You are on page 1of 16

term limit interruptions in the continuity of service, so long as such interruptions

are not due to the voluntary renunciation of the office by an incumbent. Hence, the
period from June 28, 1994 to June 30, 1995, during which respondent Leonardo B.
Roman served as governor of Bataan by virtue of a recall election held in 1993,
should not be counted. Since on May 14, 2001 respondent had previously served as
governor of Bataan for only two consecutive terms (1995–1998 and 1998–2001),
his election on that day was actually only his third term for the same position.

PANGANIBAN, J., joined by PUNO, J., also voted to dismiss the petition. He argued
EN BANC that a recall term should not be considered as one full term, because a contrary
interpretation would in effect cut short the elected official’s service to less than
[G.R. No. 149736. December 17, 2002.] nine years and shortchange his constituents. The desire to prevent monopoly of
political power should be balanced against the need to uphold the voters’ obvious
MELANIO L. MENDOZA and MARIO E. IBARRA, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON preference who, in the present case, is Roman who received 97 percent of the
ELECTIONS and LEONARDO B. ROMAN, Respondents. votes cast. He explained that, in Socrates, he also voted to affirm the clear choice of
the electorate, because in a democracy the people should, as much as legally
RESOLUTION possible, be governed by leaders freely chosen by them in credible elections. He
concluded that, in election cases, when two conflicting legal positions are of almost
equal weight, the scales of justice should be tilted in favor of the people’s
For resolution is a petition for certiorari filed by petitioners Melanio L. Mendoza overwhelming choice.
and Mario E. Ibarra, seeking to set aside the resolution of the Commission on
Elections, dated August 15, 2001, in EPC No. 2001-5 and to declare respondent AZCUNA, J., joined by BELLOSILLO, J., also voted to dismiss, arguing that it is clear
Leonardo B. Roman’s election as governor of Bataan on May 14, 2001 as null and from the constitutional provision that the disqualification applies only if the terms
void for allegedly being contrary to Art. X, §8 of the Constitution, which provides are consecutive and the service is full and continuous. Hence, service for less than
that:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary a term, except only in case of voluntary renunciation, should not count to
disqualify an elective local official from running for the same position. This case is
The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall different from Socrates, where the full three consecutive terms had been
be determined by law, shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more continuously served so that disqualification had clearly attached.
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 On the other hand, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J., with whom DAVIDE, C.J., and
the full term for which he was elected. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA, and CALLEJO, SR., JJ., concurred, holds the view that
the recall term served by respondent Roman, comprising the period June 28, 1994
After due deliberation, the Court voted 8 to 7 to DISMISS the petition. to June 30, 1995, should be considered as one term. Since he thereafter served for
two consecutive terms from 1995 to 1998 and from 1998 to 2001, his election on
VITUG, J., joined by YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., voted to dismiss the petition. He May 14, 2001 was actually his fourth term and contravenes Art. X, §8 of the
contended that as revealed by the records of the Constitutional Commission, the Constitution. For this reason, she voted to grant the petition and to declare
Constitution envisions a continuous and an uninterrupted service for three full respondent’s election on May 14, 2001 as null and void.
terms before the proscription applies. Therefore, not being a full term, a recall
term should not be counted or used as a basis for the disqualification whether CARPIO, J., joined by CARPIO-MORALES, J., also dissented and voted to grant the
served prior (as in this case) or subsequent (as in the Socrates case) to the nine- petition. He held that a recall term constitutes one term and that to totally ignore a
year, full three-term limit. recall term in determining the three-term limit would allow local officials to serve
for more than nine consecutive years contrary to the manifest intent of the
MENDOZA, J., in whose opinion QUISUMBING, J. joined, voted to dismiss the framers of the Constitution. He contended that respondent Roman’s election in
petition on the ground that, in accordance with the ruling in Borja, Jr. v. COMELEC, 2001 cannot exempt him from the three-term limit imposed by the
295 SCRA 157 (1998); Arcos v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 133639, Oct. 6, 1998 (res.); Constitution.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
Lonzanida v. COMELEC, 311 SCRA 602 (1999); and Adormeo v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
147927, Feb. 4, 2002, a term during which succession to a local elective office WHEREFORE, THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IS DISMISSED.
takes place or a recall election is held should not be counted in determining
whether an elective local official has served more than three consecutive terms. He THE SEPARATE OPINIONS OF THE JUSTICES ARE HERETO ATTACHED AS PART OF
argued that the Constitution does not prohibit elective local officials from serving THIS RESOLUTION.
for more than three consecutive terms because, in fact, it excludes from the three-
Separate Opinions d) 1995–1998 Elected Governor and served up to

1998.
VITUG, J.:
e) 1998–2001 Elected Governor and served up to 2001. 3
Petitioners would seek the disqualification of respondent Leonardo B. Roman on the On 22 February 2001, private respondent Roman again filed a certificate of candidacy for
ground of his having transgressed the three-term limit under Section 8, Article X, of the the same post in the 14th May 2001 regular elections. On 16 May 2001, Leonardo Roman
1987 Constitution and Section 43 of Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code), was proclaimed by the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Bataan.
providing, respectively, that —
The focal issue presented before the Court in the instant petition would revolve on the
"Sec. 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall question of whether or not private respondent Roman exceeded the three-term limit for
be determined by law, shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more than elective local officials, expressed in the Constitution and the Local Government Code,
three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall when he again ran for the position of Governor in the 14th May 2001 elections, having
not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for occupied and served in that position following the 1993 recall elections, as well as the
which he was elected." 1 1995 and 1998 regular elections, immediately prior to the 2001 elections. In fine, should
respondent’s incumbency to the post of Governor following the recall elections be
"Sec. 43. Term of Office. — (a) The term of office of all local elective officials elected after included in determining the three-consecutive term limit fixed by law?
the effectivity of this Code shall be three (3) years, starting from noon of June 30, 1992 or
such date as may be provided for by law, except that of elective barangay officials: In order that the three-consecutive term limit can apply, two conditions must concur, i.e.,
Provided, That all local officials first elected during the local elections immediately (1) that the elective local official concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms
following the ratification of the 1987 Constitution shall serve until noon of June 30, 1992. to the same local government position, and (2) that he has served three consecutive full
terms, albeit a voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be
"(b) No local elective official shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms in the deemed to be an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for which
same position. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be he is elected. The constitutional provision does not appear to be all that imprecise for
considered as an interruption in the continuity of service for the full term for which the and in its application. Section 8, Article X, of the Constitution is explicit that the "term of
elective official concerned was elected." 2 office of elective local officials . . . shall be three years" which phrase is forthwith followed
by its mandate that "no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms,"
Respondent Leonardo B. Roman held the post of Governor of Bataan province a number and that" (v)oluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be
of times; viz:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which
he (is) elected." The law evidently contemplates a continuous full three-year term before
TERMS MANNER OF ASSUMPTION the proscription can apply.

a) 1986–1988 Appointed OIC Governor of Bataan The Constitutional Commission, in its deliberations, referred to a full nine (9) years of
service for each elective local government official in the application of the prohibition,
by former President Corazon envisioning at the same time a continuous and uninterrupted period of nine years by
providing for only one exception, i.e., when an incumbent voluntarily gives up the office.
Aquino and served up to 1988.
Thus, we read from the records —
b) 1988–1992 Elected Governor and served up to
"MR. MONSOD.
1992.
Madam President, I think the vote on continuous service of nine years for the Members of
the House of Representatives or the lifetime limitation of three terms has a very serious
c) 1994–1995 Elected Governor during the implication. The interpretation of Commissioner Davide in the case of the Members of
the House is that they are allowed three consecutive terms. They can hibernate for one
RECALL election in 1993, assumed term and can have another three terms.
office on 28 June 1994 and served "The interpretation of Commissioner Garcia is that the limitation of three terms is a
lifetime limitation. This is a very important distinction for the future; and perhaps, this
up to 1995.
should be discussed or at least we can think about it a little longer, rather than vote on it
immediately. I would just like to have the proposals now so that during lunch break, at least we can
think about them, although I suppose we will have some indigestion in the process. May
"MR. ROMULO. we now have the proposal we are going to speak about or vote on when we resume the
session?
I withdraw the motion, Madam President. We can handle this after lunch.
"MR. ROMULO.
"THE PRESIDENT.
Yes, the Garcia interpretation. Madam President.
Can we have the proposals now, so that when we resume, we are ready to vote on these?
"THE PRESIDENT.
"MR. ROMULO.
We ask Commissioner Garcia to please state his interpretation.
Madam President, in essence, is it the Davide interpretation or is it the Garcia
interpretation? "MR. GARCIA.

