Succession and Term Limits: Clarifying the Three-Term Rule for Local Officials in the Philippines

Navigating Philippine election laws can be complex, especially when it comes to term limits for local officials. A crucial question arises: Does serving as mayor or other local office by succession, rather than direct election, count towards the constitutional three-term limit? This Supreme Court case definitively answers this question, clarifying the scope and intent of the term limit rule and its impact on political succession.

G.R. No. 133495, September 03, 1998

INTRODUCTION

Imagine a scenario where a vice-mayor steps into the mayor’s office due to unforeseen circumstances, such as the mayor’s death. They diligently serve the remainder of the term and subsequently win two elections as mayor. Are they then barred from running for mayor again due to the three-term limit? This was the predicament at the heart of Borja, Jr. v. COMELEC, a landmark case that reached the Philippine Supreme Court. The ruling has significant implications for local governance and the careers of countless local politicians across the Philippines.

This case revolves around Jose T. Capco, Jr., who, after being elected Vice-Mayor of Pateros, assumed the Mayorship upon the death of the incumbent. He then ran and won as mayor in the next two elections. Benjamin U. Borja, Jr., a rival mayoral candidate, challenged Capco’s eligibility to run for a third consecutive term, arguing that Capco’s time as mayor by succession should count as his first term. The core legal question was whether “serving a term” includes service by succession or only service by direct election.

LEGAL CONTEXT: THE THREE-TERM LIMIT RULE

The limitation on the terms of elective local officials is enshrined in the Philippine Constitution and the Local Government Code. This rule is intended to prevent the concentration of power and promote a more democratic process by ensuring regular turnover in local leadership. Article X, Section 8 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution explicitly states:

“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.”

This provision is echoed in Section 43(b) of the Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160), reinforcing the three-term limit for local elective officials in the same position.

The rationale behind term limits is twofold. First, it aims to prevent the rise of political dynasties and entrenched power structures. Second, it seeks to safeguard the people’s freedom of choice by ensuring that voters have the opportunity to elect new leaders regularly. However, the specific application of this rule, particularly in succession scenarios, required clarification, leading to cases like Borja, Jr. v. COMELEC.

CASE BREAKDOWN: CAPCO’S PATH TO MAYORALTY AND THE LEGAL CHALLENGE

The narrative of this case unfolds as follows:

1. 1988 Election: Jose T. Capco, Jr. was elected Vice-Mayor of Pateros for a term set to end in 1992.
2. 1989 Succession: Tragedy struck when Mayor Cesar Borja passed away. By operation of law, Vice-Mayor Capco succeeded to the office of Mayor on September 2, 1989, serving the remainder of Borja’s term.
3. 1992 & 1995 Elections: Capco ran for and won the mayoral elections in both 1992 and 1995, securing two full terms as elected mayor.
4. 1998 Election & Disqualification Attempt: As Capco prepared to run for a third consecutive term in the 1998 elections, Benjamin U. Borja, Jr., a competing mayoral candidate, filed a petition to disqualify Capco. Borja argued that Capco’s succession to the mayoralty in 1989 constituted his first term, making him ineligible for a third consecutive term after 1998.
5. COMELEC Decision (First Division): The COMELEC’s Second Division initially sided with Borja, disqualifying Capco.
6. COMELEC En Banc Reversal: Capco appealed to the COMELEC en banc (full commission). In a 5-2 decision, the COMELEC en banc reversed the Second Division’s ruling, declaring Capco eligible to run. The COMELEC en banc reasoned that the term limit applies to terms for which an official was *elected*, and succession to an office is not an election. As the COMELEC stated in its decision:
   

   “In both the Constitution and the Local Government Code, the three-term limitation refers to the term of office for which the local official was elected. It made no reference to succession to an office to which he was not elected. In the case before the Commission, respondent Capco was not elected to the position of mayor in the January 18, 1988 local elections. He succeeded to such office by operation of law and served for the unexpired term of his predecessor. Consequently, such succession into office is not counted as one (1) term for purposes of the computation of the three-term limitation under the Constitution and the Local Government Code.”

