Republic of the Philippines Mayor of Limay, the Honorable Ruben Roque, "substantive and procedural requirement" laid

SUPREME COURT was recognized and he moved that a resolution down in Section 70 of R.A. 7160, otherwise
Manila be passed for the recall of the petitioner on the known as the Local Government Code of 1991.
EN BANC ground of "loss of confidence."  1 The motion was In a per curiamResolution promulgated August
  "unanimously seconded." 2 The resolution states: 31, 1993, the respondent COMELEC dismissed
G.R. No. 111511 October 5, 1993 RESOLUTION NO. 1 the petition and scheduled the recall elections
ENRIQUE T. GARCIA, ET AL., petitioners,  Whereas, the majority of all the members of the for the position of Governor of Bataan on
vs. Preparatory Recall Assembly in the Province of October 11 , 1993. Petitioners then filed with Us
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and LUCILA Bataan have voluntarily constituted themselves a petition for certiorari and prohibition with writ
PAYUMO, ET AL., respondents. for the purpose of the recall of the incumbent of preliminary injunction to annul the said
Alfonso M. Cruz Law Offices for petitioners. provincial governor of the province of Bataan, Resolution of the respondent COMELEC on
Romulo C. Felizmeña, Crisostomo Banzon and Honorable Enrique T. Garcia pursuant to the various grounds. They urged that section 70 of
Horacio Apostol for private respondents. provisions of Section 70, paragraphs (a), (b) and R.A. 7160 allowing recall through the initiative of
  (c) of Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as the PRAC is unconstitutional because: (1) the
PUNO, J.: the Local Government Code of 1991; people have the sole and exclusive right to
The EDSA revolution of 1986 restored the Whereas, the total number of all the members of decide whether or not to initiate proceedings,
reality that the people's might is not a myth. The the Preparatory Recall Assembly in the province and (2) it violated the right of elected local public
1987 Constitution then included people power of Bataan is One Hundred and Forty- Six (146) officials belonging to the political minority to
as an article of faith and Congress was composed of all mayors, vice-mayors and equal protection of law. They also argued that
mandated to p ass laws for its effective members of the Sangguniang Bayan of all the the proceedings followed by the PRAC in
exercise. The Local Government Code of 1991 12 towns of the province of Bataan; passing Resolution No. I suffered from
was enacted providing for two (2) modes of Whereas, the majority of all the members of the numerous defects, the most fatal of which was
initiating the recall from office of local elective Preparatory Recall Assembly, after a serious the deliberate failure to send notices of the
officials who appear to have lost the confidence and careful deliberation have decided to adopt meeting to sixty-five (65) members of the
of the electorate. One of these modes is recall this resolution for the recall of the incumbent assembly. On September 7, 1993, We required
through the initiative of a preparatory recall provincial governor Garcia for loss of the respondents to file their Comments within a
assembly. In the case at bench, petitioners confidence; non-extendible period of ten (10) days.  5 On
assail this mode of initiatory recall as Now, therefore, be it resolved, as it is hereby September 16, 1993, We set petition for hearing
unconstitutional. The challenge cannot succeed. resolved that having lost confidence on the on September 21, 1993 at 11 A.M. After the
We shall first unfurl the facts. incumbent governor of Bataan, Enrique T. hearing, We granted the petition on ground that
Petitioner Enrique T. Garcia was elected Garcia, recall proceedings be immediately the sending of selective notices to members of
governor of the province of Bataan in the May initiated against him; the PRAC violated the due process protection of
11, 1992 elections. In the early evening of July Resolved further, that copy of this resolution be the Constitution and fatally flawed the
1993, some mayors, vice-mayors and members furnished the Honorable Commission on enactment of Resolution No. 1. We ruled:
of the Sangguniang Bayan of the twelve (12) Elections, Manila and the Provincial Election xxx xxx xxx
municipalities of the province met at the Supervisor, Balanga, Bataan. After deliberation, the Court opts not to resolve
National Power Corporation compound in One hundred forty-six (146) names appeared in the alleged constitutional infirmity of sec. 70 of
Bagac, Bataan. At about 12:30 A.M of the Resolution No. 1 but only eighty (80) carried the R.A. No. 7160 for its resolution is not
following day, July 2, 1993, they proceeded to signatures of the members of the PRA. Of the unavoidable to decide the merits of the petition.
the Bagac town plaza where they constituted eighty (80) signatures, only seventy-four (74) The petition can be decided on the equally
themselves into a Preparatory Recall Assembly were found genuine. 3 The PRAC of the province fundamental issues of: (1) whether or not all the
to initiate the recall election of petitioner Garcia. had a membership of one hundred forty-four members of the Preparatory Recall Assembly
The mayor of Mariveles, Honorable Oscar, de (144) 4 and its majority was seventy-three (73). were notified of its meeting; and (2) assuming
los Reyes, and the mayor of Dinalupihan, the On July 7, 1993, petitioners filed with the lack of notice, whether or not it would vitiate the
Honorable Lucila Payumo, were chosen as respondent COMELEC a petition to deny due proceedings of the assembly including its
Presiding Officer and Secretary of the course to said Resolution No. 1. Petitioners Resolution No. 1.
Assembly, respectively. Thereafter, the Vice- alleged that the PRAC failed to comply with the
The failure to give notice to all members of the o'clock in the morning." 6 From news reports, the Sec. 2. The Batasang Pambansa shall enact a
assembly, especially to the members known to PRAC convened in session and eighty-seven local government code which may not thereafter
be political allies of petitioner Garcia was (87) of its members once more passed a be amended except by a majority vote of all its
admitted by both counsels of the respondents. resolution calling for the recall of petitioner Members, defining a more responsive and
They did not deny that only those inclined to Garcia. 7 On September 27, 1993, petitioners accountable local government structure with
agree with the resolution of recall were notified filed with Us a Supplemental Petition and an effective system of recall, allocating among
as a matter of political strategy and security. Reiteration of Extremely Urgent Motion for a the different local government units their
They justified these selective notices on the resolution of their contention that section 70 of powers, responsibilities, and resources, and
ground that the law does not specifically R.A. 7160 is unconstitutional. providing for the qualifications, election and
mandate the giving of notice. We find the original Petition and the removal, term, salaries, powers, functions, and
We reject this submission of the respondents. Supplemental Petition assailing the duties of local officials, and all other matters
The due process clause of the Constitution constitutionality of section 70 of R.A. 7160 relating to the organization and operation of the
requiring notice as an element of fairness is insofar as it allows a preparatory recall local units. However, any change in the existing
inviolable and should always be considered as assembly initiate the recall of local elective form of local government shall not take effect
part and parcel of every law in case of its officials as bereft of merit. until ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a
silence. The need for notice to all the members Every law enjoys the presumption of validity. plebiscite called for the purpose. (Emphasis
of the assembly is also imperative for these The presumption rests on the respect due to the supplied)
members represent the different sectors of the wisdom, integrity, and the patriotism of the The Batasang Pambansa then enacted BP 337
electorate of Bataan. To the extent that they are legislative, by which the law is passed, and the entitled "The Local Government Code of 1983."
not notified of the meeting of the assembly, to Chief Executive, by whom the law is Section 54 of its Chapter 3 provided only one
that extent is the sovereign voice of the people approved, 8 For upholding the Constitution is not mode of initiating the recall elections of local
they represent nullified. The resolution to recall the responsibility of the judiciary alone but also elective officials, i.e., by petition of at least
should articulate the majority will of the the duty of the legislative and executive.  9 To twenty-five percent (25%) of the total number of
members of the assembly but the majority will strike down a law as unconstitutional, there registered voters in the local government unit
can be genuinely determined only after all the must be a clear and unequivocal showing that concerned,viz:
members of the assembly have been given a what the fundamental law prohibits, the statute Sec. 54. By Whom Exercised; Requisites. — (1)
fair opportunity to express the will of their permits. 10 The annulment cannot be decreed on The power of recall shall be exercised by the
constituents. Needless to stress, the a doubtful, and arguable implication. The registered voters of the unit to which the local
requirement of notice is indispensable in universal rule of legal hermeneutics is that all elective official subject to such recall belongs.
determining the collective wisdom of the reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor (2) Recall shall be validly initiated only upon
members of the Preparatory Recall Assembly. of the constitutionality of a law. 11 petition of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of
Its non-observance is fatal to the validity of the Recall is a mode of removal of a public officer the total number of registered voters in the local
resolution to recall petitioner Garcia as by the people before the end of his term of government unit concerned based on the
Governor of the province of Bataan. office. The people's prerogative to remove a election in which the local official sought to be
The petition raises other issues that are not public officer is an incident of their sovereign recalled was elected.
only prima impressionis but also of power and in the absence of constitutional Our legal history does not reveal any instance
transcendental importance to the rightful restraint, the power is implied in all when this power of recall as provided by BP 337
exercise of the sovereign right of the people to governmental operations. Such power has been was exercised by our people.
recall their elected officials. The Court shall held to be indispensable for the proper In February 1986, however, our people more
discuss these issues in a more extended administration of public affairs. 12 Not than exercised their right of recall for they
decision. undeservedly, it is frequently described as a resorted to revolution and they booted of office
In accord with this Resolution, it appears that on fundamental right of the people in a the highest elective officials of the land.