"Madam President, if it is the Davide interpretation . . . I propose that the local officials be reelected twice and that they be prohibited from
running again after a total term of nine years in public service for the same office.
"THE PRESIDENT.
"THE PRESIDENT.
May we state that the interpretation of Commissioner Davide or whatever proposal
Commissioner Davide will say now is the proposal of the Committee on the Legislative as How about the Congressmen?
part of its committee report?
"MR. GARCIA.
"MR. DAVIDE.
This is both for the Representatives and the local officials.
Yes.
"THE PRESIDENT.
"MR. ROMULO.
All right, for both Representatives and the local officials.
Yes, Madam President.
"MR. ROMULO.
"MR. DAVIDE.
I think the same question can be raised as to Senators.
We want a vote on that particular issue so the Committee can now finalize the substitute
proposal in the draft. "THE PRESIDENT.

"MR. GUINGONA. Senators have one reelection.

Madam President, as manifested by Commissioner Monsod, this is a very important "MR. RODRIGO.
question. Maybe we could allow one speaker to explain very briefly each side of the issue.
Before we take our lunch break, may I ask Commissioner Garcia a question on his
"THE PRESIDENT. proposal.

Can we have those speeches after lunch? "Let us say, a mayor has served for nine years, can he, after that, run as governor?

"MR. GUINGONA. "MR. GARCIA.

Yes, Madam President. He can run for other offices if he wishes.

"THE PRESIDENT. "MR. RODRIGO.


national and local levels, since we will not deprive the community of the wealth of
As long as it is another office. experience and advice that could come from those who have served for nine years in
public office.
"THE PRESIDENT.
"x x x.
May we have the other proposal.
"MR. REGALADO.
"MR. ROMULO.
May I just ask Commissioner Garcia for a clarification. Under Alternative No. 1, which
Commissioner Davide would like to be recognized. says: ‘No further election after a total of three terms,’ the three terms referred to here
need not have been served consecutively?
"THE PRESIDENT.
"MR. GARCIA.
Commissioner Davide is recognized.
The Commissioner is correct, madam President.
"MR. DAVIDE.
"MR. REGALADO.
The other proposal, Madam President, is: These officials who can seek two reelections
can serve for a total term of nine years, after that, they cannot seek another reelection. In other words, whether there were interruptions, whether the interruption took over a
They should rest for one term or more, but it will not bar them from running again after span of 20 or 25 years, as long as he has been in that office for a total of nine years, he is
the lapse of the term following the expiration of the nine-year period. banned from running for the same office.

"x x x. "MR. GARCIA.

"MR. ROMULO. The Commissioner is right, madam President.

We are now ready to discuss the two issues, as indicated on the blackboard, and these "MR. REGALADO.
are Alternative No. 1 where there is no further election after a total of three terms and
Alternative No. 2 where there is no immediate reelection after three successive terms. Thank you.

"The proponents are now ready to explain briefly. I ask that Commissioner Garcia be "MR. ROMULO.
recognized.
I ask that Commissioner Monsod be recognized.
"THE PRESIDENT.
"THE PRESIDENT.
Commissioner Garcia is recognized to speak on Alternative No. 1.
Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
"MR. GARCIA.
"MR. MONSOD.
I would like to advocate the proposition that no further election for local and legislative
officials be allowed after a total of three terms or nine years. I have four reasons why I Madam President, I was reflecting on this issue earlier and I asked to speak because in
would like to advocate this proposal, which are as follows: (1) to prevent monopoly of this draft Constitution, we are recognizing people’s power. We have said that now there
political power; (2) to broaden the choice of the people; (3) so that no one is is a new awareness, a new kind of voter, a new kind of Filipino. And yet at the same time,
indispensable in running the affairs of the country; and (4) to create a reserve of we are prescreening candidates among whom they will choose. We are saying that this
statesmen both in the national and local levels. May I explain briefly these four reasons. 48-member Constitutional Commission has decreed that those who have served for a
period of nine years are barred from running for the same position.
"x x x.
"x x x.
"Turnovers in public office after nine years will ensure that new ideas and new
approaches will be welcome. Public office will no longer be a preserve of conservatism "THE PRESIDENT.
and tradition. At the same time, we will create a reserve of statesmen, both in the
Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
"MR. GARCIA.
"MR. DE CASTRO.
Yes, it is still a total of nine years.
Thank you, Madam President.
"MR. DE CASTRO.
"I think the issue is on Alternative No. 1 which is: ‘no further election after a total of three
terms.’ I will just put into action what we have approved this morning which is Scheme Excluding those who were first elected under Scheme No. II?
No. II, providing for a term of three years for the Members of the Lower House of
Congress and a term of three years also for the local officials, from governor down. We "MR. GARCIA.
also approved this morning the alternative that the Members of the Lower House shall
have only two reelections, meaning, one basic election plus two reelections will give Proper adjustments will have to be made for the first election.
them three terms in the House; that the local officials shall have two reelections,
meaning, one basic election plus two reelections or three terms. Let us compare that now "MR. DE CASTRO.
to the number of years in accordance with Scheme No. II. Under Scheme No. II, the
Members of the Lower House and the local officials shall serve for the firm term of not Who will make the proper adjustments?
three years but five years so that we can synchronize elections after that for every three
years. So the Representatives have already a term of five years on the first term, and "MR. GARCIA.
another of six years. So they will serve for eleven years before they will be disqualified
under that first issue. I understand that the three terms mentioned there are only for The Commission on Elections will make the proper adjustments.
nine years. It is not so if we follow what we approved this morning.
"MR. DE CASTRO.
"In the case of the Senators, we approved that there is one reelection. Under Scheme No.
II, the Senators will have a term of five years for the first election, and one reelection for And what proper adjustments can it do?
a term of six years, which will give them a total term of eleven years.
"MR. GARCIA.
"Where does Alternative No. 1 stand now? May I ask the proponent where it stands now?
Is it for nine years or for two reelections as we approved this morning? May I ask the To make sure that the term is not more than nine years, if possible and if not, we can give
proponent of Alternative No. 1, Madam President. them a term of more or less one or two years, depending on how it can be adjusted.

"MR. GARCIA. "x x x.

I am sorry but I think there are two different questions here: for the term of office of the "MR. ABUBAKAR.
Senators, it is a maximum of 12 years; for the Representatives, it is a maximum of nine
years. So if the people find that their Representative is competent, we must have confidence in
them because they know their Representative has demonstrated his competence by
"MR. DE CASTRO. action, because he lives with them. Why should we defy the wishes of the people of that
district? Let one Gentleman answer me and it be on record that he is against my position.
What happens now to what we approved this morning? We approved Scheme No. II As I said, the voice of the people is the voice of God. We should not dictate what the
which provides a term of five years for the Representatives. people want. Why should we arrogate unto ourselves the right of that district or that
province to choose its leaders and limit their total number of years of service to only nine
"MR. GARCIA. years?

I am sorry again, but for the first election, the term of office will have to be fixed by the "I would not speak for Batangas nor speak for Laguna, because their people have the
Commission on Elections simply for adjustment purposes because of the current term of right to choose their own Representatives for a term that they think is appropriate. We
the President, for synchronization and for transitory purposes. But once it is regularized, cannot speak for Sulu or even for Cotabato because the situation is different. Maybe we
it will be different. will have more leaders or maybe we will have only one of our faith and our confidence.
Why limit his total number of years of service to nine years?" 4 (Emphasis provided)
"MR. DE CASTRO.
A winner who dislodges in a recall election an incumbent elective local official merely
Is it a total of nine years? serves the balance of the latter’s term of office; it is not a full three-year term. It also goes
without saying that an incumbent elective local official against whom a recall election is people on who shall rightfully hold the reins of government for them is no less than
initiated and who nevertheless wins in a recall election must be viewed as being a fundamental in looking at its overriding intent.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
continuing term of office and not as a break in reckoning his three consecutive terms. 5
In Lonzanida v. Commission on Elections, 6 this Court has held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph WHEREFORE, I vote to DISMISS the instant petition on the foregoing theses.

