Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/175282959/Final-Cases
Timestamp: 2017-02-26 23:51:54
Document Index: 476751513

Matched Legal Cases: ['§74', '§74', '§69', '§74', '§74', '§ 74', '§74', '§74', '§74', '§74', '§74', '§ 74', '§69', '§74', '§74', 'arts 1', '§74']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinJainal vs COMELEC FACTS: Petitioner Mayor Salip Aloy Jainal and private respondent Julhatab J.Talib were candidates for Mayor of Indanan, Sulu in the 10 May 2004 elections. On May 20, 2010, the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) proclaimed Jainal as the winning candidate. On 23 May 2004, Talib filed a pre-proclamation case with the COMELEC praying for the annulment of election returns pertaining to twenty-one (21) precincts, and for his proclamation as the Mayor. Talib claimed that his official watchers were asked to leave the precincts before the counting and the preparation of the election returns. Furthermore, the election returns for these precincts did not bear the signatures of the members of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) and his official watchers, a fact which indicates that said election returns were manufactured. Talib also noted that the number of votes cast exceeded the number of voters in Precinct Nos. 33A and 34A. Jainal prayed for the dismissal of Talib’s petition, contending that the latter’s allegations were the proper subject of an election protest in the proper trial court. On March 22, 2005, the COMELEC (2nd Division) issued a Resolution, granting the petition in part, annulling the election returns from nine precincts. The proclamation of Jainal was likewise annulled. Jainal filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On September 18, 2006, the COMELEC en banc denied reconsideration but modified the resolution of its 2nd Division by declaring the election return pertaining to Precinct 9A of Barangay Adjid as valid. Talib filed the instant petition, including Ahajan as private respondent in his capacity as Vice-Mayor, who, under the provisions of the Local Government Code, will fill up the vacancy created by the annulment of petitioner’s proclamation. Vice-Mayor Hussi Ahajan Ahajan took his oath and assumed office as Acting Mayor pursuant to the COMELEC resolutions of 22 March 2005 and 18 September 2006. Jainal likewise filed Extreme Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation before the COMELEC EN BANC praying for an order suspending the implementation and execution of the 22 March 2005 and 18 September 2006 COMELEC resolutions. On 5 October 2006, the COMELEC granted the Extreme Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation of Jainal and ordered Hussi Ahajan (Vice Mayor) to cease and desist from assuming the position of Acting Mayor. Ahajan questions the validity of the 5 October 2006 Order of the COMELEC which directed him, as ViceMayor, or any ranking councilor to cease and desist from assuming the position of Acting Mayor. ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC rightfully issued the 5 October 2006 Order directing the Vice Mayor to cease and desist from assuming the position of Acting Mayor.
HELD: No. Under Sec. 13, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a decision or resolution of the Commission en banc in Special Actions and Special Cases shall become final and executory after five (5) days from its promulgation unless restrained by this Court. The effects of the 22 March 2005 and 18 September 2006 resolutions can no longer be suspended not only because the resolutions are already final and executory but also because the power to suspend enforcement lies only with this Court. Thus, in granting the motion and ordering the Vice-Mayor or any ranking councilor to cease and desist from assuming the position of Acting Mayor of Indanan, Sulu, it committed what amounts to a usurpation of this Courts prerogative that is to issue the TRO which is precisely one of the reliefs sought in the present petition. It behooved the COMELEC en banc to deny or at least refuse to take action on the Extreme Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation. With the nullification of petitioners proclamation, the position of Municipal Mayor of Indanan, Sulu is vacant. The Local Government Code is clear on the matter of succession. Sec. 44. Permanent Vacancies in the Offices of the Governor, Vice Governor, Mayor, and Vice Mayor. ─ If a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the governor or mayor, the vice-governor or vice-mayor concerned shall become the governor or mayor. If a permanent vacancy occurs in the offices of the governor, vice governor, mayor or vice mayor, the highest ranking sanggunian member or, in case of his permanent inability, the second highest-ranking sanggunian member, shall become the governor, vice governor, mayor or vice mayor as the case may be. Subsequent vacancies in the said office shall be filled automatically by the other sanggunian members according to their ranking as defined herein: (b) If a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the punong barangay, the highest ranking sanggunian barangay member or, in case of his permanent inability, the second highest ranking sanggunian member, shall become the punong barangay. (c) A tie between or among the highest ranking sanggunian members shall be resolved by the drawing of lots. (d) The successors as defined herein shall serve only the unexpired terms of their predecessors. For purposes of this Chapter, a permanent vacancy arises when an elective local official fills a higher vacant office, refuses to assume office, fails to qualify, dies, is removed from office, voluntarily resigns, or is otherwise permanently incapacitated to discharge the functions of his office. Verily, the vacancy created by the nullification of petitioner’s proclamation is in the nature of a permanent vacancy and may be qualified as a permanent incapacity to discharge the functions of his office. Ahajans assumption of the office of Mayor should be understood as subject to the result of the recount to be conducted in accordance with the issuances of the COMELEC. Thus, there is an immediate need for the COMELEC to speedily ascertain the true will of the electorate in the eight (8) precincts whose election returns were nullified. (G.R. No. 174551, March 7, 2007)
200 SCRA 271. . that they enacted and approved Kapasiyahan Blg. If two of them will be designated to take over the offices of the mayor and vice-mayor. suspension of a public officer upon the filing of a valid information is mandatory (People v. "We do not accept the contention because: firstly. In fact. to the certain shattering of the peace and order thereat. i. No. (or "Cooperative" for brevity) and transferred it to the Municipality of Muntinlupa. BUNYE v. nothing can possibly be compromised or hampered by their remaining in office.A. as amended. is unconstitutional as the suspension provided thereunder partake of a penalty even before a judgment of conviction is reached.
. since the said proceedings will no longer be for the purpose of receiving evidence on factual issues but only to hear arguments. or tamper with office records under their control. 272.R. the Sangguniang Bayan will be without a quorum to perform its functions. CRIMINAL LAW. against an erring local official.. OBJECTIVE. CASE AT BAR. the fear of the Court that." "All told. Act 3019. — Another point asserted by the petitioners is that their preventive suspension will "sow havoc and confusion in the government of the Municipality of Muntinlupa. 135 SCRA 372).] IGNACIO R. 110216. Inc. the proceedings against the petitioners before the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan involves no factual issue but only the legal question of whether or not the cancellation by the petitioners of the Cooperative’s subsisting lease contract over the Muntinlupa Public Market was justified by public interest or general welfare.[G. PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION OF THE ACCUSED PENDING TRIAL. 201 SCRA 417. "Petitioner at the outset contends that Section 13 of Rep. ESCAREAL SYLLABUS 1. position papers or memoranda. the Sandiganbayan did not abuse its discretion in ordering the preventive suspension of the petitioners. 45 and wrested the management and operation of the new public market in Alabang from the Kilusang Bayan sa Paglilingkod ng mga Magtitinda ng Bagong Pamilihan ng Muntinpula. if any. Section 13 of R. G.. 426. 1988. 2. under Section 13." the petitioners insist that as no such reason for their suspension exists. Albano. No. unless they are preventively suspended. any apprehension that the petitioners might intimidate or coerce prospective witnesses against them. ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES. Act 3019 is mandatory once the validity of the information is determined (People v. In Gonzaga v. Sandiganbayan. The Court finds no merit in those arguments. this Court ruled that such preventive suspension is mandatory. 3019. having admitted repeatedly in no less than four (4) pleadings filed in related proceedings and found in the records of this case.e. Moreover. then the order suspending them should be set aside as a grave abuse of the court’s discretion. that the sole objective of an administrative suspension is "to prevent the accused from hampering the normal course of the investigation with his influence and authority over possible witnesses or to keep him off the records and other evidence" and "to assist prosecutors in firming up a case.. — The petitioners’ main argument against their preventive suspension is that it is unjustified or unnecessary for. MANDATORY. has no more validity. that they did commit the acts constituting the offense charged against them. 422. ID. L-45376-77.R. 1993. Act 3019. CA." Adverting to this Court’s observation in Ganzon v. suspension particularly under Section 13 of Rep. . there are no ifs and buts about it. preventive suspension is not violative of the Constitution as it is not a penalty. Absent any need for testimonial and/or documentary evidence. and is thus violative of her constitutional right to be presumed innocent. Consequently. July 26. September 10. unequivocally provides that the accused public officials "shall be suspended from office" while the criminal prosecution is pending in court. the local government would be paralyzed. ID. vice-mayor and six (6) councilors." Clearly.. CA. on the purely legal issue of whether the rescission of the Cooperative’s market contract is a valid exercise of police power by the municipality. Rep." for without a mayor. as amended. Only eight (8) of the present members of the Sangguniang Bayan will remain to discharge the duties and responsibilities of that body. 163 SCRA 511) . ID. No. they may tamper with the records of that transaction. is "more imaginary than real. ASSOCIATE JUSTICES ROMEO M.
