UNDER THE

LAW
(ELECTION LAW)

AREA : TERM LIMITS OF

ELECTED OFFICIALS
 Constitutional Basis
• Article X, Section 8 of the 1987
Constitution as follows:

• 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.
 ARTICLE VII
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
• Section 4. The President and the Vice-President
shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a
term of six years which shall begin at noon on the
thirtieth day of June next following the day of the
election and shall end at noon of the same date,
six years thereafter. 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.
 ARTICLE VI
THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

• Section 4. The term of office of the

Senators shall be six years and shall
commence, unless otherwise provided
by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of
June next following their election. No
Senator shall serve for more than two
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 of which
he was elected.
 ARTICLE VI
THE LEGISLATIVE
DEPARTMENT
• Section 7. The Members of the House of
Representatives shall be elected for a term of
three years which shall begin, unless otherwise
provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of
June next following their election. No Member
of the House of Representatives 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.
 Republic Act No. 8524 AN ACT CHANGING THE TERM OF OFFICE OF BARANGAY
OFFICIALS AND MEMBERS OF THE SANGGUNIANG KABATAAN FROM THREE (3)
YEARS TO FIVE (5) YEARS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 43 OF
REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED SEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIXTY,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES (approved on 2-14-1998)

• Section 1. Sec. 43 of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise

known as the Local Government Code of 1991, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
• xxxxxxxxx
• "(c) The term of barangay officials and members of the
sangguniang kabataan shall be for five (5) years, which
shall begin after the regular election of barangay
officials on the second Monday of May 1997: Provided,
That the sangguniang kabataan members who were
elected in the May 1996 elections shall serve until the
next regular election of barangay officials."
Interruptions
 Borja v. COMELEC G.R. No.
133495 September 3, 1998
• For the 3 Term limit rule to apply, 2
conditions must concur:

1. Validly elected to the office

2. Must fully serve the office

• In the case at bar, since the respondent was

validly elected as Vice Mayor but only took over
the Mayor because of the DEATH of the
incumbent Mayor, then his first term should not
be counted.
 FOR EXAMPLE : MAYOR’S TERM UNDER
SEC 8, Article X, of the 1987 constitution

3rd
1 Term 2 Term
st nd 4th Term
Term
Since,

• Xxxxx 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.
 There should be an
involuntary act of vacating
the office.
Where removal or took over higher elective
seat.

In line with the legal maxim of : Expression

Unios Est Exclusio Alterious (the expression of
one thing is the exclusion of the other)
Thus, in Tallado vs COMELEC (G.R. No.
246679. September 10, 2019)

• Once the order of the Office of the

Ombudsman to dismiss an elective local
official is executed, the dismissed official
thereby loses title to the office even if he or
she has filed a timely appeal assailing the
dismissal which would have prevented it
from attaining finality. The loss of title to the
office constitutes an involuntary interruption
of the official's service of his or her full
term.
 Relevant Provisions as to the powers,
functions and duties of the
ombudsman to remove
1.Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action
against a public officer or employee at fault or who
neglects to perform an act or discharge a duty required
by law, and recommend his removal, suspension,
demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and ensure
compliance therewith; or enforce its disciplinary
authority as provided in Section 21 or this Act: Provided,
That the refusal by any officer without just cause to
comply with an order of the Ombudsman to remove,
suspend, demote, fine, censure, or prosecute an officer or
employee who is at fault or who neglects to perform an
act or discharge a duty required by law shall be ground
for disciplinary action against said officer (Sec. 15(3) R.A.
No. 6770; see also Sec 13(3), Article XI, 1987
Constitution);
 RIVERA VS COMELEC G.R. No.
167591 , May 9, 2007
MORALES RUN FOR MAYOR OF
MABALACAT

3rd
1 Term 2 Term
st nd 4th Term
Term

??? CAN MORALES

STILL RUN? NO

JULY 1, 1995 – JUNE JULY 1, 1998 – JULY 1, 2001 – JUNE

30, 1998 JUNE 30, 2001 30, 2004

The Decision
(Election Protest
Against Him – EPC
98-131) became final
and executory on
August 6, 2001
 DIZON VS. COMELEC, G.R. No. 182088
January 30, 2009
MORALES RUN FOR MAYOR OF MABALACAT

YES
CAN MORALES STILL RUN FOR : 5th Term?


3rd
1 Term 2 Term
st nd 4th Term
Term
SC rendered and ordered
Morales to vacate the position
(Rivera v. COMELEC)

JULY 1, 1995 – JUNE JULY 1, 1998 – JULY 1, 2001 – JUNE July 1 2004 - May 16
30, 1998 JUNE 30, 2001 30, 2004 2007

Take note: The length of the

term should be July 1, 2004
– June 30, 2004
 HALILI VS. COMELEC, 231643
January 15, 2019
MORALES RUN FOR MAYOR OF MABALACAT

4th Term? 3rd Term 2nd Term 1st Term

CAN MORALES Republic Act No. (RA) 10164

STILL RUN? Mabalacat from Mun. to City

NO July 1, 2007 -
2013 - 2016 2010 - 2013 30 June 2010

3rd
1 Term 2 Term
st nd 4th Term
Term

JULY 1, 1995 – JUNE JULY 1, 1998 – JULY 1, 2001 – JUNE July 1 2004 - May 16
30, 1998 JUNE 30, 2001 30, 2004 2007
 HOW ABOUT
RECALL ELECTION?

• Socrates vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 154512 November

12, 2002
 Socrates vs. Comelec, G.R. No.
154512 November 12, 2002
• On July 2, 2002, 312 out of 528 members of the then
incumbent barangay officials of the Puerto Princesa
convened themselves into a Preparatory Recall
Assembly "PRA" X X X
• the PRA passed Resolution No. 01-02 ("Recall
Resolution" for brevity) which declared its loss of
confidence in Socrates (Incumbent Mayor) and called
for his recall.
• On September 27, 2002, Socrates filed a motion for
leave to file an attached petition for intervention
seeking the same reliefs as those sought by Adovo, Gilo
and Ollave.
• In the meantime, Hagedorn garnered the highest
number of votes in the recall election with 20,238 votes.
Rival candidates Socrates and Sandoval obtained
17,220 votes and 13,241 votes, respectively.
 G.R. Nos. 155083-84

• Petitioners argue that the

COMELEC gravely abused its
discretion in upholding
Hagedorn's qualification to run for
mayor in the recall election despite
the constitutional and statutory
prohibitions against a fourth
consecutive term for elective local
officials.
Can a recall election be considered as
the 4 Term of Hagidorn?
th

• Take note : Recall Elections are ONLY

entertained after ONE (1) year after
regular election.

• Thus, there is an interruption because

of the ONE (1) year after election.
Hence, it can be FRESH PERIOD no
matter how short it is.
• After three consecutive terms, an elective
local official cannot seek immediate
reelection for a fourth term. The prohibited
election refers to the next regular election
for the same office following the end of the
third consecutive term. Any subsequent
election, like a recall election, is no longer
covered by the prohibition for two reasons.
• First, a subsequent election like a recall
election is no longer an immediate
reelection after three consecutive terms.
• Second, the intervening period constitutes
an involuntary interruption in the
continuity of service.
(Socrates vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 154512 November 12, 2002)