". . . The clear intent of the framers of the constitution to bar any attempt to circumvent MENDOZA, J.:
the three-term limit by a voluntary renunciation of office and at the same time respect
the people’s choice and grant their elected official full service of a term is evident in this
provision. Voluntary renunciation of a term does not cancel the renounced term in the
computation of the three-term limit; conversely, involuntary severance from office for Respondent Leonardo B. Roman was elected governor of Bataan in a recall election held
any length of time short of the full term provided by law amounts to an interruption of in 1993 and served in that capacity for one year, from June 28, 1994 to June 30, 1995.
continuity of service." 7 Thereafter, he was elected to the same office in the regular elections of May 8, 1995 and
May 11, 1998. Up to that point, he had served a total of seven (7) years. On May 14, 2001,
If involuntary severance from the service which results in the incumbent’s being unable he ran for reelection unopposed and won by a landslide, receiving 183,730 votes. The
to finish his term of office because of his ouster through valid recall proceedings negates question is whether his last election violates the three-term limit in the Constitution
"one term" for purposes of applying the three-term limit, as so intimated in Lonzanida, it considering that at that time he had served for only seven (7) consecutive years.
stands to reason that the balance of the term assumed by the newly elected local official
in a recall election should not also be held to be one term in reckoning the three-term Article X, § 8 of the Constitution provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
limit. In both situations, neither the elective local official who is unable to finish his term
nor the elected local official who only assumes the balance of the term of the ousted local The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be
official following the recall election could be considered to have served a full three-year determined by law, shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more than
term set by the Constitution. 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
This view is not inconsistent, but indeed in line, with the conclusion ultimately reached which he was elected.
in Socrates v. Commission on Elections, 8 where the Court has considered Hagedorn,
following his three full terms of nine years, still qualified to run in a recall election In several cases 1 decided over the past four years, this Court held that the application of
conducted about a year and a half after the most recent regular local elections. A recall this provision requires the concurrence of two elements: (1) election in regular elections
election term then, not being a full three-year term, is not to be counted or used as a for three consecutive terms and (2) service for the full terms, each consisting of three
basis for disqualification whether it is held prior or subsequent to the nine-year full years, for which the local official was elected. Thus, in the first case, Borja, Jr. v.
three-term limit. COMELEC, decided on September 3, 1998, this Court held that a vice mayor, who had
succeeded to the office of mayor of Pateros, Rizal, was qualified to run for the same
This same issue has been passed and ruled upon by the Commission on Elections no less position in three successive regular elections without running afoul of the constitutional
than five times. 9 Consistently, it has held that the term of a newcomer in recall elections prohibition in question.
cannot be counted as a full term and may not thus be included in counting the three-term
limit prescribed under the law. The Commission on Elections, with its fact-finding The same ruling was made in Arcos v. COMELEC, decided on October 6, 1998:
facilities, its familiarity with political realities, and its peculiar expertise in dealing with Respondent, who as vice mayor of Legaspi City had become mayor by succession on
election controversies, should be in a good vantage point to resolve issues of this nature. December 2, 1991 and had been elected to the same position in 1992 and again in 1995,
Concededly, no ready made formulae are always extant to address occasional complex was qualified to run in 1998. Said the Court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
issues, allowing time and experience to merely evolve and ultimately provide acceptable
solutions. In the administration of election laws, it would be unsound by an excessive Indeed, on facts similar to those in the case at bar, this Court recently held in Benjamin U.
zeal to remove from the Commission on Elections the initiative it takes on such questions Borja, Jr. v. COMELEC, supra, that the constitutional provision which provides that "no
which, in fact, by legal mandate properly belong to it. 10 (elective) local official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms in the same
position" contemplates instances where an individual has not only fully served three
Nor should it be ignored that the law here involved is a limitation on the right of suffrage consecutive terms in the same elective local office but has also been elected to the same
not only on the candidate for office but also, and most importantly, on the electorate. position for the same number of times.
Respondent Roman has won the election to the post of Governor of Bataan with a
comfortable margin against his closest opponent. Where a candidate appears to be the The ruling in Borja, Jr. was applied to a recall election in Lonzanida v. COMELEC, decided
clear choice of the people, doubts on the candidate’s eligibility, even only as a practical on July 28, 1999, in which it was held that a municipal mayor, who had been elected for
matter, must be so resolved as to respect and carry out, not defeat, the paramount will of three consecutive terms and whose third election had been declared void, was qualified
the electorate. While the Constitution would attempt to prevent the monopolization of to run for the same position in the immediately succeeding election. This was because
political power, indeed a wise rule, the precept of preserving the freedom of choice of the
said local official had not previously been elected in three successive elections nor had he If, then, as in Socrates v. COMELEC, an elective local official can be elected in a recall
served for three consecutive terms. election even if he has already previously served for three consecutive terms, 4 it should
make no difference in principle that the recall election in which he is elected comes at the
The principle of Borja, Jr. was again applied in the recent case of Adormeo v. COMELEC, beginning of a series of three terms. The term for which he is elected is likewise less than
decided on February 4, 2002. This Court held that a municipal mayor, who had twice three years and, therefore, it should likewise not be counted in determining how many
been elected to the same position and had lost in his bid for a third term, was qualified to consecutive terms he has served in all.
run in the immediately succeeding election even if in the third term he had served in the
same position by virtue of a recall election. To summarize, in applying the three-term limit, the term during which succession takes
place or a recall election is held should not be counted, either with the three consecutive
It will thus be seen that, in all the cases, this Court did not count the term during which terms preceding, or with the three consecutive terms succeeding, such term. It should
succession took place or a recall election was held in determining whether an elective not be counted not because of any interruption in the continuity of the service but
local official had served for more than three consecutive terms. However, on November because such term is for less than three years. Hence, the unexpired portion of a term,
12, 2002, this Court, while citing Borja, Jr. and its progenies — Arcos, Lonzanida and whether filled by succession or by election in a recall, cannot be considered one full term.
Adormeo — in effect overruled these precedents in Socrates v. COMELEC 2 by ruling that In the case at bar, since respondent Roman’s first election in 1993 was in consequence of
a city mayor, who had served for three consecutive terms, was qualified to run in a recall a recall and not a regular election and he had not fully served three consecutive terms
election held in the following term because of an "interruption" in the service caused by when he was elected on May 14, 2001, I submit with respect that his last election is valid.
the holding of a regular election. The Court said:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Indeed, the cases of Borja, Jr. and Arcos are on all fours with the instant case. In these
One cannot stitch together Hagedorn’s previous three-terms with his new recall term to cases it was held that a vice mayor who had succeeded to the office of mayor can serve
make the recall term a fourth consecutive term because factually it is not. An involuntary for three more consecutive terms as such if elected after the expiration of the term
interruption occurred from June 30, 2001 to September 24, 2002 which broke the during which he had served by succession. There is no reason why the result should be
continuity or consecutive character of Hagedorn’s service as mayor. [pp. 18-19] [A] different simply because in this case respondent became governor by virtue of election in
necessary consequence of the interruption of continuity of service is the start of a new a recall, rather than by succession, before winning in three consecutive regular elections.
term following the interruption. An official elected in recall election serves the unexpired Succession and recall election are alike. They are both modes of succession for the
term of the recalled official. This unexpired term is in itself one term for purposes of purpose of automatically filling permanent vacancies in elective local offices to prevent a
counting the three-term limit. [p. 23] [Were it] otherwise, an elective local official who hiatus in office. 5 The local official who succeeds to the office or is elected in a recall
serves a recall term can serve for more than nine consecutive years comprising the recall simply finishes the term of his predecessor.
term plus the regular three full terms. [p. 24] 3
This is in contrast to a special election called to fill a vacancy either in the House of
Although I reached the same result as the majority in that case, I dissented because I Representatives or in the Senate. There the person elected wins a term even though it is
thought then — as I still do — that the local official in question was qualified to run in the for less than three years (in the case of Representatives) or six years (in the case of
recall election not because of any interruption or break in the continuity of his service Senators) because, between the time the vacancy occurs and a special election is held,
but because the term for which he was elected was less than three years. As I pointed there is an appreciable period during which the vacancy exists so that the unexpired
out, the ruling of the majority in that case was contrary to its professed basis because, portion of the term is considered one term. There is no automatic succession in such
while it would not count the term during which the recall election was held in case. It is even possible that the vacancy will not be filled because no special election has
determining the limit of the preceding terms, consistent with the ruling in Borja, Jr., been called.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
Lonzamida and Adorneo, the majority in Socrates did so for the purpose of determining
the limit of the next three consecutive terms which an elective local official would be It may be that Borja, Jr.’s interpretation of the three-term limit can result in giving an
entitled to serve. elective local official a longer tenure than the equivalent of three consecutive terms,
which is nine years. But so let it be. The Constitution does not really prohibit service for
Indeed, it is error to think that, because a regular election is held between the end of more than three terms if continuity of service is interrupted by means other than the
three terms and the term during which a recall election is held, there occurs thereby "an voluntary renunciation of the incumbent. To hold otherwise would result in limiting an
interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for which [the official elective local official’s term to less than three years, which is contrary to the Constitution.
concerned] was elected" within the meaning of Art. X, § 8. But it is "the continuity of the For as pointed out in Borja, Jr. v. COMELEC, the three-term limit in Art. X, § 8 of the
service for the full term" — not "the continuity of a full term" — that is in question. We Constitution actually embodies two complementary and reinforcing ideas:chanrob1es
are talking here of "interruption in the continuity of service," which can only refer to virtual 1aw library
service which is being rendered. For after service for three consecutive terms has been
rendered there can be no more interruption of service. The local official concerned, who Two ideas thus emerge from a consideration of the proceedings of the Constitutional
has served for three consecutive terms, can run in a recall election not because of any Commission. The first is the notion of service of term, derived from the concern about the
break in his service but because the term to which he is elected is less than three years. accumulation of power as a result of a prolonged stay in office. The second is the idea of
election, derived from the concern that the right of the people to choose those whom
they wish to govern them be preserved. [I]ndeed, a fundamental tenet of representative In arriving at this conclusion, petitioners relied heavily on the deliberations of the
democracy is that the people should be allowed to choose those whom they please to Constitutional Commission on term limits; more specifically, on the opinion expressed by
govern them [U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 US. 729, 131 LEd.2d 881 (1995)]. To Commissioner (now Chief Justice) Hilario G. Davide Jr. (quoted in Borja). In his view, a
bar the election of a local official because he has already served three terms, although the senator or a congressman who would win a special election and serve the unexpired
first as a result of succession by operation of law rather than election, would therefore be portion of the term of a predecessor would already be considered as having served one
to violate this principle. 6 term for purposes of reckoning term limits.

