Topic: Term Limits
2015
Section 8, Article X of the 1987
Constitution:
Sec. 8. 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.
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.
Local Government Code
Section 43. Term of Office. -
(a) The term of office of all local elective
officials elected after the effectivity of this
Code shall be three (3) years, starting from
noon of June 30, 1992 or such date as may
be provided for by law, except that of
elective barangay officials: Provided, That
all local officials first elected during the local
elections immediately following the
ratification of the 1987 Constitution shall
serve until noon of June 30, 1992.
(b) No local elective official shall serve for
more than three (3) consecutive terms in
the same position. Voluntary renunciation of
the office for any length of time shall not be
considered as an interruption in the
continuity of service for the full term for
which the elective official concerned was
elected.
(c) The term of office of barangay officials
and members of the sangguniang kabataan
shall be for three (3) years, which shall
begin after the regular election of barangay
officials on the second Monday of May
1994.
Sangguniang Kabataan Reform Act of
SEC. 11. Term of Office. – (a) The
chairperson and members of the
Sangguniang Kabataan shall hold office for
a fixed term of three (3) years unless
sooner removed for cause, permanently
incapacitated, have died or resigned from
office.
(b) The Sangguniang Kabataan secretary
and treasurer shall be coterminus with the
appointing authority unless sooner removed
for cause, found to have failed from the
discharge of his or her duties, or has
committed abuse of authority as stipulated
in existing laws pertaining to the conduct of
public officials, through a majority vote of
all the members of the Katipunan ng
Kabataan in a regular or special assembly
called for the purpose.
(c) A Sangguniang Kabataan official who,
during his or her term of office, shall have
passed the age of twenty-four (24) years
shall be allowed to serve the remaining
portion of the term for which he or she was
elected.
CASE # 10
G.R. No. 201716 January 8, 2013
MAYOR ABELARDO ABUNDO, SR. vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and
ERNESTO R. VEGA
FACTS:
For four (4) successive regular elections,
namely, the 2001, 2004, 2007 and 2010
national and local elections, Abundo ran as
municipal mayor of Viga, Catanduanes. In
both the 2001 and 2007 runs, he emerged
and was proclaimed as the winning
mayoralty candidate and accordingly served
the corresponding terms as mayor.