September 22, 1993, the Honorable Mayor of representative democracy. 13 The successful use of people power to remove
Dinalupihan, Oscar de los Reyes again sent Recall is a mode of removal of elective local public officials who have forfeited the trust of the
Notice of Session to the members of the PRAC officials made its maiden appearance in our electorate led to its firm institutionalization in the
to "convene in session on September 26, 1993 1973 Constitution. 14 It was mandated in section 1987 Constitution. Its Article XIII expressly
at the town plaza of Balanga, Bataan at 8:30 2 of Article XI entitled Local Government, viz:
recognized the Role and Rights of People's preparatory recall assembly which in the in the local government unit concerned during
Organizations, viz: provincial level is composed of all mayors, vice- the election which in the local official sought to
Sec. 15. The State shall respect the role of mayors and sanggunian members of the be recalled was elected.
independent people's organizations to enable municipalities and component cities. We quote Sec. 71. Election Recall — Upon the filing of a
the people to pursue and protect, within the the pertinent provisions of R.A. 7160, viz: valid resolution petition for with the appropriate
democratic framework, their legitimate and CHAPTER 5 — RECALL local office of the Comelec, the Commission or
collective interests and aspirations through Sec. 69. By Whom Exercised. — The power of its duly authorized representative shall set the
peaceful and lawful means. recall for loss of confidence shall be exercised date of the election on recall, which shall not be
People's organizations are bona by the registered voters of a local government later than thirty (30) days after the filing of the
fide associations of citizens with demonstrated unit to which the local elective official subject to resolution or petition recall in the case of the
capacity to promote the public interest and with such recall belongs. barangay, city, or municipal officials, forty-five
identifiable leadership, membership, and Sec. 70. Initiation of the Recall Process. (a) (45) days in the case of provincial officials. The
structure. Recall may be initiated by a preparatory recall official or officials sought to be recalled shall
Sec. 16. The right of the people and their assembly or by the registered voters of the local automatically be considered as duly registered
organizations to effective and reasonable government unit to which the local elective candidate or candidates to the pertinent
participation at all levels of social, political, and official subject to such recall belongs. positions and, like other candidates, shall be
economic decision-making shall not be (b) There shall be a preparatory recall assembly entitled to be voted upon.
abridged. The State shall, by laws, facilitate the in every province, city, district, and municipality Sec. 72. Effectivity of Recall. — The recall of an
establishment of adequate consultation which shall be composed of the following: elective local official shall be effective only upon
mechanisms. (1) Provincial Level. — all mayors, vice-mayors the election and proclamation of a successor in
Section 3 of its Article X also reiterated the and sanggunian members of the municipalities the person of the candidate receiving the
mandate for Congress to enact a local and component cities; highest number of votes cast during the election
government code which "shall provide for a (2) City level. — All punong barangay and on recall. Should the official sought to be
more responsive and accountable local sangguniang barangay members in the city; recalled receive the highest number of votes,
government structure instituted through a (3) Legislative District level. — In cases where confidence in him is thereby affirmed, and he
system of decentralization with effective sangguniang panlalawigan members are shall continue in office.
mechanisms of recall, initiative and elected by district, all elective municipal officials Sec. 73. Prohibition from Resignation. — The
referendum. . .," viz : in the district; in cases where sangguniang elective local official sought to be recalled shall
Sec. 3. The Congress shall enact a local panglungsod members are elected by district , not be allowed to resign while the recall process
government code which shall provide for a more all elective barangay officials in the district; and is in progress.
responsible and accountable local government (4) Municipal level. — All punong barangay and Sec. 74. Limitations on Recall. — (a) Any
structure instituted through a system of sangguniang barangay members in the elective local official may be the subject of a
decentralization with effective mechanisms of municipality. recall election only once during his term of office
recall, initiative, and referendum, allocate (c) A majority of all the preparatory recall for loss of confidence.
among the different local government units their assembly members may convene in session in (b) No recall shall take place within one (1) year
powers, responsibilities, and resources, and a public place and initiate a recall proceeding from the date of the official's assumption to
provide for the qualifications, election, against any elective official in the local office or one (1) year immediately preceding
appointment and removal, term, salaries, government unit concerned. Recall of provincial, regular election.
powers and functions and duties of local city, or municipal officials shall be validly A reading of the legislative history of these recall
officials, and all other matters relating to the initiated through a resolution adopted by a provisions will reveal that the idea of
organization and operation of the local units. majority of all the members of the preparatory empowering a preparatory recall assembly to
In response to this constitutional call, Congress recall assembly concerned during its session initiate the recall from office of local elective
enacted R.A. 7160, otherwise known as the called for the purpose. officials originated from the House of
Local Government Code of 1991, which took (d) Recall of any elective provincial, city, Representatives A reading of the legislative
effect on January 1, 1992. In this Code, municipal, or barangay official may be validly history of these recall provisions will reveal that
Congress provided for a second mode of initiated upon petition of at least twenty-five (25) the idea of empowering a preparatory recall
initiating the recall process through a percent of the total number of registered voters assembly to initiate the recall from office of local
elective officials, originated from the House of nothing in the Constitution that will remotely the incumbent local officials. Precisely, in the
Representatives and not the Senate. 15 The suggest that the people have the case of Gov. Garcia, an election was scheduled
legislative records reveal there were two (2) "sole and exclusive right to decide on whether by the COMELEC on 11 October 1993 to
principal reasons why this alternative mode of to initiate a recall proceeding." The Constitution determine who has the right to assume the
initiating the recall process thru an assembly did not provide for any mode, let alone a single unexpired portion of his term of office which
was adopted, viz: (a) to diminish the difficulty of mode, of initiating recall elections. 19 Neither did should have been until June 1995. Having been
initiating recall thru the direct action of the it prohibit the adoption of multiple modes of relegated to the status of a mere candidate for
people; and (b) to cut down on its initiating recall elections. The mandate given by the same position of governor (by operation of
expenses. 16 Our lawmakers took note of the section 3 of Article X of the Constitution is for law) he has, therefore, been effectively
undesirable fact that the mechanism initiating Congress to "enact a local government code recalled." 21In their Extremely Urgent
recall by direct action of the electorate was which shall provide for a more responsive and Clarificatory Manifestation, 22 petitioners put the
utilized only once in the City of Angeles, accountable local government structure through proposition more bluntly stating that a "PRA
Pampanga, but even this lone attempt to recall a system of decentralization with effective resolution of recall is the re call itself."
the city mayor failed. Former Congressman mechanisms of recall, initiative, and Again, the contention cannot command our
Wilfredo Cainglet explained that this initiatory referendum . . ." By this constitutional mandate, concurrence. Petitioners have misconstrued the
process by direct action of the people was too Congress was clearly given the power to choose nature of the initiatory process of recall by the
cumbersome, too expensive and almost the effective mechanisms of recall as its PRAC. They have embraced the view that
impossible to implement. 17 Consequently, our discernment dictates. The power given was to initiation by the PRAC is not initiation by the
legislators added in the a second mode of select which among the means and methods of people. This is a misimpression for initiation by
initiating the recall of local officials thru a initiating recall elections are effective to carry the PRAC is also initiation by the people, albeit
preparatory recall assembly. They brushed out the judgment of the electorate. Congress done indirectly through their representatives. It
aside the argument that this second mode may was not straightjacketed to one particular is not constitutionally impermissible for the
cause instability in the local government units mechanism of initiating recall elections. What people to act through their elected
due to its imagined ease. the Constitution simply required is that the representatives. Nothing less than the
We have belabored the genesis of our recall law mechanisms of recall, whether one or many, to paramount task of drafting our Constitution is
for it can light up many of the unillumined be chosen by Congress should be effective. delegated by the people to their representatives,
interstices of the law. In resolving constitutional Using its constitutionally granted discretion, elected either to act as a constitutional
disputes, We should not be beguiled by foreign Congress deemed it wise to enact an alternative convention or as a congressional constituent
jurisprudence some of which are hardly mode of initiating recall elections to supplement assembly. The initiation of a recall process is a
applicable because they have been dictated by the former mode of initiation by direct action of lesser act and there is no rhyme or reason why
different constitutional settings and needs. the people. Congress has made its choice as it cannot be entrusted to and exercised by the
Prescinding from this proposition, We shall now called for by the Constitution and it is not the elected representatives of the people. More far
resolve the contention of petitioners that the prerogative of this Court to supplant this out is petitioners' stance that a PRA resolution
alternative mode of allowing a preparatory recall judgment. The choice may be erroneous but of recall is the recall itself. It cannot be seriously
assembly to initiate the process of recall is even then, the remedy against a bad law is to doubted that a PRA resolution of recall merely,
unconstitutional. seek its amendment or repeal by the legislative. starts the process. It is part of the process but is
It is first postulated by the petitioners that "the By the principle of separation of powers, it is the not the whole process. This ought to be self
right to recall does not extend merely to the legislative that determines the necessity, evident for a PRA resolution of recall that is not
prerogative of the electorate to reconfirm or adequacy, wisdom and expediency of any law. 20 submitted to the COMELEC for validation will
withdraw their confidence on the official sought Petitioners also positive thesis that in passing not recall its subject official. Likewise, a PRA
to be recalled at a special election. Such Resolution 1, the Bataan Preparatory Recall resolution of recall that is rejected by the people
prerogative necessarily includes the sole and Assembly did not only initiate the process of in the election called for the purpose bears no
exclusive right to decide on whether to initiate a recall but had de facto recalled petitioner Garcia effect whatsoever. The initiatory resolution
recall proceedings or not." 18 from office, a power reserved to the people merely sets the stage for the official concerned
We do not agree. Petitioners cannot point to any alone. To quote the exact language of the to appear before the tribunal of the people so he
specific provision of the Constitution that will petitioners: "The initiation of a recall through the can justify why he should be allowed to continue
sustain this submission. To be sure, there is PRA effectively shortens and ends the term of in office. Before the people render their
sovereign judgment, the official concerned assembly or by the registered voters of the local The fear that a preparatory recall assembly may
remains in office but his right to continue in government unit to which the local elective be dominated by a political party and that it may
office is subject to question. This is clear in official subject to such recall belongs. use its power to initiate the recall of officials of
section 72 of the Local Government Code which (b) There shall be a preparatory recall assembly opposite political persuasions, especially those
states that "the recall of an elective local in every province, city, district, and municipality belonging to the minority, is not a ground to
officialshall be effective only upon the election which shall be composed of the following: strike down the law as unconstitutional. To be
and proclamation of a successor in the person (1) Provincial level. — All mayors, vice-mayors sure, this argument has long been in disuse for
of the candidate receiving the highest number of and sanggunian members of the municipalities there can be no escape from the reality
votes cast during the election on recall." and component cities; that all powers are susceptible of abuse. The
We shall next settle the contention of petitioners (2) City level. — All punong barangay and mere possibility of abuse cannot, however,
that the disputed law infracts the equal sangguniang barangay members in the city; infirm per se the grant of power to an individual
protection clause of the Constitution. Petitioners (3) Legislative District Level. — In cases where or entity. To deny power simply because it can
asseverate: sangguniang panlalawigan members are be abused by the grantee is to render
5.01.2. It denied petitioners the equal protection elected by district, all elective municipal officials government powerless and no people need an
of the laws for the local officials constituting the in the district; and in cases where sangguniang impotent government. There is no democratic
majority party can constitute itself into a PRA panglungsod members are elected by district, all government that can operate on the basis of
and initiate the recall of a duly elected provincial elective barangay officials in the district; and fear and distrust of its officials, especially those
official belonging to the minority party thus (4) Municipal level. — All punong barangay and elected by the people themselves. On the
rendering ineffectual his election by popular sangguniang barangay members in the contrary, all our laws assume that officials,
mandate. Relevantly, the assembly could, to the municipality. whether appointed or elected, will act in good
prejudice of the minority (or even partyless) Under the law, all mayors, vice-mayors and faith and will perform the duties of their office.
