruption of continuity of service. MONTEBON v. COMELEC (April 2008) The relinquishment of the office of Punong Barangay during the third term, as a consequence of one’s assumption to office as Sangguniang Bayan, is a voluntary renunciation. (BOLOS V. COMELEC (March 2009))
• Sandiganbayan preventively suspended the officer for 90 days in relation to a criminal case. (Aldovino Jr. v. COMELEC, G.R. 184836, 2009).
• Municipality merged with another municipality to form a new political unit. (Laceda v. Limena and COMELEC, G.R. No. 182867, 5 October 2009).
• When a permanent vacancy occurs in an elective position and an official assumed office under the rules on succession under the LGC, his assumption to said office shall not be considered as one full term. (Borja Jr. v. COMELEC)
• An official who was elected for three consecutive terms but who had to assume the position of vice-mayor on his/her second term in view of the incumbent’s retirement is not deemed to have fully served the three consecutive terms. (Montebon v. COMELEC).

Interruption in continuity of service:

• An elective official who has served for three consecutive terms and who did not seek elective position for what could be his fourth term, but later won in a recall election, had an interruption in the continuity of the official’s service. For, he had become an interim, i.e., from the end of the 3rd term up to the recall election, a private citizen. (Adormeo v. COMELECand Socrates v. COMELEC).

• 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. (Ong v, Alegre, Rivera v. COMELEC).
• When a three-term official of a local government unit (which is later converted into a city on the third term of the official) said official cannot seek the same office in the first election as a city considering the area and inhabitants of the locality are the same and that the official continued to hold office until such time as the city elections are held. The framers of the Constitution intended to avoid the evil of a single person accumulating excessive power over a particular territorial jurisdiction as a result of a prolonged stay in office. (Latasa v. COMELEC).