Facts:

The case "Simon B. Aldovino, Jr., Danilo B. Faller and Ferdinand N. Talabong vs. Commission on Elections and Wilfredo F. Asilo" (G.R. No. 184836), decided by the Philippine Supreme Court on December 23, 2009, revolves around the question of whether a preventive suspension of an elected public official interrupts his term of office for the purpose of the three-term limit rule outlined in Section 8, Article X of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, and Section 43(b) of Republic Act No. 7160, also known as the Local Government Code.

Wilfredo F. Asilo was elected as councilor of Lucena City for three consecutive terms: from 1998 to 2001, 2001 to 2004, and 2004 to 2007. He faced a 90-day preventive suspension issued by the Sandiganbayan in October 2005 while serving his last term. This suspension was ultimately lifted by the Supreme Court on November 14, 2005, allowing Asilo to serve the remainder of his term. Despite this, Asilo filed a certificate of candidacy for the same c

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Wilfredo F. Asilo was elected councilor of Lucena City for three consecutive terms:
• 1998–2001
• 2001–2004
• 2004–2007
• During his 2004–2007 term, Asilo was placed under a preventive suspension by the Sandiganbayan for 90 days in September 2005 in connection with a criminal case.
• Although the suspension temporarily barred him from performing his duties, the Supreme Court later lifted the Sandiganbayan’s suspension order, allowing Asilo to resume his functions.

Petition and Procedural History

• In the 2007 election, despite having completed three consecutive elected terms, Asilo filed his certificate of candidacy for a fourth term as councilor.
• Petitioners (Simon B. Aldovino, Jr., Danilo B. Faller, and Ferdinand N. Talabong) contested Asilo’s eligibility, arguing that his certificate of candidacy violated the three-term limit under Section 8, Article X of the 1987 Constitution and Section 43(b) of RA 7160 (the Local Government Code).
• The COMELEC’s Second Division ruled in favor of Asilo, holding that his preventive suspension disrupted his ability to render “full service” during the 2004–2007 term, thus exempting that term from counting toward the consecutive term limit.
• The COMELEC en banc refused to reconsider the Second Division’s ruling, prompting the present petition for annulment on the grounds of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Contextual Background on Term Limit Rule

• Section 8, Article X of the Constitution limits elective local officials to three consecutive three-year terms.
• The provision explicitly states that voluntary renunciation of office for any duration shall not interrupt the continuity of service for which an official was elected.
• The intent of the framers was to prevent the accumulation of excessive power through continuous service and to preserve the people’s right to choose.

Nature and Impact of Preventive Suspension

• Preventive suspension is an administrative or judicial remedial measure imposed:
• To protect the integrity of the public office, preserve evidence, and prevent possible tampering or undue influence on witnesses in pending cases.
• Under various laws (e.g., the Local Government Code, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and the Ombudsman Act), its purpose is to ensure the service is not disrupted by an official under investigation.
• During preventive suspension:
• The official is barred from performing the functions of office and is not entitled to salary.
• However, the official does not lose his title to office, and no permanent vacancy is created.

The Dispute

• The case raises the question whether the period of preventive suspension should be considered an interruption of the “full term” of service.
• The outcome would determine if Asilo’s suspension qualifies as a break in continuity that allows him to run for a fourth term despite having been elected for three consecutive terms.

Issue:

Whether preventive suspension of an elected local official constitutes an interruption in the continuity of his term, thus affecting the application of the three-term limit rule.

• Specifically, is the temporary preventive suspension an “involuntary renunciation” that cuts short the full term of service?
• Whether preventive suspension should be equated with a voluntary renunciation of office for the purposes of counting a term under Section 8, Article X of the Constitution, and Section 43(b) of RA 7160.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)