incumbent official, effectively declare a local sangguniang members of the municipalities and Such presumption follows the solemn oath that
elective position vacant (and demand the component cities are made members of the they took after assumption of office, to faithfully
holding of a special election) for purely partisan preparatory recall assembly at the provincial execute all our laws.
political ends regardless of the mandate of the level. Its membership is not apportioned to Moreover, the law instituted safeguards to
electorate. In the case at bar, 64 of the 74 political parties. No significance is given to the assure that the initiation of the recall process by
signatories to the recall resolution have been political affiliation of its members. Secondly, the a preparatory recall assembly will not be
political opponents of petitioner Garcia, not only preparatory recall assembly, at the provincial corrupted by extraneous influences. As
did they not vote for him but they even level includes all the elected officials in the explained above, the diverse and distinct
campaigned against him in the 1992 elections. province concerned. Considering their number, composition of the membership of a preparatory
Petitioners' argument does not really assail the the greater probability is that no one political recall assembly guarantees that all the sectors
law but its possible abuse by the members of party can control its majority. Thirdly, sec. 69 of of the electorate province shall be heard. It is for
the PRAC while exercising their right to initiate the Code provides that the only ground to recall this reason that in Our Resolution of September
recall proceedings. More specifically, the fear is a locally elected public official is loss of 21, 1993, We held that notice to all the
expressed that the members of the PRAC may confidence of the people. The members of the members of the recall assembly is a
inject political color in their decision as they may PRAC are in the PRAC not in representation of condition sine qua non to the validity of its
initiate recall proceedings only against their their political parties but as representatives of proceedings. The law also requires a qualified
political opponents especially those belonging to the people. By necessary implication, loss of majority of all the preparatory recall assembly
the minority. A careful reading of the law, confidence cannot be premised on mere members to convene in session and in a public
however, will ineluctably show that it does not differences in political party affiliation. Indeed, place. It also requires that the recall resolution
give an asymmetrical treatment to locally our Constitution encourages multi-party system by the said majority must be adopted during its
elected officials belonging to the political for the existence of opposition parties is session called for the purpose. The underscored
minority. First to be considered is the politically indispensable to the growth and nurture of words carry distinct legal meanings and purvey
neutral composition of the preparatory recall democratic system. Clearly then, the law as some of the parameters limiting the power of the
assembly. Sec. 70 (b) of the Code provides: crafted cannot be faulted for discriminating members of a preparatory recall assembly to
Sec. 70. Initiation of the Recall Process. (a) against local officials belonging to the minority. initiate recall proceedings. Needless to state,
Recall may be initiated by a preparatory recall compliance with these requirements is
necessary, otherwise, there will be premise that the resolution of recall is the recall Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin,
no valid resolution of recall which can be given itself. It refuses to recognize the reality that the Regalado, Romero, Nocon and Bellosillo, JJ.,
due course by the COMELEC. resolution of recall is a mere proposal to the concur.
Furthermore, it cannot be asserted with electorate of Bataan to subject petitioner to a Griño-Aquino, J., is on leave.
certitude that the members of the Bataan new test of faith. The proposal will still be
preparatory recall assembly voted strictly along passed upon by the sovereign electorate of
narrow political lines. Neither the respondent Bataan. As this judgment has yet to be
COMELEC nor this Court made a judicial inquiry expressed, it is premature to conclude that the
as to the reasons that led the members of the sovereign will of the electorate of Bataan has
said recall assembly to cast a vote of lack of been subverted. The electorate of Bataan may
confidence against petitioner Garcia. That or may not recall petitioner Garcia in an
inquiry was not undertaken for to do so would appropriate election. If the electorate re-elects
require crossing the forbidden borders of the petitioner Garcia, then the proposal to recall him
political thicket. Former Senator Aquilino made by the preparatory recall assembly is
Pimentel, Jr., a major author of the subject law rejected. On the other hand, if the electorate
in his book The Local Government Code of does not re-elect petitioner Garcia, then he has
1991: The Key to National Development, lost the confidence of the people which he once
stressed the same reason why the substantive enjoyed. The judgment will write finis to the
content of a vote of lack of confidence is beyond political controversy. For more than judgments
any inquiry, thus: of courts of law, the judgment of the tribunal of
There is only one ground for the recall of local the people is final for "sovereignty resides in the
government officials: loss of confidence. This people and all government authority emanates
means that the people may petition or the from them."
Preparatory Recall Assembly may resolve to In sum, the petition at bench appears to
recall any local elective officials without champion the sovereignty of the people,
specifying any particular ground except loss of particularly their direct right to initiate and
confidence. There is no need for them to bring remove elective local officials thru recall
up any charge of abuse or corruption against elections. If the petition would succeed, the
the local elective officials who are the subject of result will be a return to the previous system of
any recall petition. recall elections which Congress found should be
In the case of Evardone vs. Commission on improved. The alternative mode of initiating
Elections, et al., 204 SCRA 464, 472 (1991), the recall proceedings thru a preparatory recall
Court ruled that "loss of confidence" as a ground assembly is, however, an innovative attempt by
for recall is a political question. In the words of Congress to remove impediments to the
the Court, "whether or not the electorate of the effective exercise by the people of their
municipality of Sulat has lost confidence in the sovereign power to check the performance of
incumbent mayor is a political question. their elected officials. The power to determine
Any assertion therefore that the members of the this mode was specifically given to Congress
Bataan preparatory recall assembly voted due and is not proscribed by the Constitution.
to their political aversion to petitioner Garcia is IN VIEW WHEREOF, the original Petition and
at best a surmise. the Supplemental Petition assailing the
Petitioners also contend that the resolution of constitutionality of section 70 of R.A. 7160
the members of the preparatory recall assembly insofar as it allows a preparatory recall
subverted the will of the electorate of the assembly to initiate the recall process are
province of Bataan who elected petitioner dismissed for lack of merit. This decision is Republic of the Philippines
Garcia with a majority of 12,500 votes. Again, immediately executory. SUPREME COURT
the contention proceeds from the erroneous SO ORDERED. Manila
EN BANC petition. In view of the Office of the Solicitor when such elective local official may be subject
  General's manifestation maintaining an opinion of a recall election, that is, during the second
G.R. No. 123169 November 4, 1996 adverse to that of the COMELEC, the latter year of his term of office. Thus, subscribing to
DANILO E. PARAS, petitioner,  through its law department filed the required petitioner's interpretation of the phrase regular
vs. comment. Petitioner thereafter filed a reply. 3 local election to include the SK election will
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent. Petitioner's argument is simple and to the point. unduly circumscribe the novel provision of the
RESOLUTION Citing Section 74 (b) of Republic Act No. 7160, Local Government Code on recall, a mode of
  otherwise known as the Local Government removal of public officers by initiation of the
FRANCISCO, J.: Code, which states that "no recall shall take people before the end of his term. And if the SK
Petitioner Danilo E. Paras is the incumbent place within one (1) year from the date of the election which is set by R.A No. 7808 to be held
Punong Barangay of Pula, Cabanatuan City official's assumption to office or one (1) year every three years from May 1996 were to be
who won during the last regular barangay immediately preceding a regular local election", deemed within the purview of the phrase
election in 1994. A petition for his recall as petitioner insists that the scheduled January 13, "regular local election", as erroneously insisted
Punong Barangay was filed by the registered 1996 recall election is now barred as the by petitioner, then no recall election can be
voters of the barangay. Acting on the petition for Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) election was set by conducted rendering inutile the recall provision
recall, public respondent Commission on Republic Act No. 7808 on the first Monday of of the Local Government Code.
Elections (COMELEC) resolved to approve the May 1996, and every three years thereafter. In In the interpretation of a statute, the Court
petition, scheduled the petition signing on support thereof, petitioner cites Associated should start with the assumption that the
October 14, 1995, and set the recall election on Labor Union v. Letrondo-Montejo, 237 SCRA legislature intended to enact an effective law,
November13,1995. 1 621, where the Court considered the SK and the legislature is not presumed to have
 At least 29.30% of the registered voters signed election as a regular local election. Petitioner done a vain thing in the enactment of a
the petition, well above the 25% requirement maintains that as the SK election is a regular statute. 5 An interpretation should, if possible, be
provided by law. The COMELEC, however, local election, hence no recall election can be avoided under which a statute or provision being
deferred the recall election in view of petitioner's had for barely four months separate the SK construed is defeated, or as otherwise
opposition. On December 6, 1995, the election from the recall election. We do not expressed, nullified, destroyed, emasculated,
COMELEC set anew the recall election, this agree. repealed, explained away, or rendered
time on December 16, 1995. To prevent the The subject provision of the Local Government insignificant, meaningless, inoperative or
holding of the recall election, petitioner filed Code provides: nugatory. 6
before the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan Sec. 74. Limitations on Recall. — (a) Any It is likewise a basic precept in statutory
City a petition for injunction, docketed as SP elective local official may be the subject of a construction that a statute should be interpreted
Civil Action No. 2254-AF, with the trial court recall election only once during his term of office in harmony with the Constitution.  7 Thus, the
issuing a temporary restraining order. After for loss of confidence. interpretation of Section 74 of the Local
conducting a summary hearing, the trial court (b) No recall shall take place within one (1) year Government Code, specifically paragraph (b)
lifted the restraining order, dismissed the from the date of the official's assumption to thereof, should not be in conflict with the
petition and required petitioner and his counsel office or one (1) year immediately preceding Constitutional mandate of Section 3 of Article X
to explain why they should not be cited for a regular local election. of the Constitution to "enact a local government
contempt for misrepresenting that the barangay [Emphasis added] code which shall provide for a more responsive
recall election was without COMELEC It is a rule in statutory construction that every and accountable local government structure
approval. 2 part of the statute must be interpreted with instituted through a system of decentralization
In a resolution dated January 5, 1996, the reference to the context,i.e., that every part of with effective mechanism of recall, initiative, and
COMELEC, for the third time, re-scheduled the the statute must be considered together with the referendum . . . ."
recall election an January 13, 1996; hence, the other parts, and kept subservient to the general Moreover, petitioner's too literal interpretation of
instant petition for certiorari with urgent prayer intent of the whole enactment. 4 The evident the law leads to absurdity which we cannot
for injunction. On January 12, 1996, the Court intent of Section 74 is to subject an elective countenance. Thus, in a case, the Court made
issued a temporary restraining order and local official to recall election once during his the following admonition:
required the Office of the Solicitor General, in term of office. Paragraph (b) construed together We admonish against a too-literal reading of the
behalf of public respondent, to comment on the with paragraph (a) merely designates the period law as this is apt to constrict rather than fulfill its
purpose and defeat the intention of its authors.