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, I vote to dismiss the petition in this case and to declare The Petition argues that the same principle must apply equally to the recall terms of local
the election on May 14, 2001 of respondent Leonardo B. Roman, as governor of Bataan, officials; otherwise the purpose of the three-term rule would be circumvented. That is, an
valid. elective local official who has first served a recall term (as in the case of Respondent
Roman) would otherwise be elected to and hold the same elective position longer than
PANGANIBAN, J.: three consecutive terms.

The dissenters led by the esteemed Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez cite this Court’s
"In applying election laws, it would be far better to err in favor of popular sovereignty very recent ruling in Socrates v. Comelec, 6 which held that" [a]n official elected in recall
than to be right in complex but little understood legalisms . . . The real essence of justice election serves the unexpired term of the recalled official. This unexpired term is in itself
does not emanate from quibblings over patchwork legal technicality. It proceeds from one term for purposes of counting the three-term limit. This is clear from the following
the spirit’s gut consciousness of the dynamic role of law as a brick in the ultimate discussion in the Constitutional Commission: . . . Although the discussion referred to
development of the social edifice." 1 special elections for Senators and Representatives of the House, the same principle
applies to a recall election of local officials. Otherwise an elective local official who serves
The instant Petition seeks to unseat Private Respondent Leonardo B. Roman, incumbent a recall term can serve for more than nine consecutive years comprising of the recall
provincial governor of Bataan, by reason of his allegedly having exceeded the three-term term plus the regular three full terms. A local official who serves a recall term should
limit for elective local officials established by Section 8 of Article X of the Constitution; 2 know that the recall term is in itself one term although less than three years. This is the
as reiterated in Section 43(b) of RA 7160, the Local Government Code. 3 inherent limitation he takes by running and winning in the recall election." 7 [Italics
supplied]
Summation of the Facts and the Ponencia
An Apparent Distinction That Does Not Make a Real Difference
For a clearer understanding of the case, let me restate the relevant facts very briefly. Mr.
Roman won in the 1993 recall election for governor of the Province of Bataan, assumed The dissenters’ overriding concern is the possibility that an elective local official, like
office on June 28, 1994, and served the remainder of the term which ended June 30, Respondent Roman who first served a recall term, may be elected to and hold the same
1995. Thereafter, he was reelected in 1995, 1998 and 2001. Thus, he is now serving his position longer than three consecutive terms. With all due respect, I believe that such
ninth consecutive year as governor of Bataan. concern is largely misplaced.

It is argued that the Petition should be granted, in the light mainly of Borja v. Comelec The private respondent in Borja was a vice mayor who succeeded to the office of mayor
and Capco 4 and Lonzanida v. Comelec and Muli. 5 In these two cases, this Court held that of Pateros upon the death of the incumbent. After serving the latter’s unexpired term of
two conditions or requirements must concur in order that the three-term limit may two years and ten months, the former ran for and was elected mayor for three more
apply: first, the official concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms to the terms of three years each. This Court ruled that he was not disqualified to serve the last
same local government post; and second, such official has fully served three consecutive term. The three-term rule did not apply to him, because his first term (his succession to
terms. the mayoralty) was not by virtue of an election but by operation of law.

It is further contended that these two conditions or requirements have been satisfied in By not disqualifying the said respondent, the Court permitted him to hold the same office
the instant case. Insofar as the first requirement is concerned, petitioners claim that for an uninterrupted period totaling eleven years and ten months. How different is that
Respondent Roman won in the recall election of 1993 and was reelected in 1995 and case from the present one in which Respondent Roman, if allowed to serve out his
1998; and with respect to the second requirement, he has already served a total of three current term, would be in office for a continuous period of only ten years? To argue and
consecutive terms — the recall term (the unexpired one year portion of the 1992–1995 differentiate — that in one case there was succession to office and in the other a recall
term) being considered as one term — followed by the 1995–1998 and the 1998–2001 election — would be to quibble over an apparent distinction that does not make a real
terms. They thus conclude that private respondent should be deemed disqualified to run difference.
in the 2001 elections, because an electoral victory on his part would have constituted his
fourth consecutive term. Consequently, he is ineligible to serve his present term (2001– Petitioners opine that in establishing term limits, the Constitution intended to prevent a
2004) as governor. local official from holding the same office for a period longer than three consecutive
terms or a total of nine years. Note, however, that whether the initial accession to office
was by virtue of succession/operation of law or by virtue of a recall election, the same (an elective local official), who succeeds to the mayorship by operation of law; and that
evil (monopoly of political power) might still arise at some point down the road. of a congressman, who is elected to fill a vacancy. In the latter instance, there is reason to
regard the service of the unexpired term as the congressman’s first term for purposes of
In other words, the manner in which local officials first got into office is of no moment, determining term limits. But that is neither here nor there, because that particular
whether or not they will later proceed to monopolize political power and perpetuate pronouncement in Borja does not in any way shed light on the issue in this case, which
themselves in office. More plainly, one unusual mode of entry into public office would be involves a recall term.
simplistically favored over another if one official is allowed to serve more than three
terms, on the ground that the excess was by virtue of a legal succession to a vacant office; Socrates’ Pronouncement on Recall Was Merely an Obiter
and to disallow another from so serving, simply because the excess was by reason of a
recall election. Specifically, assumption of office by operation of law would be favored This Court’s pronouncement in Socrates is of no avail either. The analysis therein, as
over that by recall election. quoted earlier, cannot be regarded as controlling insofar as the instant case is concerned.
In that case, the main issue was whether a recall election that took place after the fourth
More significantly and disturbingly, such line of reasoning puts a higher premium on an consecutive election had taken place was to be deemed an "immediate reelection" to a
accidental or opportunistic succession to office (for example, through the death of the fourth term. The Court answered "No," there was "no immediate reelection after three
incumbent local official) over a collective and earnest expression of the people’s consecutive terms." May I quote below the rationale it articulated in that
sovereign will (as through a recall election). Decision:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