Metro Manila. the cooperative had invested Thirteen Million Four Hundred Seventy Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Pesos (P13. and the Kilusang Bayan sa Paglilingkod ng mga Magtitinda ng Bagong Pamilihan ng Muntinlupa. ID. considering that. between the Municipality of Muntinlupa. 3019 which provides:jgc:chanrobles. 13. the above-named accused all public officers being the Mayor (Ignacio R. RR Section-Phases I and II.. Bulay. there was a valid and subsisting lease contract executed on September 2. Metro Manila. a Cooperative represented by its General Manager then. The Solicitor General correctly replied that it is not for the petitioners to say that their admissions are all the evidence that the prosecution will need to hold up its case against them. Rey E. which had been deposited in trust to the Municipal Government. Municipal Attorney (Victor C. Amado G. Smith).00 only — said offense having been committed by the accused in their performance of official duties. despite the fact that. Joaquin. . 1993 a resolution suspending them pendente lite from public office pursuant to Section 13 of Republic Act No.ph "Sec. . and despite also the warnings from COA Chairman Domingo and MMC Governor Cruz ‘that appropriate legal steps be taken by the MMC toward the rescission/annulment of the contract . ID. 1988. . Mozo. advantage or preference in the discharge of their official functions as aforesaid.. Roman E. Tensuan. Constantino. Rufino J. Municipal Councilors (Carlos C. Metro Manila. 1993 by the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan preventively suspending them from office pending their trial for violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act under an information alleging that:jgc:chanrobles. Fresnedi).. and in effect. Metro Manila. renewable for another 25 years. Alejandro L. asphalting of the roads surrounding the market place." This petition for certiorari and prohibition was filed by the petitioners. while in the performance of their official functions. the Sandiganbayan issued on May 11. CANNOT BE CANCELLED BY MERE ADMISSION OF THE ACCUSED OF THE CRIME CHARGE.000. Rollo. Lucio B. Muntinlupa." (pp. — There is no merit in the petitioners’ argument that because they have repeatedly admitted that they had committed the acts constituting the offense charged against them. "The prosecution must be given the opportunity to gather and prepare the facts for trial under conditions which would ensure nonintervention and noninterference for ninety (90) straight days from petitioners’ camp. Martinez. and over the opposition of the accused. unlawfully and feloniously enact Kapasiyahan Bilang 45 on August 1. 34-36. and thereafter took over the operation and Management of the aforesaid public market starting August 19.ph "That on or about August 1988. in conspiracy with one another and taking advantage of their official positions. and in consideration thereof. did then and there wilfully. unwarranted benefits. ID. through evident bad faith or gross inexcussable negligence. in the municipality of Muntinlupa.900. Nolasco L.’ which forcible take-over had caused undue injury to the aforesaid Cooperative members. forcibly took possession of the New Public Market in Alabang. and gave the Municipal Government. Philippines.). Espeleta.479. who are the municipal mayor. Perez. On motion of the Public Prosecutor. or intimidate prospective witnesses against them. (Kilusang Magtitinda for brevity). to protect the interest of the Government. Jr. Inc. Diaz and Roger C. said accused. to evaluate throughly and study further the case to preclude possible damages of financial liabilities which the Court may adjudge against that municipality as an off-shoot of the case.com. there is no cause for apprehension that they might tamper with the records in the offices under their control. Bunye).com. The petition seeks to annul the resolution promulgated on May 11.’ and ‘. Epifanio a. represented by the former Municipal Mayor Santiago Carlos. Barangay Chairman of Putatan (Rufino Ibe) and Barangay Chairman of Alabang (Nestor Santos).00) in connection therewith. 1988. Suspension and loss of benefits. and for the purpose. Nemesio Q. Vice-Mayor (Jaime D. — Any public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a
. the Cooperative members had introduced improvements. and on the basis thereof. Metro Manila. Aguinaldo). 1985 for a term of 25 years. .3. the cooperative was extended the above long term lease to manage and operate the public market and to pay a monthly rental of P35. all in the municipality of Muntinlupa. including the construction of the ‘KBS’ building. the herein accused themselves. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. vicemayor and incumbent councilors or members of the Sanguniang Bayan of Muntinlupa. Niefes.
If two of them will be designated to take over the offices of the mayor and vicemayor. 3019. Adverting to this Court’s observation in Ganzon v. the fear of the Court that. No. the public respondents’ comment thereon. they filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition wherein they pray for the issuance of a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction to stay the implementation of the assailed order or resolution. having admitted repeatedly in no less than four (4) pleadings filed in related proceedings and found in the records of this case." the petitioners insist that as no such reason for their suspension exists. or tamper with office records under their control. Section 13 of R.valid information under this Act or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery is pending in court. is "more imaginary than real" (p. (or "Cooperative" for brevity) and transferred it to the Municipality of Muntinlupa. on the purely legal issue of whether the rescission of the Cooperative’s market contract is a valid exercise of police power by the municipality. any apprehension that the petitioners might intimidate or coerce prospective witnesses against them. Rollo).
. 200 SCRA 271. against an erring local official. the Court is unconvinced that the petition ought to be granted. he shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law.. The petitioners’ main argument against their preventive suspension is that it is unjustified or unnecessary for. ordered the public respondents to comment on the petition. if any. unless they are preventively suspended. that the sole objective of an administrative suspension is "to prevent the accused from hampering the normal course of the investigation with his influence and authority over possible witnesses or to keep him off the records and other evidence" and "to assist prosecutors in firming up a case. without granting the temporary restraining order prayed for. and the petitioners’ reply to the comment. Upon receipt of the petition. Inc. shall be suspended from office. to the certain shattering of the peace and order thereat" (p. 45 and wrested the management and operation of the new public market in Alabang from the Kilusang Bayan sa Paglilingkod ng mga Magtitinda ng Bagong Pamilihan ng Muntinlupa. The Court finds no merit in those arguments. the Court. since the said proceedings will no longer be for the purpose of receiving evidence on factual issues but only to hear arguments. After deliberating on the petition. nothing can possibly be compromised or hampered by their remaining in office. Consequently. 13." library The petitioners fruitlessly sought a reconsideration of the order of suspension. In due time. for without a mayor. he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension.A. the Sangguniang Bayan will be without a quorum to perform its functions. Moreover. position papers or memoranda. that they did commit the acts constituting the offense charged against them. unless in the meantime administrative proceedings have been filed against him.e. has no more validity. 16. unequivocally provides that the accused public officials "shall be suspended from office" while the criminal prosecution is pending in court. i. the local government would be paralyzed. that they enacted and approved Kapasiyahan Blg. but if he is acquitted. Should he be convicted by final judgment. vice-mayor and six (6) councilors. CA. Only eight (8) of the present members of the Sangguniang Bayan will remain to discharge the duties and responsibilities of that body. Another point asserted by the petitioners is that their preventive suspension will "sow havoc and confusion in the government of the Municipality of Muntinlupa. as amended. Absent any need for testimonial and/or documentary evidence. Rollo). the proceedings against the petitioners before the Second Division of the Sandiganbayn involves no factual issue but only the legal question of whether or not the cancellation by the petitioners of the Cooperative’s subsisting lease contract over the Muntinlupa Public Market was justified by public interest or general welfare. then the order suspending them should be set aside as a grave abuse of the court’s discretion. they may tamper with the records of that transaction. 272.
