Can a Mayor Run in a 4th Term Because of a Broken 3rd-Term?

 By Mortz C. Ortigoza, MPA

In my exchanges with politicians lately, a case of a third–term mayor cropped up who told some confreres that he could run for reelection despite the three-term (nine years) ban, as mandated by law.

His justification that his six months’ preventive suspension and the twelve months’ suspension meted in his second term because of the administrative cases from the Office of the President early this year broke the CONSECUTIVENESS (emphasis mine) of his three years’ terms.

My poser here: Can the Mayor invoke the six months’ preventive suspension and the penalty of twelve months’ suspension because his three – term in office was interrupted?

PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION

In the case of Aldovino v. Commission on Election, it said there that a preventive suspension could not be invoked. According to the Supreme Court, “interruption” of a term exempting an elective official from the three-term limit rule is one that involves no less than the involuntary loss of title to the office such that an officer who is preventively suspended is simply barred from exercising the functions of his office but title to office is not lost (The Essentials of Local Government Law in the Philippines by Lawyer Daryl Bretch M. Largo).

FINAL SUSPENSION

What if the suspension imposed upon the official was in the form of a penalty, will the above Aldovino doctrine still apply?

Answer: One may invoke Justice Mendoza’s opinion when he penned Borja v. Comelec (1999). In explaining the Court’s decision, Justice Mendoza used illustrations that included a Mayor who was twice suspended for Misconduct for a total of one year during a first term and who was subsequently elected and served for two consecutive terms. Justice Mendoza opined that the Mayor’s suspension effectively interrupted the term of the Mayor concerned and he therefor, has not “not fully served three consecutive terms”.

One may argue, however, that the Court’s reasoning in Aldovino, which came after Borja, would still apply to suspension imposed as penalty. Firstly, Justice Mendoza’s opinion in Borja may be treated as obiter (made or said in passing). Secondly, under the Local Government Code of 1991, when the Mayor is suspended (as penalty), the Vice Mayor succeeds only in an “acting capacity,” indicating that the office of the Mayor was never vacated when the Mayor got suspended.

EXAMPLES WHERE THE CONSECUTIVENESS OF THE THREE –TERM IS INTERRUPTED AND UNINTERRUPTED:

-          *  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 (3) years or for the major part of the three (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).

-*          *  When an official is defeated in an election protest and said decision becomes final after the official had served the full term for the 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 the term limits because the nullification of his proclamation came after the expiration of the term (Ong and Rivera).