The Supreme Court ruled that an elected municipal mayor who served three consecutive terms is ineligible to run for mayor of the newly-converted city if it encompasses the same territory. This decision reinforces the constitutional provision preventing the monopolization of political power by limiting consecutive terms, ensuring fairness and broader participation in local governance.

From Municipality to City: Does a New Charter Reset the Term Clock?

Arsenio A. Latasa served as the mayor of Digos, Davao del Sur, for three consecutive terms (1992-1998). During his last term, Digos was converted from a municipality into a city. He filed his candidacy for city mayor in the 2001 elections, stating he was eligible. However, private respondent Romeo M. Sunga argued that Latasa was ineligible due to the three-term limit imposed by the Constitution and the Local Government Code. The COMELEC First Division cancelled Latasa’s certificate of candidacy, a decision Latasa challenged.

At the heart of the case is Section 8, Article X of the Constitution, which states: “The term of office of elective local officials… shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms.” This provision seeks to prevent the excessive accumulation of power resulting from extended tenure in the same office. This rule provides a vital safeguard against potential abuses of power that can arise when officials maintain control over a particular locality for an extended period.

Latasa argued that the conversion of Digos from a municipality to a city created a new juridical personality, thus allowing him to run for city mayor. He emphasized that a city and municipality possess distinct attributes under the Local Government Code. However, the Court held that despite the new corporate existence of the city, the territorial jurisdiction remained the same as that of the former municipality. Allowing Latasa to run would defeat the framers’ intent in setting the term limits.

To properly examine this constitutional provision, a two-prong test must be met: 1) has the official been elected for three consecutive terms in the same local government post, and 2) have they fully served those three consecutive terms? Here, it is clear Latasa had been elected and served as municipal mayor for three consecutive terms. The key question then becomes if his role as mayor of the city is, in effect, the same as his role as mayor of the municipality.

Distinguishing this case from previous ones, the Supreme Court noted the absence of a “rest period” or break in service. In prior cases like Lonzanida v. COMELEC and Adormeo v. COMELEC, officials had an interruption in their service, allowing them to return to private life before seeking office again. Here, there was no break: Latasa transitioned directly from municipal mayor to city mayor upon conversion. As Section 2 of the Charter of Digos states, “The Municipality of Digos shall be converted into a component city to be known as the City of Digos…which shall comprise the present territory of the Municipality of Digos, Davao del Sur Province.” The delineation remained the same, with the officials maintaining their powers until a new election occurred.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the framers of the Constitution included term limits to prevent excessive power accumulation in a single individual within a specific territory. Allowing Latasa to run would potentially give him 18 consecutive years as the chief executive of the same area and population, which the Constitution intended to avoid. Although there are economic and political benefits that come with the change from municipality to city, for the purpose of term limits, Latasa had already hit his limit.

FAQs

What was the central legal issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Arsenio Latasa, having served three terms as municipal mayor, was eligible to run for city mayor after Digos was converted into a city. The case tested the application of the three-term limit rule in this conversion scenario.
What is the three-term limit rule?	The three-term limit, found in Article X, Section 8 of the Constitution, restricts local officials from serving more than three consecutive terms in the same position. This aims to prevent monopolization of political power.
Did the conversion of Digos into a city affect the ruling?	No, the Court ruled that the conversion did not create a new, distinct position for the purposes of the three-term limit. Because the territory and population remained the same, the restriction applied.
What did Latasa argue in his defense?	Latasa argued that the city and municipality were different entities, and his run for city mayor was his first attempt at that particular post. He claimed the conversion created a new political landscape.
How did the Court distinguish this case from others involving term limits?	The Court distinguished this case based on the lack of a break in Latasa’s service. Unlike cases where officials had a period out of office, Latasa continuously served as chief executive before and after the conversion.
What is the effect of the ruling on Sunga, the private respondent?	Even if Sunga garnered the second highest number of votes, he isn’t automatically declared mayor. His win is invalid. This creates a permanent vacancy to be filled by succession.
What are the consequences of this decision for other local government officials?	This ruling clarifies that term limits still apply even when a local government unit undergoes a change in status, such as conversion from a municipality to a city, as long as the territory and population remain the same.
What was the legal basis for the COMELEC’s initial decision?	The COMELEC initially cancelled Latasa’s certificate of candidacy based on a violation of the three-term limit as proscribed by the 1987 Constitution and the Local Government Code of 1991.
Who assumes office after the disqualification of a winning candidate?	The second-highest vote getter does not assume the office; rather, it results in a permanent vacancy which should be filled by succession as dictated by the Local Government Code.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Latasa v. COMELEC reinforces the three-term limit rule, preventing circumvention through technicalities such as local government unit conversions. This ensures a periodic renewal of leadership and prevents the accumulation of excessive power within a single political family. This promotes fair governance and gives a wider range of individuals the chance to serve.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Latasa v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 154829, December 10, 2003