WHEN Roel Degamo was assassinated in his home last March 4 he was on his twelfth consecutive year as governor of Negros Oriental.
In 2010, an auspicious year, Degamo won a seat in the provincial board. Having garnered the highest number of votes he quickly ascended as vice governor by way of automatic succession after then governor-elect Emilio Macias II succumbed to liver cancer before he could take his oath of office.
Vice Governor Agustin Perdices took over as governor, paving the way for number one provincial board member Degamo to assume office as vice governor.
In January 2011 Perdices himself died of stomach cancer. Degamo then succeeded as provincial governor.
***
After his stint as governor by succession Degamo was elected governor in his own right for three consecutive terms in 2013, 2016, and 2019. He was therefore on his fourth term of office as governor when he was gunned down a little more than a week ago.
The Constitution provides that the term of office of local government officials âshall be three years and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms.â
The Local Government Code mirrors the same three-term limit rule.
***
So why was Degamo allowed to run again for the same position in 2022?
According to the Supreme Court, to be disqualified under the three-term limit rule, two conditions must concur:
(1) that the official concerned has been elected for three consecutive terms to the same local government post; and
(2) that he or she has fully served three consecutive terms.
According to jurisprudence, there is an involuntary interruption in the term of an elective local official when there is a break in the term resulting from the official’s loss of title to the office.
***
Degamoâs term was disturbed on several occasions:
In 2016 the Ombudsman ordered his dismissal from office for alleged calamity fund misuse.
In 2017 he was suspended for three months for alleged usurpation of calamity funds. The vice governor temporarily took over.
In late 2017 Degamo again served a suspension over alleged misuse of intelligence funds.
***
Is a dismissal order from the Ombudsman an interruption in a local elective officialâs term?
The Supreme Court has held that an interruption occurs when the term is broken because the office holder lost his right to hold on to his office.
This is not the same as failure to render service, which happens when the office holder retains title to the office but cannot exercise his functions for reasons set out in the law.
***
A penalty of dismissal from the service emanating from the Ombudsman is âimmediately executory.â It has to be implemented even though the respondent may have chosen to appeal the Ombudsman decision to the Court of Appeals.
Thus, when the vice governor assumes office in place of the dismissed governor, such act constitutes âloss of titleâ to the office on the part of the governor which thus interrupts his term of office.
For all intents, he can run again for the same position without violating the three-term limit rule in the Constitution. He was unable to âfully serveâ his term of office.
***
The length of the interruption is not material. It does not matter whether the break is short or extended. What matters is that there was loss of title to the office no matter how momentary./PN
