Case Summary (A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2630-RTJ, RTJ-07-2049, RTJ-08-2141, RTJ-07-2093)
Petitioner’s Claim and Respondent’s Answer
– Petitioners filed on April 30, 2007 a COMELEC petition to disqualify Potencioso for seeking a fourth consecutive term as municipal councilor, alleging he had already served in 1998–2001, 2001–2004, and 2004–2007.
– Respondent admitted three electoral victories but asserted that his second term (2001–2004) was involuntarily cut short on January 12, 2004 when he succeeded as vice mayor due to a permanent vacancy, thus interrupting his service and resetting his consecutive‐term count.
Procedural History
– May 10, 2007: COMELEC First Division hearing; parties were directed to submit memoranda.
– June 2, 2007: First Division denied the disqualification petition, ruling that succession to vice mayor constituted an interruption in his second term.
– September 28, 2007: COMELEC En Banc denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, affirming interruption and consequent eligibility to run.
– April 9, 2008: Petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via certiorari; decision promulgated March 16, 2009.
Applicable Law
– 1987 Constitution, Article X, Section 8: Local elective officials serve three‐year terms, no more than three consecutive terms; voluntary renunciation for any length of time does not interrupt continuity.
– Local Government Code (RA 7160) Section 43(b): Mirrors the constitutional term‐limit provision; Section 44: Provides for automatic succession in local elective offices upon permanent vacancies.
– Jurisprudence:
• Lonzanida v. COMELEC – Both election and full service for three consecutive terms are required to trigger disqualification.
• Borja, Jr. v. COMELEC – Term limits apply to the right both to be elected and to serve.
Issue
Does the involuntary succession of a sitting municipal councilor to the office of vice mayor interrupt the continuity of his councilor term for purposes of the three‐term limit?
Analysis
- Term‐Limit Framework
• The Constitution and LGC disqualify local officials only after three fully served consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation does not count as interruption; involuntary severance does. - Nature of Succession
• RA 7160 § 44 mandates that the highest‐ranking sanggunian member automatically succeeds to a permanent vacancy in the vice mayoralty.
• Such succession is by operation of law and is compulsory, not elective or voluntary. - Continuity of Service
• Because Potencioso had no option to refu
Case Syllabus (A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2630-RTJ, RTJ-07-2049, RTJ-08-2141, RTJ-07-2093)
Facts
- Petitioners Federico T. Montebon and Eleanor M. Ondoy, together with other candidates, filed a petition for disqualification against respondent Sesinando F. Potencioso, Jr. before the COMELEC on April 30, 2007.
- All parties were candidates for municipal councilor of Tuburan, Cebu in the May 14, 2007 synchronized national and local elections.
- Petitioners alleged that Potencioso had served three consecutive terms as councilor (1998–2001, 2001–2004, 2004–2007) and thus was barred from seeking a fourth consecutive term.
- Respondent admitted election to three consecutive terms but contended that his second term (2001–2004) was involuntarily interrupted on January 12, 2004 when he succeeded by operation of law as vice mayor upon the retirement of Vice Mayor Petronilo L. Mendoza.
Procedural History
- May 10, 2007: COMELEC First Division hearing; parties directed to file memoranda.
- June 2, 2007: COMELEC First Division denied the disqualification petition (SPA No. 07-421).
- September 28, 2007: COMELEC En Banc denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
- April 9, 2008: Petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Petitioners’ Allegations
- Succession to the vice mayoralty constituted a voluntary renunciation of the councilor’s office.
- Under the Constitution and Local Government Code, voluntary renunciation “for any length of time shall not be considered an interruption in the continuity of service.”
- Since Potencioso voluntarily renounced, his second term counts as fully served and he is thus on his fourth consecutive term.
Respondent’s Position
- A local elective official whose service in one term was interrupted need not