COMELEC. as amended.R." library "All told. No. Act 3019. Act 3019 is mandatory once the validity of the information is determined (People v. under Section 13. Solicitor General’s Comment). . vice-mayor and six councilors in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Code. Et Al. "We do not accept the contention because: firstly. 114 SCRA 454). preventive suspension is not violative of the Constitution as it is not penalty. 107854 and Samad v. 13. There is no merit in the petitioners’ argument that because they have repeatedly admitted that they had committed the acts constituting the offense charged against them. is remote. the petition for certiorari and prohibition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The President or his alter ego.R. CA. 422. R. Rep. 108642. "The prosecution must be given the opportunity to gather and prepare the facts for trial under conditions which would ensure nonintervention and noninterference for ninety (90) straight days from petitioners’ camp" (p. suspension of a public officer upon the filing of a valid information is mandatory (People v. 426. L-45376-77. Sanchez v. or intimidate prospective witnesses against them. Alban. In fact. 7160 (Samad v. G. there are no ifs and buts about it. 163 SCRA 511) . suspension particularly under Section 13 of Rep. the Secretary of Interior and Local Government. COMELEC. this Court ruled that such preventive suspension is mandatory. 1993. 1988. Et Al..
. Act 3019. WHEREFORE.A. 201 SCRA 417. the Sandiganbayan did not abuse its discretion in ordering the preventive suspension of the petitioners. there is no cause for apprehension that they might tamper with the records in the offices under their control. and is thus violative of her constitutional right to be presumed innocent.. is unconstitutional as the suspension provided thereunder partake of a penalty even before a judgment of conviction is reached. will surely know how to deal with the problem of filling up the temporarily vacant positions of mayor. No. No." Clearly. "Petitioner at the outset contends that Section 13 of Rep.R. The Solicitor General correctly replied that it is not for the petitioners to say that their admissions are all the evidence that the prosecution will need to hold up its case against them. Costs against the petitioners. 135 SCRA 372). The fear of the petitioners that the municipal government of Muntinlupa will be paralyzed for ninety (90) days when they (petitioners) are preventively suspended. There will still remain eight (8) councilors who can meet as the Sangguniang Bayan. G. .In Gonzaga v. G. July 26. Sandiganbayan. July 16. Executive Secretary.
Any such election shall be conducted in the manner and under the rules on special elections. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS SYLLABUS 1.P. G. specifically repeals B. the former Local Government Code.P. 337 CONTINUE TO BE EFFECTIVE PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE NEW LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.R. EXISTING LAWS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE 1987 CONSTITUTION REMAIN OPERATIVE UNTIL AMENDED. It belongs to the realm of politics where only the people are the judge. 55 (2) of B. which states. The Election Code contains no special provisions on the manner of conducting elections for the recall of a local official. When Recall May
. v. the effectiveness of B. But the Local Government Code of 1991 will take effect only on 1 January 1992 and therefore the old Local Government Code (B. 128 SCRA 6. NOLLEDO. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. — Chapter 3 (Sections 54 to 59) of B. pursuant to the rule-making power vested in respondent COMELEC.P.. BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. COMPLEMENTARY TO RIGHT TO ELECT OR APPOINT. LIMITATION. No. — Article XVIII. 337.P. 55. Executive Secretary.] ALEXANDER R. Blg. approved by the President on 10 October 1991. until amended. which is Batas Pambansa Blg. Thus — "MR. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS [G. No. It is included in the right of suffrage. 55628. unless otherwise provided by law or rule of the COMELEC. Blg. 1991. Section 59 expressly authorizes the respondent COMELEC to conduct and supervise the process of and election on recall and in the exercise of such powers. ID. — Recall at this time is no longer possible because of the limitation provided in Sec. Who May Be Recalled.. It is also predicated upon the idea that a public office is ‘burdened’ with public interests and that the representatives of the people holding public offices are simply agents or servants of the people with definite powers and specific duties to perform and to follow if they wish to remain in their respective offices. RIGHT TO RECALL. ID. 337 was expressly recognized in the proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. Title Four of said Act. 534. Prior to the enactment of the new Local Government Code. 337 shall continue to be effective until repealed by the Congress of the Philippines.[G. VESTED WITH AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT AND SUPERVISE ELECTIONS FOR THE RECALL OF LOCAL OFFICIAL UNDER SEC. 59 OF B. there is no turning back the clock. BLG. Petitioner. Ground for Recall. 7160 providing for the Local Government Code of 1991. 1984. ID. Republic Act No. No. Blg. 94010. it promulgated Resolution No. 337 as provided in Sec. Blg. December 2. APELADO Petitioners.P. 337) is still the law applicable to the present case.P. — As held in Paredes v. Besides. 95063. 1991. pending the enactment of a new Local Government Code under the report of the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions. "The right to recall is complementary to the right to elect or appoint. "SEC.R. ID. 4. v. 3.] FELIPE EVARDONE. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS." Whether or not the electorate of the Municipality of Sulat has lost confidence in the incumbent mayor is a political question. 2272 on 23 May 1990. promulgate the necessary rules and regulations."cralaw virtua1aw library 2. December 2. ISSUE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT ELECTORATE HAS LOST CONFIDENCE IN THE INCUMBENT MAYOR IS A POLITICAL QUESTION.. 337. Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution expressly provides that all existing laws not inconsistent with the 1987 Constitution shall remain operative. It is based on the theory that the electorate must maintain a direct and elastic control over public functionaries.R. march 2. 337 provides for the mechanism for recall of local elective officials.. Blg. Thus. REVOKED OR REPEALED. repealed or revoked.
approving the recommendation of Mr. 337). Sec. .R. Vedasto B. pursuant to respondent COMELEC’s Resolution No.P. the respondent COMELEC issued Resolution No. G. 1992. Alexander R.R. 94010. Eastern Samar to hold and conduct the signing of the petition for recall of the incumbent Mayor of Sulat. Sumbilla.) filed a petition for the recall of Evardone with the Office of the Local Election Registrar. effective immediately and continuing until further orders from the Court. Eastern Samar. 94010. But it was only on 15 July 1990 that the field agent of the respondent COMELEC received the telegraphic notice of the TRO — a day after the completion of the signing process sought to be temporarily stopped by the TRO. On 10 July 1990. which was docketed as G. 94010 is a petition for prohibition with an urgent prayer for immediate issuance of a restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the holding of the signing of the petition for recall on 14 July 1990. Eastern Samar. as provided for in Article XVIII. Thus. Aclan and Noel A. Evardone filed before this Court a petition for prohibition with urgent prayer for immediate issuance of restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. on the basis of the temporary restraining order issued by this Court on 12 July 1990 in G. 2272 dated 23 May 1990. Eastern Samar for the recall of Mayor Evardone of said municipality and en banc Resolution No.not be Held. Apelado.R. Eastern Samar. Nival (hereinafter referred to as Apelado. the notice of TRO was received by the Central Office of the respondent COMELEC. Municipality of Sulat. G. Felipe Evardone (hereinafter referred to as Evardone) is the mayor of the Municipality of Sulat. On the same day (12 July 1990). No.
