Dear Atty. Gab,

Musta Atty! I’m writing to you because our local community association, the “Samahan ng Magkakapitbahay sa Barangay Pag-asa,” is facing a potential problem with our accreditation renewal with the local government unit (LGU). I’m just a regular member, Gregorio Panganiban, but I’m quite concerned.

Back in 2021, when our current set of officers were elected, the top two candidates – Mang Berto (President) and Aling Nena (Vice President) – apparently made a private written agreement. Our bylaws state a three-year term, but they agreed that Mang Berto would serve for 1.5 years, resign, and then Aling Nena would take over for the remaining 1.5 years. This was done before they officially took office.

However, sometime in early 2022, our association formally adopted new internal rules, and one rule specifically stated that such ‘term-sharing’ arrangements are not allowed and officers must serve their full elected term unless they resign for valid personal reasons, die, or become incapacitated. When this rule passed, Mang Berto and Aling Nena decided not to push through with their original plan. Mang Berto is still our President today and intends to finish his 3-year term ending next year.

Now, during the LGU’s review for our accreditation renewal, someone brought up that old 2021 agreement. The LGU review panel is saying this old agreement might be a ground to cancel our accreditation because it supposedly violated election principles, even though it happened before our association’s specific rule against it existed and even though it was never implemented. We received a notice for the review, but it just spoke generally about checking compliance. We weren’t specifically told this old agreement would be the main issue. Can they penalize the association for an agreement that was never carried out and was made before the rule existed? Does our association have a right to properly explain our side specifically on this issue? We’re worried our Samahan might lose its standing.

Thank you for any guidance you can offer, Atty. Gab.

Nagpapasalamat,
Gregorio Panganiban

Dear Gregorio,

Thank you for reaching out with your concerns about the Samahan ng Magkakapitbahay sa Barangay Pag-asa. It’s understandable why you and other members are worried about the potential cancellation of your association’s accreditation, especially given the circumstances you’ve described regarding the officers’ agreement.

In essence, positions of leadership within organizations, especially those serving the community and recognized by governing bodies, carry a degree of public trust. Generally, the terms of office for elected positions are fixed by the organization’s governing rules (like your bylaws) or by law, and these cannot simply be altered or divided through private agreements between individuals. The principle is that the position and its term are defined by the rules under which the election took place, not by personal deals. However, the fact that the agreement was made before a specific internal prohibition existed and, crucially, that it was never implemented, significantly impacts the situation. Furthermore, the process by which the LGU is reviewing this matter must respect fundamental principles of fairness, including providing clear notice of the specific issues being considered and a real opportunity for the association to be heard on those exact points.

Public Trust vs. Private Deals: Understanding Terms of Office

The core issue revolves around the nature of elected positions within an association like yours. While not strictly a public office in the governmental sense, leadership roles in accredited community associations involve a responsibility to the members and adherence to established rules. The term of office, set by your bylaws at three years, represents the mandate given by the members during the election. It defines a fixed period during which the elected officer holds the position as a matter of right and duty, based on the association’s foundational rules.

Attempting to shorten or divide this fixed term through a private side-agreement, like the one between Mang Berto and Aling Nena, raises concerns because it treats the position as a personal possession to be bargained rather than a trust governed by rules. The principle against such arrangements, even before your specific 2022 rule, often stems from a broader concept of public policy: that terms of office established by governing rules should not be subject to private negotiation that undermines the electoral mandate or the stability of leadership. This principle is reflected in election laws governing party-list representatives, where term-sharing is explicitly disallowed.

“SEC. 7. Term sharing of nominees. Filing of vacancy as a result of term sharing agreement among nominees of winning party-list groups/organizations shall not be allowed.”
(COMELEC Resolution No. 9366, Section 7, Rule 4 – illustrating the principle against term-sharing in a related context)

This citation, while specific to party-lists, underscores the general policy direction against treating fixed terms as divisible commodities.

