MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court (SC), in a narrow 8-6 decision, has set a precedent after it allowed Camarines Norte Governor Edgardo Tallado to serve his “4th consecutive term” which is generally not allowed under the 1987 Constitution.

Section 8, Article X of the Constitution says that no locally-elected leader, except barangay officials, can serve for more than 3 consecutive terms. 

Tallado has been governor of Camarines Norte for technically 5 terms now, including the 2019-2022 term which he recently won last midterm elections. But suspensions and dismissals from office were counted as an involuntary interruption that allows him to serve a 4th term.

“That’s an established precedent,” said constitutional law professor Tony La Viña.

La Viña pointed out that Section 8 “requires voluntary renunciation of a term but if your term was terminated involuntarily you didn’t serve that term.”

The SC decision, released last Thursday, September 12, was penned by Chief Justice Lucas Bersamin with concurrences from Associate Justices Diosdado Peralta, Alexander Gesmundo, Andres Reyes Jr, Jose Reyes Jr, Amy Lazaro-Javier, Henry Jean Paul Inting, and Rodil Zalameda.

The 6 dissenters are: Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, Associate Justices Estela Perlas-Bernabe, Marvic Leonen, Francis Jardeleza, Benjamin Caguioa, and Rosmari Carandang.

The SC has not released full copies of the decision and dissenting opinions.

What does the Constitution say? Section 8 says: “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 provision on voluntary renunciation gave an opening to be exempt from the 3 consecutive term limit rule. In previous jurisprudence, if the renunciation was involuntary then it would be an interruption that could exempt you from the rule.

“The SC ruled that there was an involuntary interruption to office after he was dismissed from the service by the Office of the Ombudsman,” the SC Public Information Office (PIO) said in a release.

The PIO added: “It stressed that Tallado was not able to complete his ‘three full terms’ because of this interruption into office and, thus, must be allowed to seek another term.”

What is Tallado’s case? Tallado was suspended for a year in October 2015 by the Office of the Ombudsman for invalidating appointments of provincial employees done by his predecessor Jesus Typoco.

In March 2018, he was dismissed based on a related case, filed against him by former provincial veterinarian Edgardo Gonzales, whom Tallado refused to reinstate despite an order from the Civil Service Commission.

Tallado was reinstated in October 2018 after an appeal. He initially served from March to June 2010 for the remaining months of Typoco whom he was able to unseat for error of elections. Tallado then served 3 more terms from 2010 to 2019.

The Commission on Elections (Comelec) already disqualified him from running in the last midterm elections, saying it would be his 4th consecutive term.

“Clearly, Respondent’s suspension and/or removal from office is and ought not to be considered an involuntary interruption of Respondent’s continuity of service,” the Comelec First Division had said then.

But the Supreme Court issued a status quo ante order (SQAO) that effectively allowed him to run. He won the reelection and is now serving.

How forceful are Ombudsman dismissals? Ombudsman dismissals usually come with the penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office, which was also imposed on Tallado.

But officials get these dismissals overturned at the Court of Appeals (CA) level, striking off the perpetual disqualification penalty. In this story, we demonstrated how the mayor of Tuguegarao managed to stay in office despite facing 4 corruption charges that came with suspension and dismissal orders.

A dismissal with a perpetual disqualification penalty also does not automatically disqualify an official from running in the elections, as the Ombudsman order is not final.

In an earlier interview, Professor Roland Simbulan of the Center for People Empowerment in Governance (CenPEG) said the slow judicial process has allowed public officials with corruption charges to still keep positions in government.

“The slower it is, the more vulnerable it is to manipulation where the rich and powerful can get away with it,” Simbulan said. – Rappler.com