. 90-0557. — . On 14 February 1990. He assumed office immediately after proclamation. 90-0777 denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. Blg. Et. to hold an election on recall approximately seven (7) months before the regular local election will be violative of the above provisions of the applicable Local Government Code (B. on 14 July 1990. to hold on 14 July 1990 the signing of the petition for recall against incumbent Mayor Evardone of the said Municipality. These two (2) consolidated petitions have their origin in en banc Resolution No. In a meeting held on 20 June 1990. this Court resolved to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO).R. 90-0557 issued by the respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) dated 20 June 1990 which approved the recommendation of the Election Registrar of Sulat. Election Registrar of Sulat. No. 90-0660 of the respondent COMELEC nullifying the signing process held on 14 July 1990 in Sulat. No. (2) No recall shall take place within two years from the date of the official’s assumption of office or one year immediately preceding a regular local election. Victorino E. No. or more specifically." The Constitution has mandated a synchronized national and local election prior to 30 June 1992. . ordering the respondents to cease and desist from holding the signing of the petition for recall on 14 July 1990. On 12 July 1990. Al. 95063 is a petition for review on certiorari which seeks to set aside en banc Resolution No. 5 — on the second Monday of May. having been elected to the position during the 1988 local elections.
. the respondent COMELEC denied said motion holding that: ". The COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in approving the recommendation of the Election Registrar of Sulat. the present petition for review on certiorari in G. salaries. The COMELEC likewise committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in promulgating Resolution No.R.R. the respondent COMELEC nullified the signing process held in Sulat.. No. and not upon its agent in the field. The respondent COMELEC. powers and functions and duties of local officials.R. Eastern Samar to hold the signing of the petition for recall without giving petitioner his day in court. 90-0660 of respondent COMELEC. and provide for the qualifications. and referendum. 94010 dated 12 July 1990 but received by the COMELEC field agent only on 15 July 1990. term. 95063 which seeks to set aside en banc Resolution No. 337 (Local Government Code). 2272 promulgated by respondent COMELEC on 23 May 1990 by virtue of its powers under the Constitution and Batas Pambansa Blg. allocate among the different local government units their powers. the Commission on Election. 94010. Apelado. avers that: "The constitutional provision does not refer only to a local government code which is in futurum but also in
. 2272 on May 22.e. No.R. The critical date to consider is the service or notice of the Restraining Order on 12 July 1990 upon the principal i. The principal issue for resolution by the Court is the constitutionality of Resolution No. No.R. 95063. 94010). No." 2 In G.R. city and municipal officials. in its Comment (G.In an en banc resolution (No. The resolution embodies the general rules and regulations on the recall of elective provincial. filed a motion for reconsideration and on 29 August 1990. appointment and removal. Et Al. 90-0660) dated 26 July 1990. during the period material to this case. responsibilities. Eastern Samar for being violative of the order (the TRO) of this Court in G. Apelado. . 94010. Et Al. initiative. election. no local government code enacted by Congress after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution nor any law for that matter on the subject of recall of elected government officials. 337 in favor of one to be enacted by Congress. II." Since there was. Evardone maintains that Article X. In G. Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution repealed Batas Pambansa Blg. No." 1 Hence.. No. Evardone contends that: "I. Evardone contends that there is no basis for COMELEC Resolution No. and resources. Said Section 3 provides: law library "SECTION 3. The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization with effective mechanisms of recall. 2272 and that the recall proceedings in the case at bar is premature. raises the issue of whether or not the signing process of the petition for recall held on 14 July 1990 has been rendered nugatory by the TRO issued by this court in G. and all other matters relating to the organization and operation of the local units. 1990 which is null and void for being unconstitutional.
pending the enactment of a new Local Government Code under the report of the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions. Section 59 expressly authorizes the respondent COMELEC to conduct and supervise the process of and election on recall and in the exercise of such powers. 2034 fixing the date for such plebiscite on December 6. unless otherwise provided by law or rule of the COMELEC. Blg. What is sought in this suit is to enjoin respondents particularly respondent Commission from implementing Batas Pambansa Blg. We therefore rule that Resolution No. Executive Secretary to the President of the Philippines. 2272 on 23 May 1990. specifically ‘from conducting. Paredes. Blg.esse. v.P.. attributable solely to petitioners. Thus — "MR. In Governor Zosimo J . approved by the President on 10 October 1991. Blg. Title Four of said Act. 5 Thus. 6 this Court held: ". Republic Act No. holding and undertaking the plebiscite provided for in said act. Hence. Besides.chanrobles. which is Batas Pambansa Blg. the former Local Government Code. 337 shall continue to be effective until repealed by the Congress of the Philippines. 86. Article XVIII." We find the contention of the respondent COMELEC meritorious. they are operative. pursuant to the rule-making power vested in respondent COMELEC.com : virtual law library The Election Code contains no special provisions on the manner of conducting elections for the recall of a local official. The plebiscite was duly held. The adoption of the 1987 Constitution did not abrogate the provisions of BP No. NOLLEDO. specifically repeals B. 1980 had been issued as far as back as November 11. . it promulgated Resolution No. rules a certain provision thereof is clearly irreconciliable with the provisions of the 1987 Constitution. But the Local Government Code of 1991 will take effect only on 1 January 1992 and therefore the old Local Government Code (B. 337. Blg. 1980. promulgate the necessary rules and regulations. 2272.P. In this case. The certificate of canvass and proclamation of the
. 337 as provided in Sec. . 337) is still the law applicable to the present case. There was a plea for a restraining order. repealed or revoked. the effectiveness of B. Any such election shall be conducted in the manner and under the rules on special elections. the existing Local Government Code remains operative. Consequently. there was no time even to consider such a plea. Prior to the enactment of the new Local Government Code. Pending the enactment of the amendatory law. 337 was expressly recognized in the proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. 2272 promulgated by respondent COMELEC is valid and constitutional. until amended." 4 Chapter 3 (Sections 54 to 59) of B. 1980. Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution expressly provides that all existing laws not inconsistent with the 1987 Constitution shall remain operative. It merely sets forth the guidelines which Congress will consider in amending the provisions of the present Local Government Code.P. Due to this delay in filing this suit. The next issue for resolution is whether or not the TRO issued by this Court rendered nugatory the signing process of the petition for recall held pursuant to Resolution No. Al. the respondent COMELEC had the authority to approve the petition for recall and set the date for the signing of said petition. Sections 54 to 59 of Batas Pambansa No. but Proclamation No.P. Et Al. 534. 337 provides for the mechanism for recall of local elective officials. 7160 providing for the Local Government Code of 1991. 337 are not inconsistent with the provision of the Constitution. Et.’ The petition was filed on December 5.
As a result.P. (2) No recall shall take place within two years from the date of the official’s assumption of office or one year immediately preceding a regular local election. It is based on the theory that the electorate must maintain a direct and elastic control over public functionaries. according to the statute. Thus.P. 337. As attested by Election Registrar Sumbilla. 55 (2) of B. In the present case. the records show that Evardone knew of the Notice of Recall filed by Apelado. When Recall May not be Held. such municipality was created. Blg. There were only 40 votes cast against.result disclosed that out of 2. As held in Paredes v.
