The Supreme Court has junked a petition seeking to compel the Commission on Elections to strictly enforce the term limits on elective officials, particularly those in Congress, and to declare as unconstitutional the reelection of termed-out senators and congressmen.
In an 18-page en banc decision penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the SC ruled that contrary to the assertion of the petitioners, what the Constitution clearly prohibits is the reelection for more than two or three consecutive terms of senators and members of the House of Representatives.
The high court cited its ruling in Socrates vs. Commission on Elections, which held that what the Constitution prohibits is the “immediate reelection” for a fourth term following three consecutive terms for members of the House or a third term following two consecutive terms for senators.
“Clearly, the prohibition and term limit refers to consecutive terms. While the provisions do not textually provide the terms ‘hibernation, hiatus, or rest period,’ the usage of the word ‘consecutive’ indicates that the term limit and prohibition only apply to reelection for an immediately subsequent term. The interpretation of petitioners is an extra-textual reading of the Constitution,” the SC said.
The petitioners, composed of a group of lawyers and private individuals led by Vladimir Alarique Cabigao, argued that Sections 4 and 7, Article VI of the Constitution barred senators from serving more than two consecutive terms while the members of the House of Representatives cannot serve for more than three consecutive terms.
The term of office of the senator is six years while the members of the House are elected for a term of three years.
However, the petitioners said based on the records, the Comelec had allowed several senators to serve for more than two consecutive terms after having a respite or hiatus.
The petitioners also pleaded the SC to compel the Comelec to deny the certificates of candidacy of senators, members of the House of Representatives and local elective officials in the May 2022 elections and in future elections for having served beyond their term limits.
However, the SC said it is the ministerial duty of the Comelec to give due course to certificates of candidacy.
“Here, respondent cannot be compelled through a writ of mandamus to deny due course to certificates of candidacy precisely because the duty of respondent is to give due course to the certificates if they are filled out in due form. The petitioners’ prayer to motu proprio deny due course to the certificates of candidates is contrary to the mandate of the respondent,” the SC said.
The SC said the legal remedy for the petitioners is to file a petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy once the certificates of candidacy are filed.
“The number of terms and the corresponding period already served by the candidate are not contents of a certificate of candidacy. If the petitioners believe that there are candidates in the next elections who are ineligible based on the constitutional term limits, their recourse is to file a petition under Section 78 (Omnibus Election Code),” the SC pointed out.