That intention is usually found not in "the letter that
killeth but in the spirit that vivifieth". . . 8
The spirit, rather than the letter of a law
determines its construction; hence, a statute, as
in this case, must be read according to its spirit
and intent.
Finally, recall election is potentially disruptive of
the normal working of the local government unit
necessitating additional expenses, hence the
prohibition against the conduct of recall election
one year immediately preceding the regular
local election. The proscription is due to the
proximity of the next regular election for the
office of the local elective official concerned.
The electorate could choose the official's
replacement in the said election who certainly
has a longer tenure in office than a successor
elected through a recall election. It would,
therefore, be more in keeping with the intent of
the recall provision of the Code to
construe regular local election as one referring
to an election where the office held by the local
elective official sought to be recalled will be
contested and be filled by the electorate.
Nevertheless, recall at this time is no longer
possible because of the limitation stated under
Section 74 (b) of the Code considering that the
next regular election involving the barangay
office concerned is barely seven (7) months
away, the same having been scheduled on May
1997. 9
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby
dismissed for having become moot and
academic. The temporary restraining order
issued by the Court on January 12, 1996,
enjoining the recall election should be as it is
hereby made permanent.
SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
  gathered to discuss the possibility of filing a the PRA took place within the one-year
G.R. No. 140560 May 4, 2000 petition for recall against Mayor Claudio for loss prohibited period; (4) the election case, 2 filed by
JOVITO O. CLAUDIO, petitioner, of confidence. On May 19, 1999, at the Wenceslao Trinidad in this Court, seeking the
vs. residence of barangay chair Benjamin Lim, Jr. in annulment of the proclamation of petitioner
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Barangay 11, Zone 4, Pasay City, several Claudio as mayor of Pasay City, should first be
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND barangay chairs formed an ad hoc committee decided before recall proceedings against
MANAGEMENT, COMMISSION ON AUDIT and for the purpose of convening the PRA. Richard petitioner could be filed; and (5) the recall
RICHARD ADVINCULA, respondents. Advincula, private respondent in G.R. No. resolution failed to obtain the majority of all the
140560 and petitioner in G.R. No. 140714, was members of the PRA, considering that 10 were
G.R. No. 140714 May 4, 2000 designated chair. actually double entries, 14 were not duly
PREPARATORY RECALL ASSEMBLY OF On May 29, 1999, 1,073 members of the PRA accredited members of the barangays, 40
PASAY CITY, herein represented by its composed of barangay chairs, kagawads, and sangguniang kabataan officials had withdrawn
Chairman, RICHARD ADVINCULA, petitioner, sangguniang kabataan chairs of Pasay City, their support, and 60 barangay chairs executed
vs. adopted Resolution No. 01, S-1999, entitled affidavits of retraction.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESOLUTION TO INITIATE THE RECALL OF In its resolution of October 18, 1999, the
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND JOVITO O. CLAUDIO AS MAYOR OF PASAY COMELEC granted the petition for recall and
MANAGEMENT, COMMISSION ON AUDIT and CITY FOR LOSS OF CONFIDENCE. In a letter dismissed the oppositions against it. On the
HON. JOVITO O. CLAUDIO, respondents. dated June 29, 1999, Advincula, as chair of the issue of whether the PRA was constituted by a
  PRA, invited the Mayor, Vice-Mayor, Station majority of its members, the COMELEC held
MENDOZA, J.: Commander, and thirteen (13) Councilors of that the 1,073 members who attended the May
These are petitions arising from the proceedings Pasay City to witness the formal submission to 29, 1999 meeting were more than necessary to
initiated by the Preparatory Recall Assembly of the Office of the Election Officer on July 2, 1999 constitute the PRA, considering that its records
Pasay City (PRA) in the Commission on of the petition for recall. showed the total membership of the PRA was
Elections in E.M. No. 99-005 entitled IN THE As scheduled, the petition for recall was filed on 1,790, while the statistics of the Department of
MATTER OF THE PREPARATORY RECALL July 2, 1999, accompanied by an affidavit of Interior and Local Government (DILG) showed
ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 01, S-1999 service of the petition on the Office of the City that the total membership of the PRA was
ADOPTED ON 29 MAY 1999 FOR THE Mayor. Pursuant to the rules of the COMELEC, 1,876. In either case, since only a majority is
RECALL OF MAYOR JOVITO CLAUDIO OF copies of the petition were posted on the bulletin required to constitute the PRA, clearly, a
PASAY CITY. G.R. No. 140560 is a petition boards of the local COMELEC office, the City majority had been obtained in support of the
for certiorari and prohibition, seeking the Hall, the Police Department, the public market at recall resolution. Based on the verification made
nullification of the resolution, 1 dated October 18, Libertad St. and Taft Avenue, and at the by election officer Ligaya Salayon, the
1999, of the COMELEC giving due course to the entrance of the Sta. Clara Church on P. Burgos COMELEC found the signatures of 958
petition for the recall of petitioner Jovito O. St., all in Pasay City. Subsequently, a members of the PRA sufficient. On whether the
Claudio as mayor of Pasay City. On the other verification of the authenticity of the signatures pendency of the case questioning the
hand, G.R. No. 140714 is a petition on the resolution was conducted by Ligaya proclamation of petitioner was a prejudicial
for mandamus filed by the PRA, represented by Salayon, the election officer for Pasay City question which must first be decided before any
its Chair, Richard Advincula, to compel the designated by the COMELEC. recall election could be held, the COMELEC
COMELEC to set the date for the holding of Oppositions to the petition were filed by ruled that it was not and that petitioner was
recall elections in Pasay City pursuant to the petitioner Jovito O. Claudio, Rev. Ronald merely using the pendency of the case to delay
aforecited resolution of the COMELEC. Langub, and Roberto L. Angeles, alleging the recall proceedings. Finally, on whether the
The facts are as follows: procedural and substantive defects in the petition for recall violated the bar on recall within
Jovito O. Claudio, petitioner in G.R. No. 140560, petition, to wit: (1) the signatures affixed to the one year from the elective official's assumption
was the duly elected mayor of Pasay City in the resolution were actually meant to show of office, the COMELEC ruled in the negative,
May 11, 1998 elections. He assumed office on attendance at the PRA meeting; (2) most of the holding that recall is a process which starts with
July 1, 1998. signatories were only representatives of the the filing of the petition for recall. Since the
Sometime during the second week of May 1999, parties concerned who were sent there merely petition was filed on July 2, 1999, exactly one
the chairs of several barangays in Pasay City to observe the proceedings; (3) the convening of year and a day after petitioner Claudio's
assumption of office, it was held that the petition On Whether the Word "Recall" in Paragraph (b) elect his replacement. Several reasons can be
was filed on time. of §74 of the Local Government Code Includes cited in support of this conclusion.
Hence, these petitions. Oral arguments were the Convening of the Preparatory Recall First, §74 deals with restrictions on the power of
held in these cases in Baguio City on April 4, Assembly and the Filing by it of a Recall recall. It is in fact entitled "Limitations on Recall."
2000, after which the Court, by the vote of 8 to 6 Resolution. On the other hand, §69 provides that "the power
of its members, 3 resolved to dismiss the petition Petitioner contends that the term "recall" in of recall . . . shall be exercised by the registered
in G.R. No. 140560 for lack of showing that the §74(b) refers to a process, in contrast to the voters of a local government unit to which the
COMELEC committed a grave abuse of term "recall election" found in §74(a), which local elective official belongs." Since the power
discretion. On the other hand, the Court obviously refers to an election. He claims that vested on the electorate is not the power to
unanimously dismissed the petition in G.R. No. "when several barangay chairmen met and initiate recall proceedings 6 but the power to
140714 on the ground that the issue raised convened on May 19, 1999 and unanimously elect an official into office, the limitations in §74
therein had become moot and academic. resolved to initiate the recall, followed by the cannot be deemed to apply to the entire recall
We now proceed to explain the grounds for our taking of votes by the PRA on May 29, 1999 for proceedings. In other words, the term "recall" in
resolution. the purpose of adopting a resolution "to initiate paragraph (b) refers only to the recall election,
In its Resolution No. 3121, dated March 9, 2000, the recall of Jovito Claudio as Mayor of Pasay excluding the convening of the PRA and the
the COMELEC set the date of the recall City for loss of confidence," the process of recall filing of a petition for recall with the COMELEC,
elections in Pasay City on April 15, 2000. began" and, since May 29, 1999 was less than a or the gathering of the signatures of at least 25
Consequently, the petition for mandamus in year after he had assumed office, the PRA was % of the voters for a petition for recall.