." 10 The constituents have made a judgment and their will to recall the incumbent mayor (Evardone) has already been ascertained and must be afforded the highest respect." 8 Whether or not the electorate of the Municipality of Sulat has lost confidence in the incumbent mayor is a political question. There is no turning back the clock. recall at this time is no longer possible because of the limitation provided in Sec. yet. Ground for Recall.409 total votes cast in such plebiscite. Et." library The Constitution has mandated a synchronized national and local election prior to 30 June 1992. "The right to recall is complementary to the right to elect or appoint. to hold an election on recall approximately seven (7) months before the regular local election will be violative of the above provisions of the applicable Local Government Code (B. However. Blg. Indeed. . But despite his urgent prayer for the issuance of a TRO. 1992. Sec. "SECTION 55. Evardone of said municipality is valid and has legal effect. It is included in the right of suffrage. 11 Thus. 2.368 votes were cast in favor of the creation of the new municipality. both petitions are DISMISSED for having become moot and academic. as provided for in Article XVIII. Who May Be Recalled. — . Eastern Samar or about 34% signed the petition for recall. he was not vigilant in following up and determining the outcome of such notice. which states. . 337). The signing process was undertaken by the constituents of the Municipality of Sulat and its Election Registrar in good faith and without knowledge of the TRO earlier issued by this Court. Evardone alleges that it was only on or about 3 July 1990 that he came to know about the Resolution of respondent COMELEC setting the signing of the petition for recall on 14 July 1990. will be named municipality of Aguinaldo. Evardone filed the petition for prohibition only on 10 July 1990. 9 "Loss of confidence is the formal withdrawal by an electorate of their trust in a person’s ability to discharge his office previously bestowed on him by the same electorate.050 of the 6. this Court issued a TRO on 12 July 1990 but the signing of the petition for recall took place just the same on the scheduled date through no fault of the respondent COMELEC and Apelado. for the recall of Mayor Felipe P. ACCORDINGLY.090 registered voters of Sulat. or more specifically. Executive Secretary 7 there is no turning back the clock. It is also predicated upon the idea that a public office is ‘burdened’ with public interests and that the representatives of the people holding public offices are simply agents or servants of the people with definite powers and specific duties to perform and to follow if they wish to remain in their respective offices. Eastern Samar. The moot and academic character of this petition is thus apparent. Al. Et. about 2. which. Al. It belongs to the realm of politics where only the people are the judge. 5 — on the second Monday of May. the signing process held last 14 July 1990 in Sulat. on or about 21 February 1990 as evidenced by the Registry Return Receipt.
a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence. REMEDIAL LAW. 1997. v. GENERALLY CONCLUSIVE ON APPEAL. The charges of graft and corruption. and not as members of the Liga ng mga Barangay. RECALL ELECTIONS UNDER SEC. EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN ADMINISTRATIVE AND QUASIJUDICIAL BODIES. after deliberation reported. entailing added cost and waste of effort. or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.. therefore. and the determination of the same is therefore a function of the COMELEC. In sum. Moreover. ID. — Petitioner’s insistence. 1996. 7160. — In cases filed before administrative and quasi-judicial bodies.R. — Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support conclusion. It means such evidence which affords a substantial basis from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred. Any doubt as to the propriety of the proceedings held during the recall assembly should be laid to rest. It is not an organization of barangay captains and kagawads. — Needless to state. REMEDIAL LAW. 3.[G. EVIDENCE. they are conclusive. is misplaced. in the record in accordance with the existing law. we are persuaded strongly by the principle that the findings of fact of administrative bodies charged with their specific field of expertise. The recall proceedings. No. the issue of propriety of the notices sent to the PRA members is factual in nature. are afforded great weight by the courts. and the in the interest of stability of the governmental structure. and cannot override the substantiated findings of the respondent COMELEC. are conclusive upon the court. Thus. The factual findings of the COMELEC. FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE COMELEC. March 11. the Punong Barangays and Sangguniang Barangay members conveyed and voted as members of the Preparatory Recall Assembly of the City of Caloocan. ID. based on its own assessments and duly supported by gathered evidence.. It just so happens that the personalities representing the barangays in the Liga are the very members of the Preparatory Recall Assembly. 127066.
. violence and irregularities. the Court should not disturb the same. Petitioner observes that "respondent Liga is an organization of all barangays. 69 AND 70 OF R. In the absence of patent error. more so in the absence of a substantiated attack on the validity of the same. POLITICAL LAW. CONSTRUED. MALONZO. ELECTIONS. the majority of whom met on July 7. The barangays are represented in the Liga by the barangay captains as provided under Section 492 of the Local Government Code. 2. should be disturbed. that the initiation of the recall proceedings was infirm since it was convened by the Liga ng mga Barangays. and voted in favor of the resolution calling for the recall of Mayor Malonzo. THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS SYLLABUS 1. or serious inconsistencies in the findings. Petitioner. PUNONG BARANGAYS AND SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY MEMBERS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY MAY CONVENE AND VOTE AS MEMBERS OF THE PREPARATORY RECALL ASSEMBLY. cannot be denied merit on this ground. EVIDENCE. to order the COMELEC to repeat the process of determining the notices’ propriety would be sanctioning a recycling of administrative functions. 4. It also provides that the Kagawad may represent the barangay in the absence of the barangay chairman. before and during the session of the preparatory recall assembly are largely uncorroborated. and in the absence of substantial showing that such findings are made from an erroneous estimation of the evidence presented. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE." The Liga ng mga Barangay is undoubtedly an entity distinct from the Preparatory Recall Assembly.] REYNALDO O.A.
the Commission SETS the date of the Election on Recall on December 14. petitioner’s office as Mayor was put to serious question when on July 7." On November 28. We approve and give DUE COURSE to PRA Resolution No. issued a Resolution 3 ordering the respondent COMELEC to cease and desist from proceeding with the recall election projected on December 14. Together with relevant documents. issue a calendar of activities involved in said exercise. more than a mere scintilla of proof is needed. Trinidad Repuno. this is not the scenario envisioned by our democratic system of government. Jr. The Petition. and the proximity of the Recall Election date declared by the COMELEC. Gloria M. Barely one year into his term. Alex L. 1996. Fermin Jimenez. the incumbent Mayor of Caloocan City. David. and. 01-96 was filed with the COMELEC for appropriate action. 1996. 1996. the Commission En Banc hereby RESOLVES to DISMISS the Petition. 01-96. 01-96 entitled RESOLUTION TO INITIATE RECALL OF REYNALDO O.057 Punong Barangays and Sangguniang Barangay members and Sangguniang Kabataan chairmen. Accordingly and conformably with Section 71 R. Due to the importance of the matters in issue. 1995. MALONZO AS MAYOR OF KALOOCAN CITY FOR LOSS OF CONFIDENCE. Private respondents Liga ng mga Barangay (Caloocan Chapter). Conrado G. Malonzo. 1996. Aurelio Biluan. of the respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) calling for an Election for the Recall of the Petitioner Reynaldo O. The COMELEC found the petition devoid of merit and declared the recall proceedings to be in order. winning over former Mayor Macario Asistio. Cruz. the Court. Mayor Malonzo filed a Petition with the respondent Commission alleging. ID. illegally initiated. otherwise. one disgruntled fellow can destroy the foundations laid by the overwhelming majority. In response. Mirali M. Mayor Malonzo came to us on a "Petition for Certiorari With Prayer For Temporary Restraining Order and Application for Writ of Preliminary Injunction". 1996.. by separate resolution. We shall. expressing loss of confidence in Mayor Malonzo. PRA Resolution No. met. constituting a majority of the members of the Preparatory Recall Assembly of the City of Caloocan. filed their Comment 4 on December 6. 1. on November 29. that the recall process was deficient in form and substance. Rogelio Saraza. The COMELEC’s Resolution on the petition states pertinently: "WHEREFORE. and calling for the initiation of recall proceedings against him. and directing the respondents to file their respective Comments. Helene Valbuena and Higino Rullepa. raises the issue of the validity of the institution and proceedings of the recall.. voted for the approval of Preparatory Recall Assembly Resolution No. principally. 1996. Cruz. 1 dated November 18.A. and proceedings held. Petitioner was duly elected as Mayor in the elections held on May 8. SO ORDERED. 7160. 1996. and upon deliberation and election.5. alleging that all the requirements for the
. EVIDENCE TO OVERTURN PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY OF PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTY. ID. putting to fore the propriety of the service of notices to the members of the Preparatory Recall Assembly. — To overturn the presumption of validity of performance of official duty. assailing the COMELEC’s resolution as having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. in the main. resulting in the issuance of the questioned Resolution. Durr. in view of the foregoing. The Court is called upon to strike down Resolution 96-026. and therefore.
the Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation in lieu of Comment 5 on February 7. 1.691 barangay officials.669. thus. Ten (10) vacant positions were however not filled up.316 SK Chairmen — 187 (One Barangay. 1997. broken down as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library Punong Barangay — 188 Barangay Kagawads — 1. However. In the stead of twenty-eight (28) resignees. On the contrary. the COMELEC directed its Election Records and Statistics Department (ERSD) to resolve the matter of notices sent to the Preparatory Recall Assembly members. At this juncture. The Kalookan City Talaan ng mga Barangay tallies with the COMELEC List.692 members of the PRA. there are of record. On the other hand. replacements were appointed.
. there should have been 1. Barangay 94. According to the Solicitor General veracity of notices sent to 42 members of the Preparatory Recall Assembly were not directly passed upon by the COMELEC before it issued the questioned Resolution.holding of a recall election were duly complied with and that the petition is therefore without basis. and has found the proceedings instituting the recall to be in accord with law.691 elected barangay officials of Kalookan City. and the resulting action of the COMELEC: "The ERSD Report gave the following information :chanrob1es virtual 1aw library Three (3) lists of elected Barangay officials were used as reference. as in response to petitioner’s request for a technical examination of the recall documents. of the 188 barangays in Kalookan City. Twentytwo (22) barangay officials are deceased. According to the COMELEC listing. remained vacant. Twelve (12) vacancies caused by such death were filled up by appointing replacements. From the records. otherwise. The following excerpts from Resolution UND 96-026 of the COMELEC reflect the results of the ERSD’s investigation. showing only a listing of 1. one barangay. for . did not elect an SK Chairman. There being twenty-two (22) unfilled posts. forty (40) had resigned. the Court finds that there is no need to refer the matter of the veracity of the questioned notices sent to certain members of the Preparatory Recall Assembly back to the COMELEC. Barangay 94 did not elect its SK Chairman) The DILG registry is incomplete. namely: COMELEC list.the reason that the COMELEC has already conducted an investigation into the same. the total number of Barangay officials of Kalookan City at the time of the constitution of the Preparatory Recall Assembly was initiated is 1. after giving private respondents the chance to prove the same. the matter of validity of notices to the members of the Preparatory Recall Assembly was sufficiently considered by the respondent Commission. there being no successors named therein. DILG list and Caloocan City list. Twelve (12) positions however. a discussion of the other issues in the present petition would be premature. the following data is found: Of the 1. It thus submits that the propriety of notices sent to said PRA members must first be determined by the COMELEC. The Solicitor General’s observation that the issue of veracity of the notices was not directly passed upon by the COMELEC is incorrect. with the surprising submission that the COMELEC was amiss in its duties as enforcer of election laws.390 barangay officials. The ERSD in turn performed its task and reported its findings to the COMELEC.
The returns of the said service of notice. Notices. 1996. 1996. Personal. Calayo who appears to be a loser/9th place. Zone 16. however. Jose de Chavez has been removed from office as Barangay kagawad of Barangay 6 by virtue of Resolution No. not informed the DILG of any change in his official address. 4. by virtue of a Resolution passed by the Barangay Council of Barangay 65 dated August 10. He was replaced by Ronio de la Cruz. both promulgated by the Barangay Council of said barangay.’ (Respondents’ Comment. de Chavez. both by personal delivery and by registered mail. listed as Barangay kagawad of Barangay 109.927 notices sent.) As to Teresita Calayo. listed as Barangay kagawad of Barangay 119. respondent defends lack of notice to her. listed as kagawad of Barangay 182. Pablo Musngi. These were: Jose de Chavez. Per certification issued by the Board of Election Tellers. Barangay Kagawad of Barangay 162 and Teresita Calayo. p. however. 5. 1996 PRA session was duly served on her and not on Mr. listed as Barangay kagawad of Barangay 6. 95-011 passed on July 16. registered mail and by courier and they were in the name of the PRA member. disclosed that he can no longer be located in the said address. 1996 PRA session was duly served on Mr.ERSD reported that there were a total of 1. Enrico Marasigan has resigned as Barangay kagawad of Barangay 65 as evidenced by his resignation letter dated March 24. 1995.’ (Respondents’ Compliance dated November 13. were served on Mr. as it appears in the official roster of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) the notice of the July 7. Caloocan City. He has been replaced by Sylvia Saberola on whom notice of the July 7. Pablo Musngi ceased to be a Barangay kagawad of Barangay 119 by reason of his death on April 12. He has. and Pilar Pilares. Rolando Ang at his official address at Barangay 109 Zone 10 East Grace Park. wherein it shows that both the names of Fermin Quintos and Teresita Calayo are included. thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library ‘Teresita Calayo is not a duly elected kagawad of Barangay 182. In its initial report. Marasigan. and addressed at his residence or office of record. The Notices were sent in three modes. 1995. 3. listed as Barangay kagawad of Barangay 65. In view of the fact that it is Corazon Obusan who is the recognized Barangay kagawad of the aforementioned barangay. de la Cruz and not on Mr. 2. 95016 passed on August 1995. 6) In the ERSD’s final and complete report. 1996. Records would show that it should be Kagawad Fermin Quintos who should be recognized as legitimate barangay kagawad of the said barangay having placed no. 1995. dated October 14. two (2) additional names were reflected as not having been served
. some members being served two or three notices. and has been replaced by Corazon Obusan by virtue of Resolution No. Rolando Ang. 7 in the election and not Ms. There appears to be an apparent oversight in placing the name of Calayo in the subject PRA Resolution for signature. the Department stated that six persons listed in the COMELEC record as barangay officials were not duly notified. Ms. 1996 session has been duly served. Calayo did not win in the May 1994 Barangay Election. Enrico Marasigan. She has likewise been served notice by registered mail as evidenced by the receipt in her behalf by a certain Ricardo Pilares III. Respondents explained the absence of notice to these persons thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library ‘1. the notice of the July 7. Accordingly. Pilar Pilares had been served notice by personal delivery but refused to sign acknowledgment receipt.