I cannot agree that a recall term must be deemed one full term for purposes of "Clearly, what the Constitution prohibits is an immediate reelection for a fourth term
computing the number of successive terms allowed. Under this theory, Respondent following three consecutive terms. The Constitution, however, does not prohibit a
Roman is disqualified from running for reelection in 2001 and thus ineligible to serve out subsequent reelection for a fourth term as long as the reelection is not immediately after
his current term of office. This would in effect cut short his service to less than nine years the end of the third consecutive term: A recall election midway in the term following the
(the recall term of one year plus two terms of 3 years each and the expired portion of his third executive term is a subsequent election but not immediate reelection after the third
current term) and thereby effectively shortchange his constituents. It would in effect term." 9
uphold legalism over the people’s will, the exercise of which was with the voters’
expectation that respondent would serve out his entire three-year term from 2001 to Obviously then, the issues in Socrates did not include the question whether a recall term
2004. should be considered one term for purposes of reckoning term limits. Therefore, the
Court’s ratiocination and analysis that a recall term is one term for purposes of counting
The Borja Doctrine Should Apply Equally to Succession and Recall the three-term limit may be regarded merely as an obiter dictum.

I cannot help but ask how reducing the stay of Respondent Roman in office could Thus, I find no firm or sound jurisprudential basis for considering the recall term of an
possibly make more sense than allowing him to hold on for one year more than the nine elective local official as one term. Instead, I respectfully submit that, being much less than
years normally accorded to local officials. And here, the rationale in Borja seems to be the full term involved in the case of Respondent Roman, it should not be counted as one
altogether apropos: "To consider C in the third case to have served the first term in full term for purposes of reckoning the number of successive terms allowed; and that,
and therefore ineligible to run a third time for reelection would be not only to falsify consequently, he should not be considered as being in breach of the three-term limit.
reality but also to unduly restrict the right of the people to choose whom they wish to
govern them. . . . To consider C as eligible for reelection would be in accord with the A Proper Balancing of Policies Is Needed
understanding of the Constitutional Commission that while the people should be
protected from the evils that a monopoly of political power may bring about, care should Borja stressed the need to strike a balance between enforcing the policy of preventing
be taken that their freedom of choice is not unduly curtailed." 8 the establishment of political dynasties and the policy of enhancing the freedom of choice
of the people. And as held in Socrates, the concept of term limits is, by its very nature, a
Still on the concept of the recall term being one term, as mentioned earlier, the dissenters restraint on the sovereign will of the people to freely elect whomsoever they please.
place much weight on the opinion expressed by then Commissioner Davide during the Term limits, though ensconced in the Constitution, must thus be construed delicately to
discussions of the Constitutional Commission on term limits. Nevertheless and with due prevent them from unduly subverting the manifest sovereign will of the electorate.
respect, I see nothing in that exchange between him and Commissioner Suarez that
would in any manner support the claim that the recall term of an elective local official I submit that term limits should refer and strictly apply to the normal or expected
must be treated as one term, in the same manner as the term of office of a senator or a duration of electoral terms, barring unexpected or unforeseen contingencies such as acts
congressman who wins in a special election is deemed as such. of nature or political upheavals as in this case. As reiterated in Borja, the framers of the
Constitution — in their deliberations on Article X, Section 8 — "were as much concerned
I have likewise scoured Borja, but found nothing that would support such a hypothesis. with preserving the freedom of choice of the people as they were with preventing the
Indeed, the only reason the exchange between the two respected commissioners was monopolization of political power."cralaw virtua1aw library
quoted in that case was to highlight the difference between the situation of a vice mayor
The Ponencia Would Result in Massive Disenfranchisement In Socrates, I voted with the majority, not so much because of the strict legal
rationalization that a recall election midway to the fourth term was not an "immediate
Moreover, I believe that applying the holding in Socrates to the instant case, thereby election" after three consecutive terms. Rather, I did so because the ponencia therein
causing the unceremonious removal of the hapless governor from office, would be an upheld the clear choice of the people: Mr. Edward Hagedorn. I could not in conscience
unwarranted "reaching back." It would be a retroactive and inappropriate application of vote to place in office Petitioner Dennis Socrates, who had clearly been defeated in the
a jural doctrine to a situation that has never clearly and unmistakably violated any then just concluded recall election. Verily, this Court did not inflict a rejected candidate
statutory or constitutional prohibition. Furthermore, to paraphrase Aquino v. Comelec, upon the people of Puerto Princesa, for such action would have constituted "judicial
10 a retroactive application of Socrates would lead to a massive disenfranchisement of tyranny and an unacceptable assault" upon its own conscience.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw
tens of thousands of voters who, through no fault of theirs, voted in favor of candidates 1ibrary
whom they believed (and who themselves believed that they) could be validly voted for.
By the same token, to unseat herein Respondent Leonardo B. Roman, the sitting
Such an unhappy result, triggered by a legal technicality, would go against the guiding governor of Bataan, would constitute an unwelcome judicial imposition upon the people.
principle in election law: that in every election, the people’s choice is the paramount To do so would be to remove the one who has won the clear popular mandate in an
consideration; and their expressed will must, at all times, be given effect. 11 Of similar honest and credible election and to install in his place, by judicial fiat, an obscure
import is our holding in Frivaldo v. Comelec, 12 reiterated in Torayno Sr. v. Comelec. 13 candidate who has been absolutely rejected by the electorate, or another official (the vice
We held therein that our electoral laws must be liberally and equitably construed in governor) whom nobody voted for governor.
order "to give fullest effect to the manifest will of our people, for in case of doubt,
political laws must be interpreted to give life and spirit to the popular mandate freely At bottom, tortuous and contentious legal arguments can be made in favor of either (1)
expressed through the ballot. In other words, legal niceties and technicalities cannot granting or (2) dismissing the herein Petition. In what would otherwise be a legal dead
stand in the way of the sovereign will." 14 heat arising from two conflicting legal positions of almost equal weight, I believe that, in
an election contest, the scales of justice should be tilted in favor of the people’s
Obscure Legalisms Must Yield to Popular Sovereignty overwhelming choice. Indeed, as earlier alluded to in the quotation at the beginning of
this Opinion, "in applying election laws, it would be far better to err in favor of popular
Needless to say, after having won the last election by an overwhelming margin, 15 Mr. sovereignty than to be right in complex but little understood legalisms." Finally, in a
Roman is unarguably the choice of the voters. This Court cannot simply turn a deaf ear democracy, people should — as much as legally possible — be governed by leaders freely
to, much less stifle, the people’s voice. Elections and the contests attendant thereto chosen by them during credible elections.
involve public interest of the highest priority. Thus, technicalities and procedural
barriers should not be allowed to stand, if they constitute an obstacle to the WHEREFORE, in this instance, I choose to uphold popular sovereignty over complex and
determination of the true will of the electorate in the choice of their elective officials. contentious legalisms and thus vote to DISMISS the Petition.