7. Supreme Court Petition: Borja elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari, seeking to overturn the COMELEC en banc decision and disqualify Capco.
8. Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the COMELEC en banc’s decision, dismissing Borja’s petition and affirming Capco’s eligibility to run for mayor.

The Supreme Court, in its decision penned by Justice Mendoza, emphasized both the text of the Constitution and the intent of its framers. The Court underscored that the term limit provision refers to terms for which an official was elected. Succession to office, being by operation of law, does not equate to an election. Furthermore, the Court delved into the Constitutional Commission’s records, highlighting the framers’ concern for preserving the people’s freedom of choice. As Justice Mendoza wrote:

“To bar the election of a local official because he has already served three terms, although the first as a result of succession by operation of law rather than election, would therefore be to violate this principle [of the people’s freedom of choice].”

The Court further clarified that:

“To recapitulate, the term limit for elective local officials must be taken to refer to the right to be elected as well as the right to serve in the same elective position. Consequently, it is not enough that an individual has served three consecutive terms in an elective local office, he must also have been elected to the same position for the same number of times before the disqualification can apply.”

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: UNDERSTANDING TERM LIMITS AND SUCCESSION

The Borja, Jr. v. COMELEC ruling provides crucial clarity on the application of term limits in succession scenarios. It establishes that serving as mayor or other local official due to succession does not count as a “term” for the purpose of the three-term limit. This has several important implications:

• Succession is not a term: Local officials who assume office through succession are not considered to have served a term in that position unless they are subsequently elected to it.
• Focus on elections: The three-term limit is triggered by being elected to the same position for three consecutive terms. Service by succession is not an election.
• Increased political opportunities: This ruling allows vice-mayors and other successors who have served by operation of law to have a full opportunity to seek election and serve up to three elected terms.
• Voter choice paramount: The decision reinforces the principle of the people’s freedom of choice in elections. Disqualifying a successor based on time served by succession would unduly restrict voter options.

Key Lessons from Borja v. COMELEC

• Elected vs. Appointed/Succession: Philippine election law distinguishes between holding office by election and by appointment or succession. Term limits are tied to *elected* terms.
• Constitutional Intent: The Supreme Court prioritizes understanding the intent of the framers of the Constitution when interpreting legal provisions, as seen in their reliance on the Constitutional Commission records.
• Balancing Principles: The three-term limit aims to balance preventing political monopolies with preserving the people’s right to choose their leaders. Borja v. COMELEC leans towards upholding voter choice in succession cases.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q: Does this ruling mean a vice-mayor can serve indefinitely if they keep succeeding the mayor?

A: No. While serving by succession does not count towards the term limit, to serve beyond one term, the vice-mayor must be elected. The three-term limit still applies to elected terms.

Q: What if a vice-mayor serves as mayor by succession for almost the entire term? Does that still not count as a term?

A: Correct. Regardless of the length of service by succession, it is not considered an elected term for term limit purposes.

Q: Does this rule apply to all local government positions, like governors or councilors?

A: Yes, the principle applies to all elective local government positions covered by Article X, Section 8 of the Constitution and Section 43(b) of the Local Government Code, except barangay officials.

Q: If a mayor is suspended, and the vice-mayor temporarily takes over, does that count as a term for the vice-mayor?

A: No, temporary assumption of office due to suspension or temporary incapacity does not constitute service of a term for term limit purposes, as it is not considered succession to fill a vacancy.

Q: How does resignation factor into the term limit rule?

A: Voluntary resignation does not interrupt the continuity of service for a term *for which the official was elected*. If an official resigns mid-term, it still counts as a full term if they were elected to it.

Q: Where can I find more information about election law and term limits in the Philippines?

A: You can consult the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. 7160), COMELEC rulings, and decisions of the Supreme Court. Legal professionals specializing in election law can also provide expert guidance.

ASG Law specializes in Philippine Election Law and Local Government Law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.