As regards Tomas Daep and Teodulfo Abenoja (not Agenoja). then. Ruben Ballega. on the other hand. one Analiza T. Pablo de Castro was served notice by registered mail on July 1. There was actually an error committed by the ERSD when it concluded that Tomas Daep has already resigned and was replaced by Ernesto Taupa. who personally signed the return card. and the completion of service thereof another. having been already replaced by Ernesto Taupa. for indeed. and acknowledged by Tomas Daep. The same notice was served on him by courier (LBC) on July 5. was served notice personally and by registered mail. Official records would show that Tomas Daep and Ernesto Taupa are still both presently holding the position of Kagawad of Barangay 174 Zone 15. The Commission however regards the sending of notice one thing. as shown by the receipt signed by his daughter.notices and these were Lino Ramos and Teodulfo Abenoja. Teodulfo Abenoja. as shown in the return card duly signed in acknowledgment. the latter. In addition to the aforenamed. 1996. 1996. Asque. The records in custody of the Commission. Ernesto Taupa was officially appointed to the position vacated by Teodulfo Abenoja by virtue of the latter’s resignation on 15 March 1996. The same notice was sent him by registered mail. respondents stated:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library ‘1. The personal service was completed on July 1. received by the same daughter on July 2. listed as kagawads of Barangay 174. the receipt of which was duly acknowledged and by registered mail on July 2. Notice by registered mail was served on. we were obliged to inquire more closely into the records and we found:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library Personal services were acknowledged by receipts signed. was validly served with the notice of the PRA session two (2) days before the scheduled PRA meeting.’ Respondents’ submission. however. and therefore members of the Preparatory Recall Assembly. Thus. revealed that there was no truth to their allegations. the requirement of notice can only be fully satisfied. was appointed to the position vacated by Lino Ramos and Teodulfo Abenoja — they. if there was not only service. but also completion of service thereof. Ernesto Taupa on the other. if not by the addressee himself. came before the Commission and manifested that they were not duly notified about the PRA session. Barangay 148 and Barangay 156. 1996. 1996. three persons: Pablo de Castro. and this he received on July 3. 1996. 1996. Ruben Ballega was notified by personal service on July 1. Commenting on this report. having resigned and. Jesus Tan Sr. respectively. 1996. as indicated
. and Jesus Tan claiming to be the Barangay captains of Barangay 116. as correctly determined by the ERSD. being substantiated by documents and uncontroverted by Petitioner are hereby accepted as meritorious.
the Commission so holds that the requirements of notice had been fully complied with. or serious inconsistencies in the findings. Completeness of Service. — (a) Recall may be initiated by a preparatory recall assembly or by the registered voters of the local government unit to which the local elective official subject to such recall belongs.’ That it was Alex David. unless the court otherwise provides. The factual findings of the COMELEC. It is evident from the foregoing and. as regards the initiation of the recall process. We had earlier determined that as member of the PRA.ph "SEC.
. nearest relative or a person of sufficient discretion in the member’s residence or office. Service by registered mail was evinced by the return card duly signed by the addressee or by persons acting for him. 69. we hold that there was complete service of the notices as contemplated in Section 8. violence. in the absence of a substantiated attack on the validity of the same. There were instances when notices were served but were refused." 6 Needless to state. graft and corruption. and the adoption of the recall resolution. The circumstances being thus. In the absence of patent error. The pertinent provisions of law.A. based on its own assessments and duly supported by gathered evidence. he can legally exercise the prerogatives attached to his membership in the Preparatory Recall Assembly. Moreover. entailing added cost and waste of effort.com. Service by ordinary mail is complete upon the expiration of five (5) days after mailing. SEC.thereon. more so. are conclusive upon the court. Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee. the issue of propriety of the notices sent to the PRA members is factual in nature. By Whom Exercised. this fact noted in the acknowledgment receipt by the server and his witnesses. Rule 13 of the Rules of Court which provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library ‘Section 8. — Personal service is complete upon delivery. — The power of recall for loss of confidence shall be exercised by the registered voters of a local government unit to which the local elective official subject to such recall belongs. Petitioner likewise averred that the session held. service shall take effect at the expiration of such time. but if he fails to claim his mail from the post office within five (5) days from the date of first notice of the postmaster. in that it allegedly ruled that the LIGA ng mga Barangay is authorized to initiate the recall and convene the Preparatory Recall Assembly. and the determination of the same is therefore a function of the COMELEC. therefore. 70. Initiation of the Recall Process. the Court should not disturb the same. by his or her spouse. are Sections 69 and 70 of R. President of the LIGA ng mga Barangay who sent the notices is of no moment. sending notices to the other members of its scheduled convening. 7160:jgc:chanrobles. to order the COMELEC to repeat the process of determining the notices’ propriety would be sanctioning a recycling of administrative functions. Petitioner likewise attacks the COMELEC’s ruling on the validity of the proceedings held by the Preparatory Recall Assembly. by the recall assembly were tainted with irregularities.
is misplaced. Petitioner observes that "respondent Liga is an organization of all barangays. Recall of provincial. and voted in favor of the resolution calling for the recall of Mayor Malonzo. and in the presence of a representative of the petitioner and a representative of the official sought to be recalled. shall be filed with the COMELEC through its office in the local government unit concerned.(b) There shall be a preparatory recall assembly in every province. Rules of procedure. the Punong Barangays and Sangguniang Barangay members convened and voted as members of the Preparatory Recall Assembly of the City of Caloocan. or barangay official may also be validly initiated upon petition of at least 25% of the total number of registered voters in the local government unit concerned during the election in which the local official sought to be recalled was elected. The barangays are represented in the Liga by the barangay captains as provided under Section 492 of the Local Government Code. (c) A majority of all the preparatory recall assembly members may convene in session in a public place and initiate a recall proceeding against any elective official in the local government unit concerned. (1) A written petition for recall duly signed before the election registrar or his representative. the COMELEC or its duly authorized representative shall announce the acceptance of candidates to the position and thereafter prepare the list of candidates which shall include the name of the official sought to be recalled. city. Thus. therefore. It is not an organization of barangay captains and kagawads. city. The members were given the opportunity to articulate on their resolve about the matter. that the initiation of the recall proceedings was infirm since it was convened by the Liga ng mga Barangays. — All punong barangay and sangguniang barangay members in the city. as we shall later on establish. city. in accordance with the existing law. (2) Upon the lapse of the aforesaid period. Deliberations were conducted on the main issue. The recall proceedings. Attendees constitute the majority of all the members of the Preparatory Assembly. and municipality which shall be composed of the following:chanrob1es (2) City level. the majority of whom met on July 7." library Petitioner’s insistence." 7 The Liga ng mga Barangay is undoubtedly an entity distinct from the Preparatory Recall Assembly. (d) Recall of any elective provincial. their sentiments were expressed through their votes signified by their signatures and
. simple they may be were formulated. It also provides that the Kagawad may represent the barangay in the absence of the barangay chairman. for the purpose of verifying the authenticity and genuineness of the petition and the required percentage of voters. and not as members of the Liga ng mga Barangay. cannot be denied merit on this ground. which was that of petitioner’s recall. The COMELEC or its duly authorized representative shall cause the publication of the petition in a public and conspicuous place for a period of not less than ten (10) days nor more than twenty (20) days. As the respondent COMELEC pertinently observes: "The Minutes of the session of the Preparatory Assembly indicated that there was a session held. city. as the case may be. or barangay. It just so happens that the personalities representing the barangays in the Liga are the very members of the Preparatory Recall Assembly. or municipal officials shall be validly initiated through a resolution adopted by a majority of all the members of the preparatory recall assembly concerned during its session called for the purpose. and in a public place in the province. More importantly. after deliberation reported in the record. municipality. Any doubt as to the propriety of the proceedings held during the recall assembly should be laid to rest. municipal. 1996. district.
