A GROUP of lawyers and private individuals on Monday asked the Supreme Court to compel the Commission on Elections to strictly enforce the constitutional provision on the term limit of elective officials, particularly those in Congress.
In their 20-page petition, the petitioners, through their counsel Socorro Maricel Nepomuceno asked the SC to deny the certificates of candidacy of senators, members of the House of Representatives and local elective officials in the upcoming May 2022 elections and in future elections for having served beyond their term limits.
The petitioners pointed out that Sections 4 and 7, Article VI 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 that based on records, the Comelec had allowed several senators to serve for more than two consecutive terms, in violation of Section 4, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
Among them were Edgardo J. Angara, who served as senator in 1987, 1992, 2001, 2007; Juan Ponce Enrile (1987, 1995, 2004, 2010); Aquilino Pimentel Jr. (1987, 1998, 2004); Teofisto Guingona Jr. (1987, 1992, 1998); Miriam Defensor-Santiago (1995, 2004, 2010); Gregorio Honasan (1995, 2007, 2013); Rodolfo Biazon (1992, 1998, 2010); Loren Legarda (1998, 2007, 2013); and incumbent Sens. Vicente Sotto III (1992, 1998, 2010, 2016); Franklin Drilon (1995, 2001, 2010, 2016); Panfilo Lacson (2001, 2007, 2016); Francis Pangilinan (2001, 2007, 2016); Lito Lapid (2004, 2010, 2019); Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. (2004, 2010, 2019); Pia Cayetano (2004, 2010, 2019); and Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel (2007, 2013, 2019).
The petitioners also named 31 former and current members of the House who benefited from Comelec’s failure to enforce the term limit on elective officials.
“It is readily apparent that respondent failed to perform a mandated ministerial function under the Constitution because had it denied giving due course to the certificates of candidacy of the above individuals, based on the text of Sections 4 and 7, they would not have been allowed to run and to be elected to office for more than two consecutive terms,” the petitioners said.
‘Hiatus’ allowed
The petitioners argued that the Comelec has failed to enforce the term limit by allowing elective officials to have a respite or “hiatus,” despite the absence of such permission in the text of the said provisions in the Constitution.
They argued that Sections 4 and 7, Article VI of the Constitution are regulatory rules whose aim is to restrict conduct for particular purposes such as to “guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service.”
“Sections 4 and 7, Article VI, 1987 Constitution do not grant power. Rather, they limit the grant of power. If they are limitations to a grant of power, the more that they should be construed narrowly or restrictively,” the petitioners explained.
“Hence, the respondent cannot expand the limitation of power by allowing aspirants for the office of a senator or member of the House of Representatives to seek a third or fourth term after serving ‘two or three consecutive terms,’ respectively,” they added.