Verily, the resolution of this case hinges on a question of legal philosophy. Should this SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
Court interpret election laws literally in favor of obscure legalisms? Or liberally in favor
of upholding popular sovereignty? As held in Frivaldo:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
I regret I am unable to agree with the decision of the majority of my brethren and I find it
"At balance, the question really boils down to a choice of philosophy and perception of my duty to express my dissent.
how to interpret and apply laws relating to elections: literal or liberal; the letter or the
spirit; the naked provision or its ultimate purpose; legal syllogism or substantial justice; The focal issue in the present petition for certiorari, 1 is whether a governor, elected in a
in isolation or in the context of social conditions; harshly against or gently in favor of the recall election and who has held office for the unexpired term of his predecessor, is
voters’ obvious choice. In applying election laws, it would be far better to err in favor of considered to have served a full term for the purpose of applying the three (3)-term limit
popular sovereignty than to be right in complex but little understood legalisms. Indeed, under Section 8, Article X of the 1987 Constitution.
to inflict a thrice rejected candidate upon the electorate of Sorsogon would constitute
unmitigated judicial tyranny and an unacceptable assault upon this Court’s conscience." I take the affirmative stand.
16
For a clearer understanding of my position, a brief review of the antecedents is
In conformity with the legal philosophy set forth above, I should point out that imperative.
petitioners have not discharged their burden. They have not clearly demonstrated that
the ineligibility of respondent governor is so patently antagonistic to constitutional and Respondent Leonardo B. Roman held the post of governor of Bataan province for several
legal principles that overriding it and thereby giving effect to the people’s will would terms, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
ultimately be more prejudicial to the democratic fundamentals and juristic traditions of
our country. YEARS SERVED MANNER OF ASSUMPTION
a) 1986–1988 Appointed OIC Governor of the province of elections of 1993. Applying this new time frame for purposes of the 2001 elections, the
first term of respondent was from 1995–1998. The second consecutive term was from
Bataan by former President Corazon C. Aquino 1998–2001 and the third term will commence from June 2001 to June 2004." 4
(emphasis added)
and served up to 1988
Undaunted, petitioners come to this Court via the present petition maintaining that
b) 1988–1992 2 Elected Governor and served up to 1992 respondent Roman violated the three-term limit rule for local elective officials when he
ran for reelection as governor in the 2001 elections and, therefore, his proclamation as
such should be set aside.
c) 1994–1995 Elected Governor during the RECALL election in
On February 26, 2002, Congressman Enrique T. Garcia, Jr. of the second district of Bataan
1993, assumed office on June 28, 1994 and served filed a petition-in-intervention which was admitted by this Court in its Resolution of
March 19, 2002. 5 As a registered voter and Representative of his district, he joins
up to 1995 petitioners in questioning the eligibility of respondent Roman.

d) 1995–1998 Elected Governor and served up to 1998 In his comment 6 on the petition, respondent Roman contends that he is eligible to run in
the May 14, 2001 elections "for the Office of Governor in the Province of Bataan" since he
e) 1998–2001 Elected Governor and served up to 2001 did not serve the full 1992–1995 term; what he served was only "the unexpired portion
of Governor Enrique ‘Tet’ Garcia’s 1992 to 1995 term." 7 In support of his contention
respondent Roman cites Lonzanida v. Comelec 8 which held that the official concerned
f) 2001–2004 Elected Governor and presently the incumbent should have fully served three consecutive terms in the same local government post for
the three-term limit to apply.
Governor of Bataan
For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued that the petition to declare
On May 25, 2001, petitioners Melanio Mendoza and Mario Ibarra, residents and respondent Roman’s disqualification should be dismissed on the ground that a recall
registered voters of Tenejero, Balanga, Bataan, filed with the COMELEC en banc a petition election is not a regular election. 9 As such, service of an official elected in a recall
for quo warranto, 3 docketed as EPC No. 2001-5. Petitioners alleged that respondent election should not be counted as a full term.
Roman has served as governor of Bataan for three (3) consecutive terms counted from
his assumption of office by virtue of the 1993 recall election. As such, he is I find the petition meritorious.
disqualified/ineligible to seek a fourth term for the same position in 2001, as he would
violate the three-term limit for local elective positions. Petitioners thus prayed that Section 8, Article X of the 1987 Constitution provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
respondent Roman’s proclamation as the elected governor of Bataan in the 2001
elections be nullified. "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 officials shall serve for more than
In a Resolution dated August 15, 2001, the COMELEC dismissed petitioners’ petition for three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall
quo warranto on the ground that respondent Roman has not exceeded the three-term not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for
limit because his service by virtue of the 1993 recall election cannot be counted as a full which he was elected." (emphasis added)
term and, therefore, should not be considered in applying the three-term limit. The
COMELEC’s ruling reads in part:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph The above constitutional provision is echoed in Section 43 (b) of the Local Government
Code (Republic Act No. 7160), which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
". . . We again state, for the record, that the term of respondent (Roman) from 1995–1998
was his second full term if reckoned from his first full term from 1988-1992 and only for "Sec. 43. Term of Office. — . . .
purposes of applying the three (3)-term limit set forth by law. Hence, from the same
reckoning point, the third term was from 1998-2001. This was so because the 1993 "(b) No local elective official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms in the
recall election was not counted as a full term and therefore, for purposes of the three- same position. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be
term limit, was not included in the counting. It constituted an interruption in the service considered as an interruption in the continuity of service for the full term for which the
of the full term of three (3) years which a local elective official should, under the law, elective official concerned was elected." (emphasis added)
serve fully for purposes of counting the term limit.
In applying the three-term limit to an elective official, the foregoing constitutional and
"In the present case, the reckoning point is the 1995–1998 term of respondent, the 1995 statutory provisions provide that (1) he should have been elected to a public office; and
elections being the first regular election from the interruption caused by the recall (2) he should have served three consecutive terms for the same elective position. These
two requirements are present in the instant case, thus barring respondent from serving won the recall election would certainly permit a circumvention of the purpose of the
as governor of Bataan from 2001 to 2004. three-term rule, since he may hold the same elective position longer than three
consecutive terms, or more than the maximum nine consecutive years, as in the case of
It bears emphasis that the said constitutional and statutory provisions on term limits respondent Roman. In the recent case of Socrates v. Comelec, 14 this Court en banc,
make no distinction as to the nature of the election — whether regular, special or recall speaking through Mr. Justice Antonio T. Carpio, ruled:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
elections. The elementary rule in statutory construction is that where the law does not
distinguish, the courts should make no distinction (Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos "This is clear from the following discussion in the Constitutional Commission: . . . .
distinguire debemos). 10 Indeed, these provisions do not confine the three-term rule to Although the discussion referred to special elections for Senators and Representatives of
regular elections only. They include any election (such as recall election) for the same the House, the same principle applies to a recall election of local officials. Otherwise, an
position. As this Court ruled in Borja, Jr. v. Commission on Elections and Jose T. Capco, elective local official who serves a recall term can serve for more than nine consecutive
through Mr. Justice Vicente V. Mendoza: 11 years comprising of the recall term plus the regular three full terms. . . . ."cralaw
virtua1aw library
". . . Art. X, Section 8 contemplates service by local officials for three consecutive terms as
a result of election. The first sentence speaks of ‘the term of office of elective local At this juncture, it bears stressing that the object of the three-term limit is to forestall the
officials’ and bars ‘such officials’ from serving for more than three consecutive terms. The accumulation of massive political power by an elective local official who intends to
second sentence, in explaining when an elective local official may be deemed to have perpetuate himself in office. Another purpose is to broaden the choices of the electorate
served his full term of office, states that ‘voluntary renunciation of the office for any of the candidates who will run for office, and to infuse new blood in the political arena by
length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service disqualifying officials from running for the same office after serving nine (9) consecutive
for the full term for which he was elected.’ The term served must therefore be one ‘for years. 15 It is in the light of these objectives that this Court should interpret the
which [the official concerned] was elected.’ The purpose of this provision is to prevent a constitutional proscription. 16 The courts, in construing the Constitution, should
circumvention of the limitation on the number of terms an elective local official may consider the object sought to be accomplished by its adoption, and the evils, if any,
serve. . . . ." (emphasis added) sought to be prevented or remedied.

