A SHORT delay in assuming office once threatened to derail his career. Now, it’s what keeps Cebu City Councilor Joel Garganera eligible to run again. How long does a local official actually have to serve for an elected term to count against the constitutional three-term limit? The recent dismissal of a disqualification case against Garganera illustrates a narrow but crucial legal tension at the heart of Philippine electoral law.
This ruling, while focused on one local official, underscores the fine legal line between continuous service and an “involuntary interruption,” a distinction that can radically alter a politician’s career trajectory.
The background
Garganera, a longtime Cebu City councilor, faced a petition early this year seeking to bar him from running in 2025. The complaint alleged he had already served three consecutive terms — 2016–2019, 2019–2022, and 2022–2025 — in violation of the constitutional limit meant to prevent political dynasties.
But as this case shows, the rule isn’t always that simple.
The decision
The Commission on Elections (Comelec) First Division dismissed the petition against Garganera.
A petition, filed by Casmero Mahilom, alleged that Garganera had violated the constitutional limit by completing three consecutive terms.
In a resolution promulgated on Oct. 16, 2025, the Comelec rejected the petition on two grounds. First, it was filed out of time, well past the 25-day deadline following the submission of Garganera’s Certificate of Candidacy (COC) on Oct. 8, 2024.
Mahilom filed his petition only on April 3, 2025.
Second, and more significantly, the Commission ruled that the case lacked merit.
The twist
In 2019, Garganera didn’t assume office right away. His proclamation was delayed until July 17, 2019, after the Comelec disqualified two winning candidates, Sisinio Andales and Alvin Arcilla, for exceeding the three-term limit themselves.
That delay, which lasted only a few weeks, would later become the deciding factor that kept Garganera’s political career alive. Because of that delay — something beyond Garganera’s control — the Comelec said his 2019–2022 service was “interrupted.”
That small detail made a big difference. The Commission cited a Supreme Court precedent (Lonzanida vs. Comelec), which states that any “involuntary interruption” — even for a short time — breaks the continuity of service.
In simple terms: if you don’t serve the entire three-year period, and it wasn’t your choice, that term doesn’t fully count toward the three-term limit.
The fine print
For some, this ruling may sound like legal nitpicking. For others, it’s a crucial safeguard and for many local officials, it’s a lifeline.
An “interrupted” term — caused by a disqualification, election protest, or delayed assumption — can reset the term count, giving a politician another chance to run even after three elections.
For voters, it raises important questions:
Should a few weeks of interruption allow an official another term?
Does this undermine the spirit of the three-term rule, or does it protect fairness in contested elections?
Larger issues
This case highlights the fragility of the three-term limit when faced with legal challenges. It is a critical reminder that it is the quality and continuity of service — not just the election year — that determines eligibility.
The ruling serves as a precedent for other officials whose terms may have been interrupted by election protests, court orders, or subsequent appointments. The focus is on de jure (legal) continuity of service, not simply being elected.
The resolution effectively closes the door on the attempt to disqualify Councilor Garganera and affirms his eligibility for the 2025 polls.
Beyond Garganera’s case, the decision highlights how the law balances fairness with accountability — and how a few weeks’ delay can change the course of a public servant’s life. / CDV