G.R. No. 140714 to compel the COMELEC to fix illegally convened and all proceedings held Thus, there may be several PRAs held (as in
a date for the recall elections in Pasay City is no thereafter, including the filing of the recall the case of Bataan Province in 1993) or
longer tenable. We are thus left with only petition on July 2, 1999, were null and void. petitions for recall filed with the COMELEC —
petitioner Claudio's action for certiorari and The COMELEC, on the other hand, maintains there is no legal limit on the number of times
prohibition. that the process of recall starts with the filing of such processes may be resorted to. These are
The bone of contention in this case is §74 of the the petition for recall and ends with the conduct merely preliminary steps for the purpose of
Local Government Code (LCG) 4 which of the recall election, and that, since the petition initiating a recall. The limitations in §74 apply
provides: for recall in this case was filed on July 2, 1999, only to the exercise of the power of recall which
Limitations on Recall. — (a) Any elective local exactly one year and a day after petitioner's is vested in the registered voters. It is this —
official may be the subject of a recall election assumption of office, the recall was validly and not merely the preliminary steps required to
only once during his term of office for loss of initiated outside the one-year prohibited period. be taken to initiate a recall — which paragraph
confidence. Both petitioner Claudio and the COMELEC thus (b) of §74 seeks to limit by providing that no
(b) No recall shall take place within one (1) year agree that the term "recall" as used in §74 refers recall shall take place within one year from the
from the date of the official's assumption to to a process. They disagree only as to when the date of assumption of office of an elective local
office or one (1) year immediately preceding a process starts for purposes of the one-year official.
regular local election. limitation in paragraph (b) of §74. Indeed, this is the thrust of the ruling in Garcia
As defined at the hearing of these cases on We can agree that recall is a process which v. COMELEC 7 where two objections were
April 4, 2000, the issues are: begins with the convening of the preparatory raised against the legality of PRAs: (1) that even
WHETHER, under Section 74 of the Local recall assembly or the gathering of the the power to initiate recall proceedings is the
Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160) . . . . signatures at least 25% of the registered voters sole prerogative of the electorate which cannot
A. The word "recall" in paragraph (b) covers a of a local government unit, and then proceeds to be delegated to PRAs, and (2) that by vesting
process which includes the convening of the the filing of a recall resolution or petition with the this power in a PRA, the law in effect
Preparatory Recall Assembly and its approval of COMELEC, the verification of such resolution or unconstitutionally authorizes it to shorten the
the recall resolution. petition, the fixing of the date of the recall term of office of incumbent elective local
B. The term "regular local election" in the last election, and the holding of the election on the officials. Both objections were dismissed on the
clause of paragraph (b) includes the election scheduled date. 5 However, as used in ground that the holding of a PRA is not the
period for that regular election or simply the date paragraph (b) of §74, "recall" refers to the recall itself. With respect to the first objection, it
of such election. election itself by means of which voters decide was held that it is the power to recall and not the
(1) whether they should retain their local official or power to initiate recall that the Constitution gave
to the people. With respect to the second as long as the election is held outside the one- performance is politically motivated and when it
objection, it was held that a recall resolution year period, the preliminary proceedings to is not. The only safeguard against the baneful
"merely sets the stage for the official concerned initiate a recall can be held even before the end and enervating effects of partisan politics is the
before the tribunal of the people so he can of the first year in office of a local official. good sense and self restraint of the people and
justify why he should be allowed to continue in It cannot be argued that to allow recall its leaders against such shortcomings of our
office. [But until] the people render their proceedings to be initiated before the official political system. A respite from partisan politics
sovereign judgment, the official concerned concerned has been in office for one-year would may have the incidental effect of providing
remains in office . . . ." be to allow him to be judged without sufficient respite from partisanship, but that is not really
If these preliminary proceedings do not produce basis. As already stated, it is not the holding of the purpose of the limitation on recall under the
a decision by the electorate on whether the local PRA nor the adoption of recall resolutions that law. The limitation is only intended to provide a
official concerned continues to enjoy the produces a judgment on the performance of the sufficient basis for evaluating and judging the
confidence of the people, then, the prohibition in official concerned; it is the vote of the electorate performance of an elected local official.
paragraph (b) against the holding of a recall, in the election that does. Therefore, as long as In any event, it is argued that the judgments of
except one year after the official's assumption of the recall election is not held before the official PRAs are not "as politically unassailable as
office, cannot apply to such proceedings. concerned has completed one year in office, he recalls initiated directly by the people." Justice
The second reason why the term "recall" in will not be judged on his performance Puno cites the "embarrassing repudiation by the
paragraph (b) refers to recall election is to be prematurely. people of [Kaloocan City's] Preparatory Recall
found in the purpose of the limitation itself. Third, to construe the term "recall" in paragraph Assembly" when, instead of ousting Mayor Rey
There are two limitations in paragraph (b) on the (b) as including the convening of the PRA for Malonzo, they reelected him.
holding of recalls: (1) that no recall shall take the purpose of discussing the performance in Two points may be made against this argument.
place within one year from the date of office of elective local officials would be to One is that it is no disparagement of the PRA
assumption of office of the official concerned, unduly restrict the constitutional right of speech that in the ensuing election the local official
and (2) that no recall shall take place within one and of assembly of its members. The people whose recall is sought is actually reelected.
year immediately preceding a regular local cannot just be asked on the day of the election Laws converting municipalities into cities and
election. to decide on the performance of their officials. providing for the holding of plebiscites during
The purpose of the first limitation is to provide a The crystallization and formation of an informed which the question of cityhood is submitted to
reasonable basis for judging the performance of public opinion takes time. To hold, therefore, the people for their approval are not always
an elective local official. In the Bower that the first limitation in paragraph (b) includes approved by the people. Yet, no one can say
case 8 cited by this Court in Angobung the holding of assemblies for the exchange of that Congress is not a good judge of the will of
v. COMELEC, 9 it was held that "The only logical ideas and opinions among citizens is to unduly the voters in the locality. In the case of recall
reason which we can ascribe for requiring the curtail one of the most cherished rights in a free elections in Kaloocan City, had it been shown
electors to wait one year beforepetitioning for a society. Indeed, it is wrong to assume that such that the PRA was resorted to only because
recall election is to prevent premature action on assemblies will always eventuate in a recall those behind the move to oust the incumbent
their part in voting to remove a newly elected election. To the contrary, they may result in the mayor failed to obtain the signatures of 25% of
official before having had sufficient time to expression of confidence in the incumbent. the voters of that city to a petition for his recall,
evaluate the soundness of his policies and Our esteemed colleague Justice Puno says in there may be some plausibility for the claim that
decisions." The one-year limitation was his dissent that the purpose of the one-year PRAs are not as good a gauge of the people's
reckoned as of the filing of a petition for recall period in paragraph (b) is to provide the local will as are the 25 % of the voters.
because the Municipal Code involved in that official concerned a "period of repose" during Indeed, recalls initiated directly by 25% of the
case expressly provided that "no removal which "[his] attention should not be distracted by registered voters of a local government unit
petition shall be filed against any officer or until any impediment, especially by disturbance due cannot be more representative of the sentiments
he has actually held office for at least twelve to political partisanship." Unfortunately, the law of the people than those initiated by PRAs
months." But however the period of prohibition is cannot really provide for a period of honeymoon whose members represent the entire electorate
determined, the principle announced is that the or moratorium in politics. From the day an in the local government unit. Voters who directly
purpose of the limitation is to provide a elective official assumes office, his acts become initiate recalls are just as vulnerable to political
reasonable basis for evaluating the performance subject to scrutiny and criticism, and it is not maneuverings or manipulations as are those
of an elective local official. Hence, in this case, always easy to determine when criticism of his composing PRAs.
The other point regarding Justice Puno's claim "the day of the regular local election" which, for such election within one year from the date the
is that the question here is not whether recalls the year 2001 is May 14, but the election period official assumed office. And third, paragraph (b)
initiated by 25% of the voters are better. The as well, which is normally at least forty five (45) prohibits the holding of a recall election within
issue is whether the one-year period of limitation days immediately before the day of the election. one year immediately preceding a regular local
in paragraph (b) includes the convening of the Hence, he contends that beginning March 30, election. As succinctly stated inParas
PRA. Given that question, will convening the 2000, no recall election may be held. v. COMELEC,   "[p]aragraph
12
(b) construed
PRA outside this period make it any more This contention is untenable. together with paragraph (a) merely designates
representative of the people, as the petition filed The law is unambiguous in providing that "[n]o the period when such elective local official may
by 25% of the registered voters is claimed to recall shall take place within . . . one (1) year be subject to recall election, that is, during the
be? immediately preceding a regular local election." second year of office."
To sum up, the term "recall" in paragraph (b) Had Congress intended this limitation to refer to (3)
refers to the recall election and not to the the campaign period, which period is defined in On Whether the Recall RESOLUTION was
preliminary proceedings to initiate recall — the Omnibus Election Code, 10 it could have Signed by a Majority of the PRA and Duly
1. Because §74 speaks of limitations on "recall" expressly said so. Verified.
which, according to §69, is a power which shall Moreover, petitioner's interpretation would Petitioner alleges other grounds for seeking the
be exercised by the registered voters of a local severely limit the period during which a recall annulment of the resolution of the COMELEC
government unit. Since the voters do not election may be held. Actually, because no ordering the holding of a recall election. He
exercise such right except in an election, it is recall election may be held until one year after contends that a majority of the signatures of the
clear that the initiation of recall proceedings is the assumption of office of an elective local members of the PRA was not obtained because
not prohibited within the one-year period official, presumably on June 30 following his 74 members did not really sign the recall
provided in paragraph (b); election, the free period is only the period from resolution. According to petitioner, the 74 merely
2. Because the purpose of the first limitation in July 1 of the following year to about the middle signed their names on pages 94-104 of the
paragraph (b) is to provide voters a sufficient of May of the succeeding year. This is a period resolution to signify their attendance and not
basis for judging an elective local official, and of only nine months and 15 days, more or less. their concurrence. Petitioner claims that this is
final judging is not done until the day of the To construe the second limitation in paragraph shown by the word "Attendance" written by hand
election; and (b) as including the campaign period would at the top of the page on which the signatures of
3. Because to construe the limitation in reduce this period to eight months. Such an the 74 begin.
paragraph (b) as including the initiation of recall interpretation must be rejected, because it This contention has no basis. To be sure, this
proceedings would unduly curtail freedom of would devitalize the right of recall which is claim is being raised for the first time in this
speech and of assembly guaranteed in the designed to make local government units "more case. It was not raised before the COMELEC, in
Constitution. responsive and accountable." which the claim made by petitioner was that
As the recall election in Pasay City is set on Indeed, there is a distinction between election some of the names in the petition were double
April 15, 2000, more than one year after period and campaign period. Under the entries, that some members had withdrawn their
petitioner assumed office as mayor of that city, Omnibus Election Code, 11 unless otherwise support for the petition, and that Wenceslao
we hold that there is no bar to its holding on that fixed by the COMELEC, the election period Trinidad's pending election protest was a
date. commences ninety (90) days before the day of prejudicial question which must first be resolved
(2) the election and ends thirty (30) days thereafter. before the petition for recall could be given due
On Whether the Phrase "Regular Local Thus, to follow petitioner's interpretation that the course. The order of the COMELEC embodying
Election" in the Same Paragraph (b) of §74 of second limitation in paragraph (b) includes the the stipulations of the parties and defining the
the Local Government Code includes the "election period" would emasculate even more a issues to be resolved does not include the issue
Election Period for that Regular Election or vital right of the people. now being raised by petitioner.
