Unformatted text preview: VICE CHAIRS FOR LAY‐OUT AND DESIGN: EARL LOUIE M. MASACAYAN & THEENA C. MARTINEZ 133 UST GOLDEN NOTES 2011 A: No. For purposes of determining the resulting disqualification brought about by the three‐term limit, it is not enough that an individual has served three consecutive terms in an elective local office, he must also have been elected to the same position for the same number of times. There should be a concurrence of two conditions for the application of the disqualification: (1) that the official concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms in the same local government post and (2) that he has fully served three consecutive terms. X cannot be deemed to have served the full term of 2004‐2007 because he was ordered to vacate his post before the expiration of the term. X’s occupancy of the position of mayor of Mabalacat from 1 July 2004 to 16 May 2007 cannot be counted as a term for purposes of computing the three‐term limit. Indeed, the period from 17 May 2007 to 30 June 2007 served as a gap for purposes of the three‐term limit rule. Thus, the present 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2010 term is effectively X’s first term for purposes of the three‐
term limit rule. (Dizon v. COMELEC G.R. No. 182088, Jan. 30, 2009) Q: NB, an elected Punong Barangay, ran for Municipal Councilor while serving his last term as the PB. He won and later assumed office and served the full term of the Sanggunian Bayan. After serving his term as Municipal Councilor, he filed his Certificate of Candidacy for PB. His opponent filed a Petition for Disqualification on the ground the he had already served the three‐
term limit. Does the assumption of office of NB as Municipal Councilor considered as a voluntary renunciation of the Office of PB so that he is deemed to have fully served his third term as PB warranting his disqualification from running for the position of PB? A: Yes. NB was serving his third term as PB when he ran for SB member and, upon winning, assumed the position of SB m...
View Full Document