Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

DILL-NAPOLCOM Center, EDSA corner Quezon Avenue, West Triangle, Quezon City
http: //www.dilg.com.ph

14 NOV 2015

,'.111.G OPINION NO. B/ S.

ATTY. RODEL T. PADERAYON
Provincial Attorney
Province of Laguna
New Capitol Building, Santa Cruz, Laguna

Dear Atty. Paderayon:

This is in reference to your letter dated 28 July 2019, seeking this

Department's legal opinion concerning the proper application of the
threeconsecutive term limit proscribed under Section 43 (b) of Local Government Code of
1991. In the said letter, the submitted facts are hereunder quoted in verbatim:

Gov. Ramil Laurel Hernandez of the Province of Laguna ran and

won as Vice Governor in the May 2013 local elections. On May 27,
2014, then Gov. Emilio Ramon Ejercito was disqualified by
the Commission on Election in view of election overspending
charges. He was eventually ousted as Governor of the province of
Laguna. Due to the resultant permanent vacancy in the position
of governor, then Vice Governor Ramil Laurel Hernandez assumed
the position of Governor, then Vice Governor Ramil Laurel
Hernandez assumed the position of Governor pursuant to Section
44 of Local Government Code of 1991 in 2014 until 2016. In the
subsequent 2016 and 2019 elections, Gov. Ramil Laurel
Hernandez was elected and reelected, respectively.

Under this premise, the submitted queries are as follows:

1. Whether or not the tenure of Governor Ramil Laurel

Hernandez as Governor from 2014-2016 is already
considered as one term for the purpose of applying the
three-consecutive term limit rule of local elective
officials as provided under Section 43 (b) of the Local
Government Code of 1991; and
2. Whether the pronouncements of Supreme Court in the
cases of Borja vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 133495,
September 3, 1998) and Lozanida vs. COMELEC (G.R.
No. 135150, July 28, 1999) are still the prevailing
doctrine applicable to the instant case.
 At the outset, we find it imperative to cite herein the pertinent provisions of Local
Government Code of 1991, viz:

"Section 43. Term of Office. -

(a) The term of office of all local elective officials elected after the
effectivity of this Code shall be three (3) years, starting from noon of
June 30, 1992 or such date as may be provided for by law, except
that of elective barangay officials: Provided, That all local officials
first elected during the local elections immediately following the
ratification of the 1987 Constitution shall serve until noon of June
30, 1992.

(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.
Xxx."

The aforementioned law is categorical that the three (3) consecutive term limit rule
among local elective officials applies only to the same position to which the local official
concerned was elected. On this, please be apprised that this Department had already
answered a similar query in DILG Opinion No. 17, s. 2015. In the said Opinion, we
opined, citing the pronouncement of Supreme Court in the case of Borja vs. COMELEC, viz:

"In the landmark case of Borja vs. COMELEC and further

bolstered in the case of Lonzanida vs. COMELEC, the Supreme
Court consistently held that in order for the aforementioned
three-consecutive term limit rule to apply for elective local
officials holding the same position, the following requisites must
concur:
1) that the official concerned has been elected for three
consecutive terms in the same local government position
; and
2) that he has fully served three consecutive terms."

In a nutshell, the three-term limit rule applies only if the official was duly
elected to the same position for three (3) consecutive terms, not by succession. To
emphasize, the three-term limit of elected local officials is not applicable to a term
acquired through succession. Such as the herein case. It is noteworthy to mention that in
the instant case, Hernandez's assumption of office as governor in 2014-2016 is merely a
result of succession pursuant to the rules on succession under the Local Government
Code. Ergo, we concur with your Opinion that the tenure of Hernandez as governor of
Laguna from 2014-2016 cannot be treated as one term for the purpose of applying Section
43 of the Local Government Code.
 Anent the second query, we answer in the affirmative. Please be apprised that this
Department, in several opinions concerning the consecutiveness of the terms of local
government officials had applied the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of
Borja vs. COMELEC in determining the applicability of the three-term limit rule on local
elective officials.

We hope to have addressed your concern accordingly

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY

MARIV L C. SACENDONCILLO
Undersecr tary for Local Government

LegaV27414

Gi