This Court has further ruled in Claudio v. Commission on Elections, 12 also through Mr. As shown earlier, respondent Roman served as governor of Bataan from 1986 up to the
Justice Mendoza, that "election" includes recall "by means of which voters decide present. To date, he has perpetuated himself in the said position for more than sixteen
whether they should retain their local official or elect his replacement."cralaw virtua1aw years. Is this not precisely the vice that the framers of the Constitution intended to avert
library in prescribing the three-term limit rule? To say that a recall term is not a full term is to
provide a fertile ground for circumventing the three-term limit rule. As in the
On the requirement that the official should have served three consecutive terms, then construction of statutes, the Constitution should be construed not so much according to
Commissioner Hilario G. Davide, Jr., now Chief Justice of this Court, expressed the the letter that killeth but in line with the purpose for which it has been enacted. The
following opinion in answer to a query during the deliberations of the Constitutional Constitution is to be given such construction as will advance its object, suppress or
Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph prevent the evil it seeks to avoid, and secure the benefits intended. The interpretation of
the Constitution should be done with a view to realizing its fundamental objective. 17
"Commissioner Suarez: For example, a special election is called for a Senator, and the
Senator newly elected would have to serve the unexpired portion of the term. Would that This Court, just a month ago, emphatically declared in Socrates 18 that although an
mean that serving the unexpired portion of the term is already considered one term? So, official elected in a recall election serves the unexpired term of the recalled official, this
half a term, which is actually the correct statement, plus one term would disqualify the "unexpired term is in itself one term for purposes of counting the three-term limit." It
Senator concerned from running? Is that the meaning of this provision on went further in saying that a "local official who serves a recall term should know that
disqualification, Madam President? (such) term is in itself one term although less than three years. This is the inherent
limitation he takes by running and winning in the recall election." It now boggles my
"Commissioner Davide: Yes, because we speak of ‘term,’ and if there is a special election, mind why the majority has made a complete turn-around and totally disregarded this
he will serve only for the unexpired portion of that particular term plus one more term significant pronouncement which could have given life to the constitutional mandate.
for the Senator and two more terms for the Members of the Lower House." 13 (emphasis
added) In the law of public officers, there is a settled distinction between term and tenure. Term
means the time during which the officer may claim to hold the office as a matter of right.
While the above discussion on term limits specifically refers to special elections for Upon the other hand, tenure represents the period during which the incumbent actually
Senators and Representatives, the same principle equally applies to a recall term of local holds office. Tenure may be shorter than term for reasons within or beyond the power of
officials. The constitutional provision is explicit that "the term of office of elective local the incumbent. 19 In the case of herein respondent who was elected in a recall election,
officials, . . . shall be three years and no such officials shall serve for more than three his tenure was only for the remaining term of the recalled official, then Governor Garcia.
consecutive terms." In other words, the Constitution limits the service of elective local Be that as it may, his election is still for a particular term inasmuch as during the
officials to a total of nine consecutive years. To exclude the service of such official who unserved period of the recalled official, he has a claim to hold such office as a matter of
right. In short, his service for the remaining period is considered tenure for the full term for the purpose of applying the three-term rule. As can be seen, the factual backdrop and
for which he was elected. the ratio decidendi of Lonzanida are not on all fours with the present case. Respondent,
therefore, cannot invoke this Court’s ruling in Lonzanida.
In fact, in Borja, 20 this Court, after citing the opinion of Father Joaquin G. Bernas and
Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., then members of the Constitutional Commission, made In fine, I am fully convinced that respondent Roman is ineligible for the elective position
the categorical pronouncement that the unexpired portion of the term is rightly counted of governor of the province of Bataan.
as a full term, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
The political system of our country is one of democratic and republican government. A
"Reference is made to Commissioner Bernas’ comment on Art. VI, Section 7, which democratic government is necessarily a government of laws. Also, in a republican
similarly bars members of the House of Representatives from serving for more than government, these laws are decreed by the people through their representatives and
three terms. Commissioner Bernas states that ‘if one is elected Representative to serve through them, the people dictate the qualifications as well as the disqualifications for
the unexpired term of another, that unexpired term, no matter how short, will be service in government positions. Respondent is clearly disqualified to serve as governor
considered one term for the purpose of computing the number of successive terms of the Province of Bataan for 2001 to 2004 as he has exceeded the allowable term limit
allowed (Joaquin Bernas, The 1987 Constitution 637 [1996]). for local elective officials. The will of a majority or plurality of the voters of the province
of Bataan should not be considered to have cured such disqualification. To do so will
"This is actually based on the opinion expressed by Commissioner Davide in answer to a seriously violate the fundamental law itself. Simply put, the will of respondent Roman’s
query of Commissioner Suarez: ‘For example, a special election is called for a Senator, constituency should not prevail over the will of the entire Filipino people as expressed in
and the Senator newly elected would have to serve the unexpired portion of the term. the Constitution.
Would that mean that serving the unexpired portion of the term is already considered
one term? So half a term, which is actually the correct statement, plus one term would It is basic that the Constitution is the people’s quintessential act of sovereignty,
disqualify the Senator concerned from running? Is that the meaning of this provision on embodying the principles upon which the State and the government are founded. 24
disqualification, Madam President?’ Having the status of a supreme and all-encompassing law, it speaks for all the people all
the time, not just for the majority or for the minority at intermittent times. Every
"Commissioner Davide said: ‘Yes, because we speak of ‘term,’ and if there is a special constitution is a compact made by and among the citizens of a State to govern themselves
election, he will serve only for the unexpired portion of that particular term plus one in a certain manner. 25 Mr. Justice Artemio V. Panganiban himself, in Cruz v. Secretary of
more term for the Senator and two more terms for the Members of the Lower House’ (2 Environment and Natural Resources, 26 assured that "the Philippine Constitution is a
Record 592, Session of August 7, 1986)."cralaw virtua1aw library solemn covenant made by all the Filipinos to govern themselves. No group, however
blessed, and no sector, however distressed, is exempt from its compass."cralaw
". . . . In a real sense, therefore, such Representative serves a term for which he was virtua1aw library
elected. As the purpose of the constitutional provision is to limit the right to be elected
and to serve in Congress, his service of the unexpired term is rightly counted as his first Indeed, this is a sad day for me. Perhaps I will never understand why the majority has
term. Rather than refute what we believe to be the intendment of Art. X, Section 8 with allowed the will of respondent Roman’s constituency to prevail over the will of the entire
regard to elective local officials, the case of a Representative who succeeds another Filipino people, thus completely disregarding the noble purpose of the constitutional
confirms the theory." (emphasis added) three-term limit rule.

Thus, although respondent only served the unexpired term of then Governor (now WHEREFORE, I vote to GRANT the petition and SET ASIDE the challenged Resolution of
Congressman) Enrique T. Garcia, Jr., the former’s recall term as governor of Bataan from the COMELEC en banc dated August 15, 2001 in EPC No. 2001-5. Respondent Leonardo
1994 to 1995 is rightly counted as his first term for purposes of applying the three-term B. Roman is declared ineligible to assume office as governor of the province of Bataan for
limit. This was immediately followed by his election to the same position for three more the term 2001–2004.
consecutive terms, to wit: 1995 to 1998; 1998 to 2001; and 2001 to 2004. Considering
that his recall term is his first term, his reelections in the 1995 and the 1998 elections are CARPIO, J.:
his second and third terms, respectively. Consequently, he is disqualified to run as
governor in the 2001 elections, as that would already be his fourth consecutive term.

Respondent Roman cites Lonzanida v. Comelec. 21 In this case, the two requisites for the I dissent. Respondent Leonardo B. Roman was disqualified to run for Governor of Bataan
application of the three-term rule were absent so that the ban against holding a further in the May 14, 2001 elections since he had been elected successively to the same office in
term did not apply to Lonzanida. To recall, Mayor Lonzanida was ordered by the the 1994 recall election and in the 1995 and 1998 regular elections.
COMELEC to vacate his post on the ground that he was not duly elected. Thus, his
severance from office was involuntary and constituted an interruption of the continuity The applicable provision is Section 8, Article X of the 1987 Constitution which provides
of his service under the Constitution 22 and the law. 23 His renunciation being as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
involuntary, this Court ruled that he could not be considered to have served a full term
x x x
"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 "MR. GARCIA: I would like to advocate the proposition that no further election for local
not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for and legislative officials be allowed after a total of three terms or nine years. . . . .
which he was elected." 1
x x x
The sole issue is whether a recall term is considered as one term for purposes of
counting the three-term limit of elective local officials. I see no other way but to consider
a recall term as one term. Turnovers in public office after nine years will ensure that new ideas and new
approaches will be welcome. . . . ." 5
First, the framers of the 1987 Constitution unmistakably intended a recall term, which is
the unexpired term of the recalled official, to be considered as one term for counting x x x
term limits. The following exchange during the deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission shows this clear intent, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"MR. DE CASTRO: . . . I understand that the three terms mentioned there are only for nine
"MR. SUAREZ: For example, a special election is called for a Senator, and the Senator years. . . . ." 6
newly elected would have to serve the unexpired portion of the term. Would that mean
that serving the unexpired portion of the term is already considered one term? So, half a x x x
term, which is actually the correct statement, plus one term would disqualify the Senator
concerned from running? Is that the meaning of this provision on disqualification,
Madam President? "MR. GARCIA: I am sorry again, but for the first election, the term of office will have to be
fixed by the Commission on Elections simply for adjustment purposes because of the
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, because we speak of ‘term,’ and if there is a special election, he will current term of the President, for synchronization and for transitory purposes. But once
serve only the unexpired portion of that particular term plus one more term for the it is regularized, it will be different.
Senator and two more terms for the Members of the Lower House." 2
MR. DE CASTRO: Is it a total of nine years?
While the foregoing exchange referred specifically to special elections for Senators and
Representatives, the same principle applies with equal force to the recall term of elective MR. GARCIA: Yes, it is a total of nine years.
local officials. To hold otherwise would allow a local official to be elected, and to serve,
for more than nine consecutive years in the same position. This is the case of respondent
x x x
Roman who would be serving a total of more than ten consecutive years as Governor of
Bataan if he were not disqualified to run in the 2001 elections.
MR. GARCIA: To make sure that the term is not more than nine years, if possible and if
Second, the framers of the 1987 Constitution unmistakably intended that elective local
not, we can give them a term of more or less one to two years, depending on how it can
officials should not be elected to serve continuously for more than nine years in the same
be adjusted." 7
position. The records of the Constitutional Commission reveal that the three-term limit
of Representatives and local officials was clearly understood to mean a maximum period
Indisputably, the framers of the Constitutional Commission intended the three-term limit
of nine consecutive years. Thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
to mean a maximum service of nine consecutive years. This intent is clear, definite and
unequivocal. To rule that a recall term should be totally ignored in counting the three-
"MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I think the vote on continuous service of nine years for
term limit will allow local officials to be elected to serve for more than nine consecutive
the Members of the House of Representatives or the lifetime limitation of three terms has
years contrary to the manifest intent of the framers of the Constitution. This is exactly
a very serious implication. . . . ." 3
what will happen if respondent Roman’s recall term is not counted in computing the
three-term limit, for Roman will then serve as Governor for more than ten consecutive
x x x years.

