Facts:
Petitioner Bolos was elected as the Punong Barangay of Barangay
Biking, Dauis, Bohol for 3 consecutive terms (1994,1997, 2002).
In May 2004, during his
incumbency, he ran for Municipal Councilor of Dauis and won. He assumed office
on July 1, 2004 leaving his post as Punong Barangay.
After serving his term as a
councilor he filed his candidacy for the position of Punong Barangay in the
October 29, 2007 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections. Cinconiegue, then
incumbent Punong Barangay and also a candidate for the same office, filed a
petition for disqualification on the ground that Bolos Jr. has already served
the maximum limit of three term hence no longer eligible to run and hold the
position in accordance with Sec. 8, Article X of the Constitution and Sec. 43
(b) of RA 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991.
Cinconiegue contended that Bolos’
relinquishment of the position of Punong Barangay in July 2004 was voluntary on
his part, as it could be presumed that it was his personal decision to run as
municipal councilor in the May 14, 2004 National and Local Elections. He added
that petitioner knew that if he won and assumed the position, there would be a
voluntary renunciation of his post as Punong Barangay.
In his Answer, petitioner argued
that when he assumed the position of Sangguniang Bayan member, he left his post
as Punong Barangay by operation of law; hence, it must be considered as an
involuntary interruption in the continuity of his last term of service.
Pending the resolution of the
case before the COMELEC, Bolos Jr. won in the election.
The COMELEC resolved the petition
in favor of Cinconiegue ruling that Bolos Jr. has already served the maximum
three consecutive term for an office and thus disqualified to run for the same
office. It further ordered that the proclamation of Bolos Jr. be annulled and
that the office will be succeeded based on Sec. 44 of the Local Government
Code.
Issue:
Whether or not there was a voluntary renunciation of the office of Punong
Barangay by Bolos Jr. when he assumed the post of Municipal Councilor so that
he is deemed to have served for three consecutive terms.
Held:
YES. The three-term limit for elective official is contained in Sec. 8,
Article X of the Constitution states:
“Section 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.”
The Local Government Code
provides for the term of office of Barangay Officials:
Sec. 43. Term of Office. – x x x
(b) No local elective official shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive
terms in the same position. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length
of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of service
for the full term for which the elective official concerned was elected.
(c) The term of barangay
officials and members of the sangguniang kabataan shall be for five (5) years, which
shall begin after the regular election of barangay officials on the second
Monday of May 1997: Provided, that the sangguniang kabataan members who were
elected in the May 1996 elections shall serve until the next regular election
of barangay officials.
Socrates v. Comelec held that the
rule on the three-term limit, embodied in the Constitution and the Local
Government Code, has two parts: x x x The first part provides that an elective
local official cannot serve for more than three consecutive terms. The
clear intent is that only consecutive terms count in determining the three-term
limit rule. The second part states that voluntary renunciation of office
for any length of time does not interrupt the continuity of service. The clear
intent is that involuntary severance from office for any length of time
interrupts continuity of service and prevents the service before and after the
interruption from being joined together to form a continuous service or
consecutive terms.
After three consecutive terms, an
elective local official cannot seek immediate reelection for a fourth term. The
prohibited election refers to the next regular election for the same office
following the end of the third consecutive term.
In Lonzanida v. Comelec, the
Court stated that the second part of the rule on the three-term limit shows the
clear intent of the framers of the Constitution to bar any attempt to
circumvent 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. The Court held that two conditions for the application of
the disqualification must concur: (1) that the official concerned has been elected
for three consecutive terms in the same government post; and (2) that he
has fully served three consecutive terms.
In this case, it is undisputed
that petitioner was elected as Punong Barangay for three consecutive terms,
satisfying the first condition for disqualification.
What is to be determined is
whether petitioner is deemed to have voluntarily renounced his position as
Punong Barangay during his third term when he ran for and won as Sangguniang
Bayan member and assumed said office.
The Court agrees with the COMELEC
that petitioner’s relinquishment of the office of Punong Barangay of Biking,
Dauis, Bohol, as a consequence of his assumption to office as Sangguniang Bayan
member of Dauis, Bohol, on July 1, 2004, is a voluntary renunciation.
When petitioner filed his
certificate of candidacy for the Office of Sangguniang Bayan, he was not deemed
resigned. Nonetheless, all the acts attending his pursuit of his election as
municipal councilor point out to an intent and readiness to give up his post as
Punong Barangay once elected to the higher elective office, for it was very
unlikely that respondent had filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the
Sangguniang Bayan post, campaigned and exhorted the municipal electorate to
vote for him as such and then after being elected and proclaimed, return to his
former position. He knew that his election as municipal councilor would
entail abandonment of the position he held, and he intended to forego of it.
Abandonment, like resignation, is voluntary.
Petitioner erroneously argues
that when he assumed the position of Sangguniang Bayan member, he left his post
as Punong Barangay by operation of law; hence, he did not fully serve his third
term as Punong Barangay.
The term "operation of
law" is defined by the Philippine Legal Encyclopedia as "a term
describing the fact that rights may be acquired or lost by the effect of a
legal rule without any act of the person affected." Black's Law
Dictionary also defines it as a term that "expresses the manner in which
rights, and sometimes liabilities, devolve upon a person by the mere
application to the particular transaction of the established rules of law,
without the act or cooperation of the party himself.
An interruption in the service of
a term of office, by operation of law, is exemplified in Montebon v. Comelec
and Borja vs. Comelec. In this case, petitioner did not fill or succeed to a
vacancy by operation of law. He instead relinquished his office as Punong
Barangay during his third term when he won and assumed office as Sangguniang
Bayan member of Dauis, Bohol, which is deemed a voluntary renunciation of the
Office of Punong Barangay. (
0
Comments
