LEGAL OPINION

FOR THE WEEK

 LEGAL ISSUE:
(DILG Opinion No. 36-2009)

Proper application and interpretation of the

THREE CONSECUTIVE TERM LIMIT
RULE of elective officials to hold the same
position

2
 THREE TERM LIMIT RULE
Section 43(b) of RA 7160
“No elective officials 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 interruption in the community service for the
full term which the elective officials concerned was elected.”

3
 FACTS:

May 2001 elections - Official was first elected as Mayor and

served until end of term without interruption.
May 2004 – Official ran as again as Mayor but was not
proclaimed as winner.
Official filed an election protest and was declared as winner
November 2005.
December 15, 2015 – official was unseated from office because
protestee was able to secure a TRO/Writ of Preliminary Injunction
from COMELEC.
4
 FACTS:

Upon finality of decision, official was declared as the lawful

Mayor and occupied the office from May 9, 2006 until expiration of
said term.
May 2007 – official was re-elected as Mayor.

5
 LEGAL ISSUE:

Whether or not the concerned official,

assuming that he will again serve in full his
current term in office, is still qualified to
run in the forthcoming May 2010 elections?

6
 THREE TERM LIMIT RULE
Section 43(b) of RA 7160
“No elective officials 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 interruption in the community service for the
full term which the elective officials concerned was elected.”

7
 “
BORJA vs. COMELEC
(G.R. No. 133495, September 3, 1998, 2008)
For Section 43(b) to apply, two (2) elements must concur:
1. The local elective official concerned must have been
duly elected to that office; and
2. Said local official must have fully served each term for
the same office for three consecutive terms.

(cited in DILG Legal Opinion No. 36, s. 2009)

8
 “
Applying this now to your case, we are of the view that your SECOND
TERM shall NOT BE COUNTED as FULL TERM considering that
you did not fully serve the same. Thus, the second element as
mentioned in the immediately preceding paragraph is not present. It
bears to note that in your supposed second term, you only assumed
May 9, 2006 until the expiration of the said term at noon of June 30,
2007. Hence the continuity of your service for your supposed second
term was interrupted. In this connection, please note that Section 43(b)
of the Code mentioned “shall SERVE for more than three (3)
consecutive terms in the same position.” Consecutive means no
interruption.

9
 LEGAL ISSUE:

Whether or not the concerned official,

assuming that he will again serve in full his
YES!
current term in office, is still qualified to
run in the forthcoming May 2010 elections?

10
UPDATES
 MEMO dated OCTOBER 31, 2018
IN RELATION TO
OMB OFFICE CIRCULAR NO. 18
Revised Policy on Actions to be taken in Cases of
Decisions/Judgment of Dismissal of
Administrative Cases and Acquittal and Dismissal
of Criminal Cases
12
 OMB OFFICE CIRCULAR NO. 18
OMB shall no longer challenged the dismissal of
cases/quashal of information and judgments of acquittal,
either through a motion to dismiss, a demurrer to
evidence, or by a decision, rendered by the trial courts or
the Sandiganbayan. Decisions of the CA dismissing the
administrative complaints shall no longer be challenged.

13
GUIDELINES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION
1. If the CA renders a Decision dismissing the administrative
case or modifying the OMB Decision imposing lesser
penalty, OMB will no longer challenge it nor appeal,
hence, DILG is to implement such Decision after the
lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt by the Graft Body
of the CA Decision.

14
GUIDELINES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION
2. In the above scenario, if the private complainant files a
Motion for Reconsideration on the CA Decision, such
motion is to be disregarded for the reason that the OMB
and not the private complainant is the proper party to
challenge the Decision. Thus, DILG is still to implement the
CA Decision unless an injunctive relief is issued by the
Supreme Court.

15
GUIDELINES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION
3. In cases of TRO issued by the RTC against the
implementing agency, Ombudsman Martires advises to
disregard the same as RTC issuing injunctive relief is not
valid since jurisdiction is vested with the CA. It is advised
that if the TRO is filed, it is to be reported immediately to
OMB for them to file the appropriate counter action.

16