However, a crucial element in your situation is the timing and the non-implementation. The agreement was made before your association explicitly banned term-sharing. While potentially questionable under general principles, it wasn’t a direct violation of a specific, existing internal rule at that time. More importantly, the agreement was reportedly not carried out. Mang Berto did not resign prematurely, and Aling Nena did not take over based on the agreement. This fact is highly significant. A rule or law is typically violated by actions taken in contravention of it, not merely by an unfulfilled prior intention or agreement, especially one that the parties themselves abandoned.

The question of applying the 2022 rule retroactively also arises. The general rule in law is that laws and regulations apply prospectively, meaning they affect actions taken after they become effective, not before.

“Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided.”
(Article 4, Civil Code of the Philippines)

Unless your association’s 2022 rule explicitly stated it applied to past agreements, or unless it falls under specific exceptions (which is unlikely for this type of internal rule), it should generally only govern conduct from 2022 onwards. Penalizing the association based on an agreement from 2021, using a rule passed in 2022, seems legally questionable under the principle of non-retroactivity.

Furthermore, the process of reviewing your accreditation must adhere to principles of administrative due process. This means the association has the right to be properly notified of the specific grounds being considered for any adverse action (like cancellation) and must be given a fair opportunity to present its side and evidence regarding those specific grounds.

“The COMELEC may, motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, refuse or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition…”
(Republic Act No. 7941, Section 6 – highlighting the requirement of due notice and hearing for cancellation, a principle applicable to administrative bodies)

If the LGU review panel is focusing on the old agreement as the primary basis for potential cancellation without having given the Samahan specific notice of this beforehand, it raises serious due process concerns. A general notice about compliance review might not be sufficient if a specific past action, especially one not implemented, is suddenly made the central issue threatening the association’s existence. The Samahan should have the chance to formally explain the context, timing, and non-implementation of the agreement.

Practical Advice for Your Situation

• Document Everything: Gather all relevant documents: the association’s bylaws showing the 3-year term, a copy of the 2021 private agreement (if possible), the minutes adopting the 2022 rule prohibiting term-sharing, and proof that Mang Berto continued serving as President without interruption (e.g., minutes, attendance records, official communications).
• Verify the LGU Notice: Carefully review the notice received from the LGU accreditation body. Does it specifically mention the 2021 term-sharing agreement as an issue or potential ground for cancellation? If not, this strengthens your procedural argument.
• Formal Written Explanation: Prepare a clear, formal written explanation or position paper for the LGU review panel. This should state the facts accurately: acknowledge the existence of the 2021 agreement, emphasize it was made before the specific prohibition, highlight that it was never implemented, and state that the current President is serving his full term as per the bylaws.
• Argue Non-Retroactivity: Explicitly argue that the 2022 rule cannot be applied retroactively to the 2021 agreement, citing the general principle that rules apply prospectively (as reflected in Article 4 of the Civil Code).
• Raise Due Process Concerns: If the initial notice was vague, respectfully point out that the association was not adequately informed that the unimplemented 2021 agreement would be a central issue for potential cancellation, potentially violating its right to due process (the right to be properly informed and heard on the specific charges).
• Focus on Non-Implementation: Stress that since the agreement was never carried out, no actual violation of the term-of-office principle occurred. The purpose of rules against term-sharing is to prevent the actual disruption of mandated terms, which did not happen here.
• Seek Legal Assistance: Advise the Samahan’s officers to consult a lawyer experienced in administrative law or LGU accreditation matters to guide them through the review process and represent the association formally if needed.

Gregorio, the fact that the agreement was never implemented is your association’s strongest defense. Coupled with the arguments about non-retroactivity and the potential lack of specific notice (due process), the Samahan has valid points to raise with the LGU review panel. Focus on presenting the facts clearly and calmly, supported by documentation.

Hope this helps!

Sincerely,
Atty. Gabriel Ablola

For more specific legal assistance related to your situation, please contact me through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This correspondence is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please schedule a formal consultation.