Simply the Date of Such Election. To recapitulate the discussion in parts 1 and 2, Although the word "Attendance" appears at the
Petitioner contends, however, that the date set §74 imposes limitations on the holding of recall top of the page, it is apparent that it was written
by the COMELEC for the recall election is within elections. First, paragraph (a) prohibits the by mistake because it was crossed out by two
the second period of prohibition in paragraph holding of such election more than once during parallel lines drawn across it. Apparently, it was
(b). He argues that the phrase "regular local the term of office of an elective local official. mistaken for the attendance sheet which is a
elections" in paragraph (b) does not only mean Second, paragraph (b) prohibits the holding of separate document. It is absurd to believe that
the 74 members of the PRA who signed the
recall resolution signified their attendance at the
meeting twice. It is more probable to believe that
they signed pages 94-104 to signify their
concurrence in the recall resolution of which the
pages in question are part.
The other point raised by petitioner is that the
recall petition filed in the COMELEC was not
duly verified, because Atty. Nelson Ng, who
notarized it, is not commissioned as notary
public for Pasay City but for Makati City. As in
the case of the first claim, this issue was not
raised before the COMELEC itself. It cannot,
therefore, be raised now.
WHEREFORE, G.R. No. 140560 is DISMISSED
for lack of merit, while the petition in G.R. No.
140714 is DISMISSED for having been
rendered moot and academic.
SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
 
G.R. No. 126576 March 5, 1997
MAYOR RICARDO M. October 8, 1996 recommending approval of the approaching regular local election must be one
ANGOBUNG, petitioner,  petition for recall filed by private respondent and where the position of the official to be recalled,
vs. its signing by other qualified voters in order to is to be actually contested and filled by the
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, garner at least 25% of the total number of electorate. Thus, in the instant case where the
and ATTY. AURORA S. DE registered voters as required by Section 69(d) of time bar is being invoked by petitioner mayor in
ALBAN, respondents. the Local Government Code of 1991. view of the approaching Barangay Elections in
  In turn acting on the abovementioned May 1997, there can be no application of the
  Memorandum of Deputy Executive Director one year bar, hence no invalidity may be
HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.: Joson, the COMELEC en bancissued the herein ascribed to Resolution No. 96-2951 on this
Before us on certiorari is a petition seeking to assailed Resolution No. 96-2951. ground.
annul and set aside Resolution No. 96- Petitioner now attacks the aforementioned We, however, find petitioner's second ground to
2951 1 dated October 15, 1996 issued by public resolution as being unconstitutional and be impressed with merit.
respondent Commission on Elections therefore invalid, on two main grounds: (1) that Before the enactment of the 1991 Local
(COMELEC) which (1) approved the Petition for the resolution approved the Petition for Recall Government Code, the recall of public officials
Recall filed and signed by only one registered albeit same was signed by just one person in voted for in popular elections, was governed by
voter — herein private respondent Ma. Aurora violation of the statutory 25% minimum Sections 54 to 59 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337,
Siccuan de Alban, against petitioner — requirement as to the number of signatures otherwise known as the Local Government
incumbent Mayor Ricardo Angobung; (2) set the supporting any petition for recall; and (2) that Code of 1983. Pursuant to Section 59 thereof,
further signing of said petition by the rest of the the resolution scheduled the recall election which states that "the Commission on Elections
registered voters of Tumauini, Isabela on within one (1) year from the May 12, 1997 shall conduct and supervise the process of and
November 9, 1996; and (3) in case the said Barangay Elections. election on recall . . . and, in pursuance thereof,
petition is signed by at least 25% of the total In at least three (3) urgent motions, private promulgate the necessary rules and
number of registered votes in Tumauini, Isabela, respondent has sought the lifting of the regulations," the COMELEC promulgated
scheduled the recall election on December 2, Temporary Restraining Order issued last Resolution No. 2272 Sections 4 and 5 of which
1996. October 25, 1996 on the twin grounds (1) that provide as follows:
On October 25, 1996, this court issued a the issue of the one-year bar on recall elections Sec. 4. How instituted. — The recall of an
Temporary Restraining Order 2 enjoining public has been resolved in the case of Paras elective provincial, city or municipal official shall
respondent COMELEC from implementing and v. COMELEC 5, promulgated on November 4, be commenced by the filing of a duly verified
enforcing Resolution No. 96-2951. 1996; and (2) that the procedure prescribed by notice of recall containing the address and
The facts of this case are not disputed. Resolution No. 96-2951 involving petition precinct number of the voter filing the notice,
Petitioner won as the duly elected Mayor of the signing upon initiation of even just one person, and the name of the official sought to be
Municipality of Tumauini, Isabela in the local is no different from that provided for in recalled, his position, and the ground(s) for the
elections of 1995. He garnered 55% of all the COMELEC Resolution No. 2272 which was recall. Each notice shall refer to only one official.
votes cast. Private respondent de Alban was upheld as constitutional in the 1991 cases The notice shall be filed in triplicate with the
also a candidate in said elections. of Sanchez, et al. v. COMELEC 6 and Evardone local Election Registrar if the recall involves a
Sometime in early September, 1996, private v. COMELEC 7. city or municipal official, or with the Provincial
respondent filed with the Local Election Private respondent is correct in saying that in Election Supervisor if it involves a provincial
Registrar of Tumauini, Isabela, a Petition for the light of our pronouncement in Paras official, one copy of which shall be posted upon
Recall 3 against petitioner. On September 12, v. COMELEC 8, the recall election scheduled on receipt thereof on the bulletin board in the
1996, petitioner received a copy of this petition. December 2, 1996 in the instant case cannot be city/municipal hall.
Subsequently said petition was forwarded to the said to be barred by the May 12, 1997 Barangay If the recall involves a provincial official, two
Regional Office in Tuguegarao, Cagayan and Elections. In construing the meaning of the term, additional copies of the notice shall also be
then to the main office of COMELEC in Manila, "regular local election" in Section 74 of the Local furnished by the voter filing the notice to the
for approval. Government Code of 1991 which provides that Election Registrar of each city and municipality
Acting on the petition, Deputy Executive Director "no recall shall take place within one (1) year . . . in the province, one copy of which shall be
for Operations Pio Jose Joson submitted to the immediately preceding a regular local election," posted upon receipt thereof on the bulletin
COMELEC En Banc, a Memorandum 4 dated we ruled that for the time bar to apply, the board in the city/municipal hall.
In every case, the voter filing the notice of recall Considering that the present local government petition to be filed by at least one person or by
shall furnish a copy thereof to the official sought code (BP 337) is still in effect, respondent less than 25% of the total number of registered
to be recalled, the Commission on Elections in COMELEC's promulgation of Resolution No. voters and then (2) inviting voters to sign said
Manila and the Election Records and Statistics 2272 is therefore valid and constitutional, the petition on a date set for that purpose, was
Department of the Commission. same having been issued pursuant to Sec. 59 of never put to issue. As this is the crux of the
Sec. 5. Schedule and place of signing of the BP 337. It reads: present constitutional challenge, the proper time
petition. — The Election Registrar shall submit to Sec. 59. Supervision by the Commission on has come for this court to issue a definitive
the Commission on Elections, not later than ten Elections. — The Commission on Elections shall ruling on the matter.
days from filing of the notice of recall, the schedule conduct and supervise the process of and election Apropos for starters is the following chronicle of
of the signing of the petition to recall for approval on recall . . . and, in pursuance thereof, the evolution of the mechanism of recall as a
and funding . . . 9 promulgate the necessary rules and regulations. 12 mode of removing a public officer by direct
In the case of Sanchez v. COMELEC 10, We reiterated the foregoing ruling in the case action of the people, essayed in the case
petitioners therein contended that the of Evardone v. of Garcia v. COMELEC 15:
aforegoing "Resolution No. 2272 is COMELEC 13 in this wise: Recall is a mode of removal of a public officer
unconstitutional there being no legislative Article XVIII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution by the people before the end of his term of
enactment yet on [the] mechanism of recall as expressly provides that all existing laws not office. The people's prerogative to remove a
mandated under Sec. 3, Art. X of the inconsistent with the 1987 Constitution shall public officer is an incident of their sovereign
Constitution". 11 It is true, as private respondent remain operative, until amended, repealed or power and in the absence of constitutional
asseverates, that we upheld the constitutionality revoked. Republic Act No. 7160 providing for restraint, the power is implied in all
of Resolution No. 2272, but not because we the Local Government Code of 1991, approved governmental operations. Such power has been
found nothing constitutionally infirm about the by the President on 10 October 1991, held to be indispensable for the proper
procedure of allowing the initiatory recall petition specifically repeals B.P. Blg. 337 as provided in administration of public affairs. Not
to be filed by only one person. The issue Sec. 534, Title Four of said Act. But the Local undeservedly, it is frequently described as a
in Sanchez was not this questioned procedure Government Code of 1991 will take effect only fundamental right of the people in a
but the legal basis for the exercise by the on 1 January 1992 and therefore the old Local representative democracy.
