YES

After renaming modulo { c->0, b->1, a->2 }, 
it remains to prove termination of the 4-rule system
{ 0 0 1 -> 2 0 1 ,
  2 0 1 2 -> 1 0 0 ,
  1 2 0 -> 2 1 0 2 ,
  1 0 2 -> 0 2 1 }


The system was reversed.

After renaming modulo { 1->0, 0->1, 2->2 }, 
it remains to prove termination of the 4-rule system
{ 0 1 1 -> 0 1 2 ,
  2 0 1 2 -> 1 1 0 ,
  1 2 0 -> 2 1 0 2 ,
  2 1 0 -> 0 2 1 }


Applying the dependency pairs transformation.

After renaming modulo { (0,true)->0, (1,false)->1, (2,false)->2, (1,true)->3, (2,true)->4, (0,false)->5 },
it remains to prove termination of the 17-rule system
{ 0 1 1 -> 0 1 2 ,
  0 1 1 -> 3 2 ,
  0 1 1 -> 4 ,
  4 5 1 2 -> 3 1 5 ,
  4 5 1 2 -> 3 5 ,
  4 5 1 2 -> 0 ,
  3 2 5 -> 4 1 5 2 ,
  3 2 5 -> 3 5 2 ,
  3 2 5 -> 0 2 ,
  3 2 5 -> 4 ,
  4 1 5 -> 0 2 1 ,
  4 1 5 -> 4 1 ,
  4 1 5 -> 3 ,
  5 1 1 ->= 5 1 2 ,
  2 5 1 2 ->= 1 1 5 ,
  1 2 5 ->= 2 1 5 2 ,
  2 1 5 ->= 5 2 1 }


The system was filtered by the following matrix interpretation
of type E_J with J = {1,...,2} and dimension 2:

0 is interpreted by
 /   \
| 1 0 |
| 0 1 |
 \   /
1 is interpreted by
 /   \
| 1 0 |
| 0 1 |
 \   /
2 is interpreted by
 /   \
| 1 0 |
| 0 1 |
 \   /
3 is interpreted by
 /   \
| 1 0 |
| 0 1 |
 \   /
4 is interpreted by
 /   \
| 1 0 |
| 0 1 |
 \   /
5 is interpreted by
 /   \
| 1 1 |
| 0 1 |
 \   /

After renaming modulo { 0->0, 1->1, 2->2, 3->3, 4->4, 5->5 }, 
it remains to prove termination of the 11-rule system
{ 0 1 1 -> 0 1 2 ,
  0 1 1 -> 3 2 ,
  0 1 1 -> 4 ,
  4 5 1 2 -> 3 1 5 ,
  4 5 1 2 -> 3 5 ,
  3 2 5 -> 4 1 5 2 ,
  3 2 5 -> 3 5 2 ,
  5 1 1 ->= 5 1 2 ,
  2 5 1 2 ->= 1 1 5 ,
  1 2 5 ->= 2 1 5 2 ,
  2 1 5 ->= 5 2 1 }


The system was filtered by the following matrix interpretation
of type E_J with J = {1,...,2} and dimension 2:

0 is interpreted by
 /   \
| 1 1 |
| 0 1 |
 \   /
1 is interpreted by
 /   \
| 1 0 |
| 0 1 |
 \   /
2 is interpreted by
 /   \
| 1 0 |
| 0 1 |
 \   /
3 is interpreted by
 /   \
| 1 0 |
| 0 1 |
 \   /
4 is interpreted by
 /   \
| 1 0 |
| 0 1 |
 \   /
5 is interpreted by
 /   \
| 1 1 |
| 0 1 |
 \   /

After renaming modulo { 0->0, 1->1, 2->2, 4->3, 5->4, 3->5 }, 
it remains to prove termination of the 9-rule system
{ 0 1 1 -> 0 1 2 ,
  3 4 1 2 -> 5 1 4 ,
  3 4 1 2 -> 5 4 ,
  5 2 4 -> 3 1 4 2 ,
  5 2 4 -> 5 4 2 ,
  4 1 1 ->= 4 1 2 ,
  2 4 1 2 ->= 1 1 4 ,
  1 2 4 ->= 2 1 4 2 ,
  2 1 4 ->= 4 2 1 }


The system was filtered by the following matrix interpretation
of type E_J with J = {1,...,2} and dimension 4:

0 is interpreted by
 /       \
| 1 0 0 0 |
| 0 1 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 0 |
 \       /
1 is interpreted by
 /       \
| 1 0 0 0 |
| 0 1 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 0 1 0 |
 \       /
2 is interpreted by
 /       \
| 1 0 0 0 |
| 0 1 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 1 |
| 0 1 0 0 |
 \       /
3 is interpreted by
 /       \
| 1 0 0 0 |
| 0 1 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 0 |
 \       /
4 is interpreted by
 /       \
| 1 0 0 0 |
| 0 1 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 1 0 0 |
 \       /
5 is interpreted by
 /       \
| 1 0 1 0 |
| 0 1 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 0 |
 \       /

After renaming modulo { 0->0, 1->1, 2->2, 3->3, 4->4, 5->5 }, 
it remains to prove termination of the 7-rule system
{ 0 1 1 -> 0 1 2 ,
  3 4 1 2 -> 5 1 4 ,
  3 4 1 2 -> 5 4 ,
  4 1 1 ->= 4 1 2 ,
  2 4 1 2 ->= 1 1 4 ,
  1 2 4 ->= 2 1 4 2 ,
  2 1 4 ->= 4 2 1 }


The system was filtered by the following matrix interpretation
of type E_J with J = {1,...,2} and dimension 2:

0 is interpreted by
 /   \
| 1 1 |
| 0 1 |
 \   /
1 is interpreted by
 /   \
| 1 0 |
| 0 1 |
 \   /
2 is interpreted by
 /   \
| 1 0 |
| 0 1 |
 \   /
3 is interpreted by
 /   \
| 1 1 |
| 0 1 |
 \   /
4 is interpreted by
 /   \
| 1 1 |
| 0 1 |
 \   /
5 is interpreted by
 /   \
| 1 0 |
| 0 1 |
 \   /

After renaming modulo { 0->0, 1->1, 2->2, 4->3 }, 
it remains to prove termination of the 5-rule system
{ 0 1 1 -> 0 1 2 ,
  3 1 1 ->= 3 1 2 ,
  2 3 1 2 ->= 1 1 3 ,
  1 2 3 ->= 2 1 3 2 ,
  2 1 3 ->= 3 2 1 }


The system was filtered by the following matrix interpretation
of type E_J with J = {1,...,2} and dimension 7:

0 is interpreted by
 /             \
| 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
 \             /
1 is interpreted by
 /             \
| 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 |
| 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 |
| 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 |
 \             /
2 is interpreted by
 /             \
| 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 |
| 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 |
 \             /
3 is interpreted by
 /             \
| 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 |
| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
 \             /

After renaming modulo { 3->0, 1->1, 2->2 }, 
it remains to prove termination of the 4-rule system
{ 0 1 1 ->= 0 1 2 ,
  2 0 1 2 ->= 1 1 0 ,
  1 2 0 ->= 2 1 0 2 ,
  2 1 0 ->= 0 2 1 }

The system is trivially terminating.