The Supreme Court ruled that an elected official who voluntarily leaves their post to assume another office has effectively served their term for purposes of the three-term limit rule. This means an official cannot circumvent term limits by running for a different position mid-term, as this is considered a voluntary relinquishment, not an involuntary interruption. The ruling clarifies what constitutes a break in service, ensuring officials do not exceed the constitutional limits for holding the same local office.

Leaving One Office for Another: Circumventing Term Limits or Legitimate Career Move?

Nicasio Bolos, Jr. served as Punong Barangay (Barangay Captain) of Barangay Biking, Dauis, Bohol, for three consecutive terms, starting in 1994. In 2004, during his third term, he ran for and won a seat as Municipal Councilor. After serving a full term as Councilor, Bolos ran again for Punong Barangay in 2007. His opponent, Rey Angeles Cinconiegue, filed a petition to disqualify Bolos, arguing that he had already served the maximum three consecutive terms. The central legal question was whether Bolos’ move to Municipal Councilor constituted a voluntary relinquishment of his Punong Barangay position, thereby completing his third term, or an involuntary interruption, allowing him to run again.

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) ruled against Bolos, disqualifying him from running. The COMELEC reasoned that his decision to run for Municipal Councilor was a voluntary act, implying an intent to abandon his Barangay post if elected. Bolos appealed this decision, arguing that his departure from the Punong Barangay position was due to “operation of law” when he assumed the Councilor seat. This, he claimed, constituted an involuntary interruption, resetting his term count. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with Bolos’ argument.

The Court based its decision on Section 8, Article X of the Constitution, which addresses the three-term limit for elective local officials, stating:

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 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 Court also cited Section 43(b) of the Local Government Code, reinforcing the three-term limit and the concept of voluntary renunciation, establishing the legal framework for term limits at the local level.

The Supreme Court, in affirming the COMELEC’s decision, emphasized the intent behind the three-term limit. It referenced the case of Socrates v. Commission on Elections, where the Court clarified that:

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.

This highlighted that the rule aims to prevent officials from circumventing term limits through strategic resignations or maneuvers.

Furthermore, the Court distinguished between voluntary relinquishment and involuntary interruption. It defined “operation of law” as a situation where rights are acquired or lost due to a legal rule, without the person’s direct action. The Court cited the case of Montebon v. Commission on Elections, where an official succeeded to the Vice-Mayor’s office due to a retirement, illustrating an involuntary interruption.

To further illustrate, the court contrasted the case with Borja, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, where an official became Mayor due to the incumbent’s death. This was deemed an involuntary assumption of office, not counted towards term limits. The key difference is that Bolos actively sought and won a different office, demonstrating a voluntary choice to leave his prior position. In those cases, the officials neither campaigned nor sought the position that they were elevated to by operation of law.

In Bolos’ case, the Court argued that his decision to run for Municipal Councilor was a deliberate act. He was not filling a vacancy due to unforeseen circumstances but actively seeking a new position. This demonstrated a voluntary relinquishment of his Punong Barangay post. The Court supported this finding by quoting the COMELEC:

It is our finding that Nicasio Bolos, Jr.’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.

The ruling confirms that an elected official cannot avoid term limits by voluntarily seeking and winning another office during their term. This reinforces the integrity of the three-term limit rule. It prevents strategic maneuvering to extend time in public office. This decision underscores that the spirit of the law focuses on consecutive service in the same position. The potential for unintended consequences is mitigated by not attributing involuntary moves to the calculation.

The Court’s decision in Bolos v. COMELEC has significant implications for Philippine elections. It clarifies the boundaries of the three-term limit. It reinforces the principle that voluntary actions to seek other offices are considered a completion of the current term. This will likely deter future attempts to circumvent term limits. The ruling provides a clear precedent for interpreting what constitutes a voluntary relinquishment of office. This helps ensure fairness and prevents abuse of power in local governance.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Nicasio Bolos, Jr.’s move from Punong Barangay to Municipal Councilor constituted a voluntary relinquishment of his prior office, thus completing his term for three-term limit purposes.
What is the three-term limit rule?	The three-term limit rule, as enshrined in the Constitution and Local Government Code, restricts local elective officials from serving more than three consecutive terms in the same position.
What is considered a voluntary renunciation of office?	A voluntary renunciation occurs when an official deliberately chooses to leave their current position, such as by running for and assuming another office.
What is considered an involuntary interruption of office?	An involuntary interruption happens when an official vacates their position due to circumstances beyond their control, such as succession due to death or resignation of a superior.
How did the COMELEC rule in this case?	The COMELEC ruled that Bolos’ move was a voluntary relinquishment and disqualified him from running for Punong Barangay in the 2007 elections.
What was the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision?	The Supreme Court based its decision on the constitutional and statutory provisions regarding the three-term limit, as well as the intent to prevent circumvention of these rules.
What is the significance of the “operation of law” argument?	The “operation of law” argument refers to situations where an official’s status changes due to legal rules, but the Court found it inapplicable because Bolos actively sought the new office.
What are the implications of this ruling for other elected officials?	This ruling clarifies that officials cannot avoid term limits by strategically moving to other offices during their term, reinforcing the integrity of the three-term limit rule.
Does this ruling affect officials who are appointed to a higher office?	No, this ruling primarily concerns officials who voluntarily run for and assume a different office, not those who are appointed or succeed to a higher office due to unforeseen circumstances.

This case illustrates the importance of adhering to both the letter and spirit of the law regarding term limits for elected officials. The decision reinforces the principle that voluntary actions leading to a change in office status are considered a completion of the current term, preventing potential abuse of power and ensuring fairness in local governance.

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: Nicasio Bolos, Jr. vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 184082, March 17, 2009