The framers of the Constitution have fixed the term limit of elective local officials at three
"MR. DAVIDE: The other proposal, Madam President, is: These officials who can seek two consecutive terms, with a clear intention that the total shall not exceed nine years. They
reelections can serve for a total of nine years, after that, they can seek another reelection. have also intended that election to an unexpired term shall be considered as one term for
. . . ." 4 purposes of counting the three-term limit. The intention of the framers of the
Constitution, just like the intention of legislators who draft a statute, certainly deserves elections.
great weight. When such intention is clear, definite and unequivocal, the intention
becomes controlling as it expresses the true spirit of the Constitution or the law. As this Sixth, that respondent Roman won as Governor in the 2001 elections cannot serve to
Court aptly stated, "The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is to give exempt him from the three-term limit mandated by the Constitution. The vote of the
effect to the intent of the framers of the organic law and the people adopting it." 8 people of Bataan, while overwhelmingly for Roman, cannot overcome the vote of the
people of the entire Philippines when they ratified the Constitution that now mandates
Third, the 1987 Constitution does not require a public official, whether elective or the three-term limit. Besides, we must resolve the constitutional issue here without
appointive, to serve his full term in order to be disqualified from re-election or regard to the accidental circumstance that respondent Roman won overwhelmingly, for
reappointment. A clear example is a Vice-President who succeeds by operation of law as this constitutional issue could also have been raised in a case where the margin of victory
President. If the Vice-President succeeds to the Presidency to serve an unexpired term of was whisker-thin.
more than four years, he is disqualified from running for President. Section 4, Article VII
of the Constitution states that" [N]o person who has succeeded as President and has We do not decide this constitutional issue because the people of Bataan have strongly
served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office clamored for Roman’s leadership as their Governor, but because we must apply the clear,
at any time."cralaw virtua1aw library definite and unequivocal intent of the framers of the Constitution. We do not decide this
constitutional issue to meet the exigency of Roman’s remarkable election victory in the
Similarly, one appointed to serve the unexpired term of a member of the Civil Service 2001 elections despite his disqualification, but to guide all those who will run for public
Commission or the Commission on Elections is disqualified from reappointment even if office through the ages for as long as the same constitutional three-term limit remains in
the unexpired term is less than the full term of seven years. Appointment to these place.
constitutional bodies is "without reappointment" 9 and" [A]ppointment to any vacancy
shall be only for the unexpired term of the predecessor." 10 Unquestionably, the Accordingly, I vote to grant the petition.
Constitution does not require complete service of a full term of office before the relevant
constitutional disqualification attaches. AZCUNA, J.:

Fourth, the instant case is not a situation where the official succeeded by operation of
law to the office and served the unexpired term of his predecessor as in Borja, Jr. v. The adoption of term limits is new to our polity. It is a departure from the rule that in a
Comelec 11 where the unexpired term was not counted in computing the three-term democracy the sovereign people can choose whoever is fit and qualified to be their
limit. Here, respondent Roman was elected to serve the unexpired term of his leader for as often as is their will.
predecessor. To say that the recall term is a stray term, belonging to no elected official in
counting the three-term limit, is to ignore reality. A recall term arises from a special The restriction has for its reason the concern against accumulation of power resulting
election for a fixed term of office — the unexpired term of the recalled official. The from prolonged stay in office.
official elected in a recall election has the same functions and powers as an official
elected to the same office in a regular election. The recall term is a legal and political fact These two ideas, however, represent the rule and the exception. The rule is the
that cannot just be dismissed as a stray term. fundamental tenet of representative democracy that the people should be allowed to
choose those whom they please to govern them. The exception is the term limit provided
In Adormeo v. Comelec 12 and Socrates v. Comelec, 13 we ruled that the recall term is for in the Constitution.
not consecutive to the previous terms of one who wins the recall election against the
recalled official. The term of office of the incumbent or recalled official serves to break It follows that in applying the exception, it must be strictly construed, so that only if it
the continuity of service of the comebacking official who wins a recall election. But a clearly applies should it be applied.
recall term of an official who is re-elected in the next two regular elections, like that of
respondent Roman in the instant case, is not interrupted by any term of another official. To my mind, the provision in question, the term limit for elective local officials, applies
Thus, such recall term should be counted in computing the three-term limit. only if such official has served three consecutive terms in full.

Fifth, to consider a recall term as a stray term will encourage a person disqualified Consequently, service of less than a full term, be it succession or recall election, does not
because of the three-term limit to agitate for the recall of his immediate successor. We count in determining whether such official has served three consecutive terms.
held in Socrates that such a person can run in a recall election. If he wins and his recall
term is not counted in computing the three-term limit, then he has nothing to lose and The Constitution is clear. The terms must be consecutive and the service must be full, for
everything to gain by agitating for a recall election. This will remove the stability of the the prohibition to apply:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
term of office of his immediate successor, and subject the people to too many elections
within a short period. But if the recall term is counted as one term, then the truncated "Sec. 8, Art. X. The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which
term serves as an inherent limitation and natural disincentive to those who would shall be determined by law, shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more
otherwise agitate for a recall election because they cannot wait for the next regular 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." (Emphasis supplied.)

Once these conditions obtain, however, the prohibition sets in and what is prohibited is
not simply an "immediate reelection," 1 as contended by the majority in Socrates v.
Comelec, 2 but rather serving for more than three consecutive terms, i. e., service in the
immediately following term, the fourth term.

Serving during such term, whether from the start, in the middle or at the end, would still
consist in service "for more than three consecutive terms." In reference to the prohibited
service, it is not required that it be for the full term. What is proscribed is service, of any
length, during the prohibited term, for such would still constitute service for more than
three consecutive terms.

There was a clear intent to require the person who has served in full the number of
consecutive terms, in this case three, to rest until the election for the term not
immediately following the last of the consecutive terms served. Hence, in Socrates I
joined in the separate opinion of the Chief Justice, as I agreed with him that once an
elected local official, in that case a mayor, has served three consecutive terms in full, that
person cannot serve for any time during the immediately following term, whether by
immediate reelection or by recall election.

In the present case, respondent Roman’s election as governor in the recall election of
1992 should not be counted as one full term. For the disqualification to attach, three
consecutive terms must be served in full. This is the exception to the rule, so it must be
strictly complied with. Service for less than a full term, except only in case of voluntary
renunciation, should not be counted to determine the existence of the disqualification.

I therefore vote to DISMISS the petition in this case and to declare respondent Leonardo
B. Roman as NOT DISQUALIFIED to run for governor in the election of May 14, 2001, as
this was only for his third consecutive term.chanro

You might also like