In the 2004 elections, initially proclaimed
was winner one Jose Torres (Torres), who
performed the functions of the office of
mayor. Abundo protested Torres’ election
and proclamation. Abundo was eventually
declared the winner of the 2004 mayoralty
electoral contest, paving the way for his
assumption of office starting May 9, 2006
until the end of the 2004-2007 term on
June 30, 2007, or for a period of a little
over one year and one month.
Then came the May 10, 2010 elections
where Abundo and Torres again opposed
each other. When Abundo filed his
certificate of candidacy for mayor, Torres
filed a PETITION FOR DISQUALIFICATION
against Abundo, predicated on the three-
consecutive term limit rule.
Abundo won and was proclaimed on the
2010 elections as mayor-elect of Viga,
Catanduanes.
On May 21, 2010, or before the COMELEC
could resolve the disqualification case,
private respondent Ernesto R. Vega (Vega)
commenced a quo warranto action before
the RTC.
The RTC ruled on the quo warranto that
Abundo was ineligible to serve as municipal
mayor since he has already served three
consecutive mayoralty terms, to wit, 2001-
2004, 2004-2007 and 2007-2010, and,
hence, disqualified for another, i.e., fourth,
consecutive term.
Since Abundo had been declared winner in
the aforesaid 2004 elections consequent to
his protest and occupied the position of and
actually served as Viga mayor for over a
year of the remaining term, the year and a
month service constitutes a complete and
full service of Abundo’s second term as
mayor.
The COMELEC’s Second Division also ruled
on the petition for disqualification against
Abundo on the strength of Aldovino, Jr. and
held that service of the unexpired portion of
a term by a protestant who is declared
winner in an election protest is considered
as service for one full term within the
contemplation of the three-term limit rule.
The he COMELEC en banc held in essence
the following: first, there was no involuntary
interruption of Abundo’s 2004-2007 term
service which would be an exception to the
three-term limit rule as he is considered
never to have lost title to the disputed office
after he won in his election protest; and
second, what the Constitution prohibits is
for an elective official to be in office for the
same position for more than three
consecutive terms and not to the service of
the term.
Abundo filed this petition saying Comelec
gravely abused its discretion.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Abundo is deemed to have
served three consecutive terms
HELD:
No. The two-year period during which his
opponent, Torres, was serving as mayor
should be considered as an interruption,
which effectively removed Abundo’s case
from the ambit of the three-term limit rule.
During that period, title to hold such office
and the corresponding right to assume the
functions thereof still belonged to his
opponent, as proclaimed election winner.
Accordingly, Abundo actually held the office
and exercised the functions as mayor only
upon his declaration, following the
resolution of the protest, as duly elected
candidate in the May 2004 elections or for
only a little over one year and one month.
Consequently, since the legally
contemplated full term for local elected
officials is three (3) years, it cannot be said
that Abundo fully served the term 2004-
2007. The reality on the ground is that
Abundo actually served less.
SUMMARY of prevailing jurisprudence
on issues affecting consecutiveness of
terms and/or involuntary interruption:
1. Assumption of Office by Operation of Law
When a permanent vacancy occurs in an
elective position and the official merely
assumed the position pursuant to the rules
on succession under the LGC, 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 in the application of any term limit
(Borja, Jr.). 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 (Montebon).
2. Recall Election
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 official’s 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 (Adormeo and
Socrates).
3. Conversion of a Municipality into a City
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 official’s continuity of service
(Latasa).
4. Period of Preventive Suspension
Preventive suspension is not a term-
interrupting event as the elective officer’s
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 (Aldovino, Jr.).
5. Election Protest
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 (Lonzanida and Dizon). 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
(Socrates, citing Lonzanida).
6. Election Protest
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 (Ong and Rivera).
CASE # 11
SOFRONIO B. ALBANIA vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and
EDGARDO A. TALLADO
G.R. No. 226792 June 6, 2017
FACTS:
In the May 14, 2007 National and Local
Elections, respondent Edgardo A. Tallado
and Jesus O. Typoco were both candidates
for the position of Governor in Camarines
Norte.
After the counting and canvassing of votes,
Typoco was proclaimed as the winner.
Respondent questioned Typoco's
proclamation by filing with the COMELEC, a
PETITION FOR CORRECTION OF MANIFEST
ERROR. The Petition was decided in
respondent's favor on March 5, 2010 and
the latter assumed the position of Governor
of Camarines Norte from March 22, 2010 to
June 30, 2010, the end of the 2007-2010
term.
Respondent Tallado ran again in the 2010
and 2013 Elections where he won and
served as Governor of Camarines Norte,
respectively.
On October 16, 2015, respondent filed his
Certificate of Candidacy as Governor of
Camarines Norte in the May 9, 2016
National and Local elections.
On November 13, 2015, petitioner filed a
PETITION FOR DISQUALIFICATION against
respondent from running as Governor on
two grounds:
(1) he violated the three term limit I rule
under Section 43 of RA No 7160, otherwise
known as the Local Government Code of
1991 (LGC); and
(2) respondent's suspension from office for
one year without pay, together with its
accessory penalties, after he was found
guilty of oppression and grave abuse of
authority in the Ombudsman's Order dated
October 2, 2015.
Respondent Tallado argued that since the
petition was primarily based on his alleged
violation of the three-term limit rule, the
same should have been filed as a PETITION
TO DENY DUE COURSE OR CANCEL
CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY since the
ground cited affected a candidate's
eligibility; that the petition should had been
filed on November 10, 2015, but the
petition was filed only on November 13,
2015, hence, the same had already
prescribed and must be dismissed.
His suspension from office is also not a
ground for a petition for disqualification. On
the substantive issues, he denied violating
the three-term limit rule as he did not fully
serve three consecutive terms since he only
served as Governor for the 2007 elections
from March 22, 2010 to June 30, 2010.
The COMELEC Second Division dismissed
the petition for being filed out of time. It
ruled that a violation of the three-term limit
rule and suspension from office as a result
of an administrative case are not grounds
for disqualification of a candidate under the
law; that the alleged violation of three-term
limit rule is a ground for ineligibility which
constituted false material representation
under Section 78 of the OEC; and such
petition must be filed within 25 days from
the time of filing of the COC, which
respondent failed to do.
The COMELEC En Banc echoed the
Division's findings that the grounds relied
upon by petitioner are not proper for a
petition for disqualification but one for
denial of due course to or cancellation of
respondent's COC, which was filed out of
time.
It also ruled on the merits finding that
respondent did not serve the full 2007-2010
term as Governor of Camarines Norte, thus,
cannot be considered as one term for
purposes of counting the three-term
threshold; and that the ground for a
candidate's disqualification referred to by
Section 40 (b) of the LGC is the actual
removal from office as a result of an
administrative case, and not mere
suspension as imposed by the Ombudsman.
Petitioner filed this case saying Comelec
abused its discretion.
ISSUES:
1) Whether ground of the three-term limit
was proper for a petition for disqualification;
(2) Whether Tallado violated the three-term
limit
HELD:
1. No. The violation of the three-term limit
rule is not a ground for a petition for
disqualification. It is a proper ground for a
petition to deny due course to or to cancel a
Certificate of Candidacy under Section 78 of
the OEC.
rule, which fell on November 10, 2015.
However, the petition was filed only on
November 13, 2015 which was already
beyond the period to file the same; thus,
find no grave abuse of discretion committed
by the COMELEC in dismissing the petition
for being filed out of time.
2) No. The period when Tallado was out of
office involuntarily interrupted the continuity
of his service as Governor. As he had not
fully served the 2007-2010 term, and had
not been elected for three consecutive
terms as Governor, there was no violation
of the three-term limit rule when he ran
again in the 2016 elections.
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.

In this case, since the petition filed was a

actually one of petition to deny due course
to or to cancel a certificate of candidacy,
such petition must be filed within 25 days
from the time of filing of the COC, as
provided under Section 78 of the Omnibus
Election Code. However, as the COMELEC
found, the petition here was filed beyond
the reglementary period, and dismissed the
petition for being filed out time. The
dismissal is proper.

Here, respondent filed his COC for Governor

of Camarines Norte for the 2016 elections
on October 16, 2015, and he had 25 days
therefrom to file the petition for denial of
due course or cancellation of COC on the
ground of violation of the three-term limit