Aldovino v. Commission on Elections
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
1. The Antecedents: Wilfredo F. Asilo was elected councilor of Lucena City for three consecutive terms: 1998-2001, 2001-2004, and 2004-2007. During his third term, in September 2005, he was preventively suspended for 90 days by the Sandiganbayan in connection with a criminal case. Although the Supreme Court later lifted this suspension, allowing him to complete his term, the petitioners argued that his prior service constituted three full terms, disqualifying him from running for a fourth term in the 2007 elections. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners sought to deny due course to Asilo's certificate of candidacy for the 2007 elections, asserting he had reached the three-term limit. The COMELEC's Second Division ruled in favor of Asilo, stating that the preventive suspension interrupted his service for the 2004-2007 term, thus not counting it towards the limit. The COMELEC en banc affirmed this decision. The petitioners then filed the present petition with the Supreme Court, arguing that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. 3. The Petition: The petitioners are seeking to annul the COMELEC's rulings, contending that preventive suspension does not interrupt the continuity of service for the purpose of the three-term limit rule under Section 8, Article X of the Constitution and Section 43(b) of Republic Act No. 7160. They argue that the COMELEC's interpretation effectively allows circumvention of the constitutional mandate to limit officials to three consecutive terms, as preventive suspension does not involve a loss of title to office.
Issue(s)
Whether preventive suspension of an elected local official is an interruption of the three-term limit rule. Whether preventive suspension is considered involuntary renunciation as contemplated in Section 43(b) of RA 7160.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The assailed COMELEC rulings are nullified. Respondent Wilfredo F. Asilo is declared disqualified to run for, and serve as, Councilor of Lucena City for a prohibited fourth term.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether preventive suspension interrupts the three-term limit rule: The Court held that preventive suspension does not interrupt an elective official's term for purposes of the three-term limit rule. The constitutional provision, Section 8 of Article X, limits service to no more than three consecutive terms. The term refers to a fixed period of time an official may hold office. While voluntary renunciation is explicitly stated not to be an interruption, the Court clarified that an interruption requires an involuntary loss of title to office. Preventive suspension, though involuntary, only bars the official from performing functions temporarily; it does not involve vacating the office or losing title to it. The suspended official retains title to the office and is reinstated upon lifting of the suspension. Therefore, it is a temporary incapacity to render service during an unbroken term, not a break in the term itself. The Court emphasized that recognizing preventive suspension as an interruption would be a potent circumvention, more so than voluntary renunciation, as it only requires an administrative charge and does not involve loss of office. On the issue of whether preventive suspension is considered involuntary renunciation: The Court ruled that preventive suspension is not considered involuntary renunciation. Renunciation, by definition, involves abandonment or resignation, an act emanating from the official's own will, or at least a loss of title to office. Preventive suspension, conversely, is imposed by operation of law and does not involve the official's voluntary act of giving up the office or losing title to it. It is an involuntary and temporary incapacity to perform duties, not a loss of the right to hold the office. The constitutional intent behind the three-term limit rule is to prevent prolonged accumulation of power, and this is achieved by limiting consecutive terms, not by equating temporary inability to perform duties with a break in the term. The Court reiterated that the rule contemplates a complete break from office, a loss of title, which is absent in preventive suspension.
Main Doctrine
Preventive suspension of an elected public official does not interrupt the continuity of his term of office for purposes of the three-term limit rule, as it does not involve an involuntary loss of title to office.