COMELEC of its rule-making power in the Government Code (B.P. Blg. 337) is still the law Recall as a mode of removal of elective local
alleged absence of a grant of such power by an applicable to the present case. officials made its maiden appearance in section
enabling statute on recall. Thus we ruled: xxx xxx xxx 2 of Article XI entitled Local Government, viz.:
While it is true that Sec. 3, Art. X of the Chapter (Sections 54 to 59) of B.P. Blg. 337 Sec. 2. The Batasang Pambansa shall enact a
Constitution mandates the Congress to enact a provides for the mechanism for recall of local local government code which may not thereafter
local government code providing among others elective officials. Section 59 expressly be amended except by a majority vote of all its
for an effective mechanism of recall, nothing in authorizes the respondent COMELEC to Members, defining a more responsive and
said provision could be inferred the repeal of BP conduct and supervise the process of and accountable local government structure with an
337, the local government code existing prior to election on recall and in the exercise of such effective system of recall . . .
the adoption of the 1987 Constitution. Sec. 3, powers, promulgate the necessary rules and The Batasang Pambansa then enacted BP 337
Art. X of the Constitution merely provides that regulations. . . . Thus, pursuant to the rule- entitled, "The Local Government Code of 1983.
the local government code to be enacted by making power vested in respondent COMELEC, Section 54 of its Chapter 3 provided only one
Congress shall be "more responsive" than the it promulgated Resolution No. 2272 on 23 May mode of initiating the recall elections of local
one existing at present. Until such time that a 1990. election officials, i.e., by petition of at least
more responsive and effective local government We therefore rule that Resolution No. 2272 twenty-five percent (25%) of the total number of
code is enacted, the present code shall remain promulgated by respondent COMELEC is valid registered voters in the local government unit
in full force and effect. Thus, under Sec. 3, Art. and constitutional. Consequently, the respondent concerned . . . .
XVIII, (a)ll existing laws, decrees, executive COMELEC had the authority to approve the
Our legal history does not reveal any instance
orders, proclamations, letters of instructions and petition for recall and set the date for the signing of
when this power of recall as provided by BP 337
other executive issuances not inconsistent with said petition. 14
was exercised by our people.
this Constitution shall remain operative until In Sanchez and Evardone, the COMELEC-
In February, 1986, however, our people more
amended, repealed, or revoked. prescribed procedure of (1) allowing the recall
than exercised their right of recall for they
resorted to revolution and they booted out of voters, the petition must contain the names of at provision requiring the number of petition signers
office the highest elective officials of the land. least 25% of the total number of registered to equal at least 45% of the total votes case in the
The successful use of people power to remove voters in whose behalf only one person may last general election for mayor as a further attempt
public officials who have forfeited the trust of the sign the petition in the meantime. to insure that an official will not have to defend his
electorate led to its firm institutionalization of the We cannot sanction the procedure of the filing of policies against frivolous attacks launched by a
1987 Constitution. Its Article XIII expressly the recall petition by a number of people less small percentage of disenchanted electors. 20
recognized the Role and Rights of People's than the foregoing 25% statutory requirement, Along the same lines, the Supreme Court of
Organizations . . . . much less, the filing thereof by just one person, Colorado held in the case of Bernzen, v. City of
Section 3 of its Article X also reiterated the as in the instant case, since this is indubitably Boulder 21 that:
mandate for Congress to enact a local government violative of clear and categorical provisions of [t]he framers, by requiring that a recall petition
code which "shall provide for a more responsive subsisting law. contain the signatures of at least 25% of all votes
and accountable local government structure cast in the last election for all candidates for the
Our legislators did not peg the voter requirement
instituted through a system of decentralization with position which the person sought to be recalled
at 25% out of caprice or in a vacuum. They
effective mechanisms of recall, initiative and occupies, assured that a recall election will not be
knew that this is the requirement under a held in response to the wishes of a small and
referendum . . . . In response to this constitutional majority of the constitutions and recall statutes
call, Congress enacted R.A. 7160, otherwise unrepresentative minority. However, once at least
in various American states to the same extent 25% of the electorate have expressed their
known as the Local Government Code of 1991,
that they were aware of the rationale therefor. dissatisfaction, the constitution reserves the recall
which took effect on January 1, 1992." 16
While recall was intended to be an effective and power to the will of the electorate. 22
Section 69 (d) of the Local Government Code of
speedy remedy to remove an official who is not And in the case of Wallace v. Tripp 23, the
1991 expressly provides that "recall of any
giving satisfaction to the electorate regardless of Supreme Court of Michigan echoed the
elective . . . municipal . . . official may also be
whether or not he is discharging his full duty to foregoing posturings in this wise:
validly initiated upon petition of at least twenty-
the best of his ability and as his conscience Much of what has been said to justify a limit
five percent (25%) of the total number of
dictates 18 it is a power granted to the people upon recall clearly not provided or contemplated
registered voters in the local government unit
who, in concert, desire to change their leaders by the Constitution has revealed fears about an
concerned during the election in which the local
for reasons only they, as a collective, can justify. irresponsible electorate . . . . A much cited
official sought to be recalled was elected". The
In other words, recall must be pursued by the Nebraska case pertaining to a Nebraska recall
law is plain and unequivocal as to what initiates
people, not just by one disgruntled loser in the statute provides some answers which are
recall proceedings: only a petition of at least
elections or a small percentage of disenchanted equally applicable to the Michigan constitutional
25% of the total number of registered voters,
electors. Otherwise, its purposes as a direct right of recall:
may validly initiate recall proceedings. We take
remedy of the people shall be defeated by the ill . . . Doubtless the provision requiring 30 per cent
careful note of the phrase, "petition of at least
motives of a few among them whose selfish of the electors to sign the petition before the
twenty-five percent (25%)" and point out that the
resort to recall would destabilize the community council [is] compelled to act was designed to avoid
law does not state that the petition must be
and seriously disrupt the running of government. such a contingency. The Legislature apparently
signed by at least 25% of the registered voters;
A scrutiny of the rationale underlying the time assumed that nearly one-third of the electorate
rather, the petition must be "of" or by, at least would not entail upon the taxpayers the cost of an
bar provisions and the percentage of minimum
25% of the registered voters, i.e., the petition election unless the charges made approved
voter requirement in American recall statutes,
must be filed, not by one person only, but by at themselves to their understanding and they were
unmistakably reveals the vigilance of lawmakers
least 25% of the total number of registered seriously dissatisfied with the services of the
against the abuse of the power of recall. For
voters. This is understandable, since the signing incumbent of the office. 24
instance, the Supreme Court of Illinois held in
of the petition is statutorily required to be In the instant case, this court is confronted with
the case of In Re Bower 19 that:
undertaken "before the election registrar or his a procedure that is unabashedly repugnant to
[t]he only logical reason which we can ascribe for
representative, and in the presence of a requiring the electors to wait one year before the applicable law and no less such to the spirit
representative of the official sought to be petitioning for a recall election is to prevent underlying that law. Private respondent who is a
recalled, and in a public place in the . . . premature action on their part in voting to remove lawyer, knows that Section 69 (d) of the Local
municipality . . . " 17. Hence, while the initiatory a newly elected official before having had sufficient Government Code plainly provides that recall is
recall petition may not yet contain the signatures time to evaluate the soundness of his political validly initiated by a petition of 25% of the total
of at least 25% of the total number of registered policies and decisions. We view the statutory number of registered voters. Notwithstanding
such awareness, private respondent proceeded
to file the petition for recall with only herself as
the filer and initiator. She claims in her petition
that she has, together with many others in
Tumauini, Isabela, lost confidence in the
leadership of petitioner. But the petition does not
bear the names of all these other citizens of
Tumauini who have reportedly also become
anxious to oust petitioner from the post of
mayor. There is no doubt that private
respondent is truly earnest in her cause, and the
very fact that she affixed her name in the
petition shows that she claims responsibility for
the seeming affront to petitioner's continuance
in office. But the same cannot be said of all the
other people whom private respondent claims to
have sentiments similar to hers. While the
people are vested with the power to recall their
elected officials, the same power is
accompanied by the concomitant responsibility
to see through all the consequences of the
exercise of such power, including rising above
anonymity, confronting the official sought to be
recalled, his family, his friends, and his
supporters, and seeing the recall election to its
ultimate end. The procedure of allowing just one
person to file the initiatory recall petition and
then setting a date for the signing of the petition,
which amounts to inviting and courting the
public which may have not, in the first place,
even entertained any displeasure in the
performance of the official sought to be recalled,
is not only violative of statutory law but also
tainted with an attempt to go around the law. We
can not and must not, under any and all
circumstances, countenance a circumvention of
the explicit 25% minimum voter requirement in MANUEL H. AFIADO, JASMINIO B. QUEMADO, JR.
the initiation of the recall process. AND GLESIE L. TANGONAN, petitioners,
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI is hereby (COMELEC), respondent.
GRANTED. COMELEC Resolution No. 96-2951 DECISION
is hereby DECLARED NULL and VOID and DE LEON, JR., J.:
accordingly SET ASIDE. Before us is a Petition for Mandamus with
The RESTRAINING ORDER heretofore issued Prayer for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction,
is hereby made permanent. praying for the early resolution of the petition for
Costs against private respondent. the "recall" of former Vice-Mayor Amelita S.
