HTP REPUBLIC OF HILIPPINES. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT A Fars fapagmatal 8, Fol Coadeariaiven I Dilenan. ne OTLG OPINION BO.110 8.2000 13 October 2000 HON. EMIL L. ONG Presidential Assistant for Eastern Visayas Office of the President Malacafiang, Manila Dear Sir: This has reference to your letter seeking legal opinion on whether or nat & focal elective official who won in an electoral protest and served only for the remaining eight (8) months of the tern should be considered to have served for ‘one full tenm for purposes of computing the threesconsecutive tenm lint. In reply thereto, please be informed that In the cases of Lanranida wv. Comelec (uly 26, 179%, GR. No. 135150) and Borja v, Comelec (03 September 1998, G.R, Mo. 133495), the Supreme Court ruled that there are two conditions for the application of the disqualification i.e. (1) that the official concemed has been elected for three consecutive times to the same elective local office; and (2) that he has fully served the three consecutive terms to that same elective local office. Tl further ruled that these two requisites must concur. Hence, as applied to the given situation, it is clear that the disqualification by reason of the three-consecutive term limit rule has not yet set in because he ‘has not fully served the three consecutive terms to the same elective local affice, We hape that we have enlightened you on the matter. Very truly yours, Secretary © USAR oe cM Rages T_ Lange Marat ote Seuss, Nate Sar