SO ORDERED. Navarro (currently the Mayor) of Santiago City,
which was filed with respondent Commission on Meanwhile, on July 12, 1999, while the said Panlungsod brought to it for action have
Elections (COMELEC). G.R. No. 136531 was still pending in the remained unacted unfinished (sic);
The facts are as follows: Supreme Court, petitioners Manuel H. Afiado, 8. Her alleged malfeasance of corruption while she
During the May 11, 1998 elections in Jasminio B. Quemado and Glesie L. Tangonan was still the City Mayor in acting capacity,
Santiago City, Joel Miranda became the convened the barangay officials of Santiago City specifically her direct hand in the anomalous
substitute candidate for his father, Jose who compose the Preparatory Recall Assembly acquisition of six dump trucks, a request for
"Pempe" Miranda, for the position of (PRA) at the Santiago City People's Coliseum investigation for (sic) which is pending at the
Mayor. When the ballots were counted, Joel after giving them due notice. On the same date, Office of the Ombudsman;
emerged as the winner over his opponent July 12, 1999, the PRA passed and adopted 9. Her antagonistic attitude towards development
Antonio Abaya and he was later Preparatory Recall Assembly Resolution No. 1 concerns…
proclaimed. Amelita S. Navarro also won and for the recall of Vice-Mayor Amelita S. WHEREAS, on accounts of the documented
was proclaimed as the Vice-Mayor of Santiago Navarro. The pertinent portions of the said facts and stated hereinabove the members of
City. Resolution No. 1 read as follows: the Preparatory Recall Assembly present have
On May 13, 1998, the defeated candidate, ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 1 lost, after due thought their confidence upon the
Antonio Abaya, filed before the COMELEC -oOo- incumbent City Vice Mayor Amelita S. Navarro.
against Joel Miranda a Petition to Declare Null RESOLUTION OF THE PREPARATORY NOW WHEREFORE, upon a motion duly
and Void Substitution with Prayer for Issuance RECALL ASSEMBLY OF THE BARANGAY seconded, be it -
of Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or OFFICIALS OF SANTIAGO CITY FOR THE RESOLVED, as it is
Temporary Restraining Order, docketed as SPA RECALL OF THE INCUMBENT VICE-MAYOR hereby RESOLVED to INVOKE THE
No. 98-288, which was later amended. The OF SANTIAGO CITY RESCISSION OF THE ELECTORAL
amended petition sought the declaration of the xxx xxx xxx MANDATE OF THE INCUMBENT CITY VICE-
certificate of candidacy of Jose Miranda, the WHEREAS, during the Preparatory Recall MAYOR AMELITA S. NAVARRO forLOSS OF
father of Joel, as null and void. Assembly the official acts of City Vice Mayor CONFIDENCE through a recall election to be
The petition, as amended, was granted by Navarro that brought forth the loss of confidence set by the COMMISSION ON ELECTION as
the COMELEC en banc, and consequently the in her capacity and fitness to discharge the provided for under Section 71 of the Local
election and proclamation of Joel Miranda as duties and to perform the functions of her public Government Code of 1991;
Mayor of Santiago City was annulled. This ruling office were recounted for the contemplation and xxx xxx xxx
was affirmed by the Supreme Court in a evaluation of the members present, to wit: APPROVED by the majority of the members of
Decision promulgated on July 28, 1999 in G.R. 1. Her lack of respect and due regard for superior the Preparatory Recall Assembly held on July
No. 136531, entitled "Joel Miranda vs. Antonio authority… 12, 1999 at the People's Coliseum, Santiago
Abaya and COMELEC." In that decision, we 2. Her greed for political power which worked City, Isabela.[2]
ruled that since the certificate of candidacy of against public interest and the general welfare… According to the petitioners, PRA
Jose Miranda was not valid, he could not be 3. Her lack of regard for public officials, Resolution No. 1 together with all the
validly substituted by his son, Joel Miranda, as a subordinates and lowly employees, which is reglementary requirements, has been forwarded
mayoralty candidate in Santiago City.Hence, conduct unbecoming of a public official and and submitted to the office of respondent
Joel Miranda could not be validly proclaimed as speaks of her unprofessionalism… COMELEC at Santiago City and later to its
the winner in the mayoralty elections. Vice- 4. Her constant insistence to usurp the powers or Head Office in Manila through the Provincial
Mayor Amelita S. Navarro thus became the new authority vested upon other public officials… Elections Office and Regional Elections Office.
Mayor of Santiago City by virtue of the law on 5. Her application of delaying tactics in the SP On September 9, 1999, while the subject
succession.[1] Joel Miranda filed a motion for actions on the City Government's annual Preparatory Recall Resolution No. 1 was under
reconsideration but this was denied with finality budget… evaluation in the COMELEC's Head Office, then
by the Supreme Court in a Resolution dated 6. Her disregard of parliamentary rules by imposing Vice-Mayor Amelita S. Navarro filed a petition,
September 28, 1999. her unsolicited and unnecessary opinion unto docketed as EM No. 99-006, with the
Navarro took her oath of office and the city councilors… COMELEC which sought the nullification of the
assumed her position as Mayor of Santiago City 7. Because of her preoccupation towards matters said PRA Resolution No. 1. In Navarro's
on October 11, 1999. other than those of public concerns, substantial petition, the herein petitioners Afiado, Quemado
part of the legislative tasks of the Sangguniang and Tangonan (as officers of the Preparatory
Recall Assembly of Santiago City) were Finally, on February 18, 2000, sensing the Mayor. The title itself suggests that the recall is
impleaded as the respondents therein. urgency of the situation since PRA Resolution intended for the incumbent Vice Mayor of
Hearings in EM No. 99-006 were then No. 1 was not yet acted upon by the COMELEC, Santiago City. The third paragraph of the
conducted at the COMELEC's head office. After the herein petitioners filed the present petition resolution recounted " the official acts of City
the deadline for the submission of memoranda for mandamus to compel respondent Vice Mayor Navarro that brought forth the loss
on December 1, 1999, herein petitioners as the COMELEC to resolve and deny immediately of confidence in her capacity and fitness to
respondents in that case, alleged that they were Navaro's petition, docketed therein as EM No. discharge the duties and to perform the
not informed nor were they aware of further 99-006, and in effect to give due course to and functions of her public office." And because of
developments. This prompted them to file on implement the said PRA Resolution. such acts, the assembly "RESOLVED to invoke
December 27, 1999 an Urgent Motion for the The corollary issue in the case at bench is the rescission of the electoral mandate of the
Early Resolution of the Petition (EM No. 99- whether or not an elective official who became incumbent City Vice Mayor." Clearly, the intent
006). According to the herein petitioners, the act City Mayor by legal succession can be the of the PRA as expressed in the said Resolution
of herein respondent COMELEC in not deciding subject of a recall election by virtue of a is to remove the petitioner as Vice Mayor for
the said petition violates Rule 18, Section 7 of Preparatory Recall Assembly Resolution which they already lost their confidence in her by
the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure which was passed or adopted when the said elective reason of her official acts as such. To recall,
provides that: official was still the Vice-Mayor. then, the petitioner when she is already the
Sec. 7. Period to Decide by the Commission We deny the petition. incumbent City Mayor is to deviate from the
En Banc. - Any case or matter submitted to or On March 31, 2000 respondent COMELEC expressed will of the PRA. Having, thus,
heard by the Commission en banc shall be issued and promulgated in EM No. 99-006 a succeeded to the position of City Mayor, the
decided within thirty (30) days from the date it is Resolution[4] which denied due course to the petitioner was placed beyond the reach of the
deemed submitted for decision or resolution, subject PRA Resolution No. 1. This effects of the PRA Resolution.[5]
except a motion for reconsideration of a development therefore rendered the present The specific purpose of the Preparatory
decision or resolution of a Division in Special petition for mandamus moot and academic. The Recall Assembly was to remove Amelita S.
Actions and Special cases which shall be record shows that herein petitioners' counsel of Navarro as the elected Vice-Mayor of Santiago
decided within fifteen (15) days from the date record was furnished copies of the COMELEC's City since PRA Resolution No. 1 dated July 12,
the case or matter is deemed submitted for Resolution dated March 31, 2000 by registered 1999 expressly states that "…it is hereby
decision, unless otherwise provided by law. mail on April 1, 2000. resolved to invoke the rescission of the electoral
The herein petitioners allege that the act of Anent the corollary issue as to whether or mandate of the incumbent City Vice-Mayor
respondent COMELEC in not resolving the not Mayor Navarro can be the subject of recall Amelita S. Navarro for loss of confidence
petition, EM No. 99-006, within the reglementary election by virtue of Resolution No. 1 of the through a recall election to be set by the
period constitutes neglect in the performance of Preparatory Recall Assembly which was passed Commission on Election as provided for under
its duties and responsibilities; and that the when she was still the elected City Vice-Mayor, Section 71 of the Local Government Code of
alleged inaction of respondent COMELEC will the same has become moot and academic. We 1991."[6] However, the said PRA Resolution No.
render the said case and/or PRA Resolution No. quote below the pertinent portion of the 1 is no longer applicable to her inasmuch as she
1 moot and academic inasmuch as recall COMELEC's Resolution dated March 31, 2000 has already vacated the office of Vice-Mayor on
elections cannot be undertaken anymore come in EM No. 99-006 and to which we agree, to wit: October 11, 1999 when she assumed the
June 30, 2000 pursuant to Section 74 of the The assumption by legal succession of the position of City Mayor of Santiago City.
1991 Local Government Code, which provides petitioner as the new Mayor of Santiago City is a Even if the Preparatory Recall Assembly
that: supervening event which rendered the recall were to reconvene to adopt another resolution
Sec. 74. Limitation on Recall. - proceeding against her moot and academic. A for the recall of Amelita Navarro, this time as
(a) any elective local official may be the subject perusal of the said Resolution reveals that the Mayor of Santiago City, the same would still not
of a recall election only once during his term of person subject of the recall process is a specific prosper in view of Section 74 (b) of the Local
office for loss of confidence. elective official in relation to her specific Government Code of 1991 which provides that
(b) No recall shall take place within one (1) year office. The said resolution is replete with "No recall shall take place within one (1) year
from the date of the official's assumption to statements, which leave no doubt that the from the date of the official's assumption of
office or one (1) year immediately preceding a purpose of the assembly was to recall petitioner office or one (1) year immediately preceding a
regular local election.[3] as Vice Mayor for her official acts as Vice regular election." There is no more allowable
time in the light of that law within which to hold
recall elections for that purpose. The then Vice-
Mayor Amelita S. Navarro assumed office as
Mayor of Santiago City on October 11,
1999. One year after her assumption of office as
Mayor will be October 11, 2000 which is already
within the one (1) year prohibited period
immediately preceding the next regular election
in May 2001.
WHEREFORE, the petition
for mandamus is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.