. 11 To overturn the presumption of validity of performance of official duty. are afforded great weight by the courts. and cannot override the substantiated findings of the respondent COMELEC. ACCORDINGLY. and in the interest of stability of the governmental structure. in a public place and that the resolution resulting from such assembly be adopted by a majority of all the PRA members. they are conclusive. 10 It means such evidence which affords a substantial basis from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred." 9 Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The decision of the respondent Commission on Elections to GIVE DUE COURSE to PRA Resolution No. What is fundamental is compliance with the provision that there should be a session called for the purpose of initiating recall proceedings. a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence. 01-96 is hereby AFFIRMED. The Commission on Elections is hereby ORDERED to set the date of the Election on Recall in the city of Caloocan. otherwise. "In cases filed before administrative and quasi-judicial bodies. for lack of merit. which date shall not be later than thirty days after receipt of notice of this Resolution. In sum. Neither did it demand a specific procedure. attended by a majority of all the members of the preparatory recall assembly.thumbmarks affixed to the Resolution." 8 The charges of graft and corruption. one disgruntled fellow can destroy the foundations laid by the overwhelming majority. which is immediately executory. The law on recall did not prescribe an elaborate proceeding. should not be disturbed. and this is not the scenario envisioned by our democratic system of government. and in the absence of substantial showing that such findings are made from an erroneous estimation of the evidence presented. or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. we are persuaded strongly by the principle that the findings of fact of administrative bodies charged with their specific field of expertise. more than a mere scintilla of proof is needed. No proof was adduced by Petitioner to substantiate his claim that the signatures appearing thereon represented a cause other than that of adopting the resolution. before and during the session of the preparatory recall assembly are largely uncorroborated. violence and irregularities. the Court hereby RESOLVED to DISMISS the present petition.
R. the Police Department. several barangay chairs formed an ad hoc committee for the purpose of convening the PRA.R. Angeles.M. kagawads. petitioner in G. Station Commander. Richard Advincula.R. S-1999 ADOPTED ON 29 MAY 1999 FOR THE RECALL OF MAYOR JOVITO CLAUDIO OF PASAY CITY. G. was the duly elected mayor of Pasay City in the May 11. represented by its Chair.] JOVITO O. Pasay City. No. of the COMELEC giving due course to the petition for the recall of petitioner Jovito O.] PREPARATORY RECALL ASSEMBLY OF PASAY CITY. On the other hand. and sangguniang kabataan chairs of Pasay City. 140560. 1999. No. Richard Advincula. adopted Resolution No. Rev. No. in Barangay 11. Petitioner. No. 1999. and Roberto L. Pursuant to the rules of the COMELEC. 140560 is a petition for certiorari and prohibition. herein represented by its Chairman. 140714. Oppositions to the petition were filed by petitioner Jovito O.R. Ronald Langub. 1999.R. and Taft Avenue. to compel the COMELEC to set the date for the holding of recall elections in Pasay City pursuant to the aforecited resolution of the COMELEC. May 4. the public market at Libertad St. (2) most of the signatories were only representatives of the parties concerned who were sent there merely to observe the proceedings. 01. private respondent in G. Claudio. 1 dated October 18. and thirteen (13) Councilors of Pasay City to witness the formal submission to the Office of the Election Officer on July 2. and at the entrance of the Sta. to wit: (1) the signatures affixed to the resolution were actually meant to show attendance at the PRA meeting. a verification of the authenticity of the signatures on the resolution was conducted by Ligaya Salayon. invited the Mayor. Zone 4. 140714. As scheduled. 1999 of the petition for recall.R. accompanied by an affidavit of service of the petition on the Office of the City Mayor. (3) the
. CLAUDIO. G. 99-005 entitled IN THE MATTER OF THE PREPARATORY RECALL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. May 4. Advincula. 1998. the City Hall. the election officer for Pasay City designated by the COMELEC. Sometime during the second week of May 1999. In a letter dated June 29. Burgos St. at the residence of barangay chair Benjamin Lim. the petition for recall was filed on July 2. CLAUDIO AS MAYOR OF PASAY CITY FOR LOSS OF CONFIDENCE. 140560 and petitioner in G. 1.R. Subsequently. No.. 1999. No. Vice-Mayor. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS These are petitions arising from the proceedings initiated by the Preparatory Recall Assembly of Pasay City (PRA) in the Commission on Elections in E. v. Claudio. copies of the petition were posted on the bulletin boards of the local COMELEC office. No. alleging procedural and substantive defects in the petition. Clara Church on P. 1998 elections.[G. He assumed office on July 1. all in Pasay City. seeking the nullification of the resolution. 140560. 2000. The facts are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library Jovito O. 140714 is a petition for mandamus filed by the PRA. as chair of the PRA. 1999.073 members of the PRA composed of barangay chairs. the chairs of several barangays in Pasay City gathered to discuss the possibility of filing a petition for recall against Mayor Claudio for loss of confidence. Petitioner. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS [G. S-1999. RICHARD ADVINCULA. No. On May 29. Claudio as mayor of Pasay City. was designated chair. 2000. entitled RESOLUTION TO INITIATE THE RECALL OF JOVITO O. 01. Jr. On May 19. v.
We are thus left with only petitioner Claudio’s action for certiorari and prohibition. 2000. (b) No recall shall take place within one (1) year from the date of the official’s assumption to office or one (1) year immediately preceding a regular local election. 140714 to compel the COMELEC to fix a date for the recall elections in Pasay City is no longer tenable. . (4) the election case. 2000. while the statistics of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) showed that the total membership of the PRA was 1. these petitions.R. the issues are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library WHETHER. under Section 74 of the Local Government Code of 1991 (R. 1999. On the other hand. the Court unanimously dismissed the petition in G. considering that its records showed the total membership of the PRA was 1. In its Resolution No. 3 resolved to dismiss the petition in G.876. No. and 60 barangay chairs executed affidavits of retraction. it was held that the petition was filed on time.convening of the PRA took place within the one-year prohibited period. 2000. Oral arguments were held in these cases in Baguio City on April 4. 3121. As defined at the hearing of these cases on April 4. .073 members who attended the May 29. considering that 10 were actually double entries. Since the petition was filed on July 2. on whether the petition for recall violated the bar on recall within one year from the elective official’s assumption of office. the COMELEC ruled that it was not and that petitioner was merely using the pendency of the case to delay the recall proceedings. No. Based on the verification made by election officer Ligaya Salayon. 7160) . the COMELEC ruled in the negative.
.A. since only a majority is required to constitute the PRA. the COMELEC granted the petition for recall and dismissed the oppositions against it. and (5) the recall resolution failed to obtain the majority of all the members of the PRA. dated March 9. the COMELEC set the date of the recall elections in Pasay City on April 15. 40 sangguniang kabataan officials had withdrawn their support. We now proceed to explain the grounds for our resolution. should first be decided before recall proceedings against petitioner could be filed. On whether the pendency of the case questioning the proclamation of petitioner was a prejudicial question which must first be decided before any recall election could be held. No. In either case. clearly.790. 140560 for lack of showing that the COMELEC committed a grave abuse of discretion. by the vote of 8 to 6 of its members. 2 filed by Wenceslao Trinidad in this Court. In its resolution of October 18. The bone of contention in this case is §74 of the Local Government Code (LGC) 4 which provides: Limitations on Recall. the petition for mandamus in G. exactly one year and a day after petitioner Claudio’s assumption of office. Hence. the COMELEC found the signatures of 958 members of the PRA sufficient.R. 1999. Consequently. after which the Court. seeking the annulment of the proclamation of petitioner Claudio as mayor of Pasay City. 140714 on the ground that the issue raised therein had become moot and academic. a majority had been obtained in support of the recall resolution. the COMELEC held that the 1. holding that recall is a process which starts with the filing of the petition for recall. Finally. On the issue of whether the PRA was constituted by a majority of its members.R. 14 were not duly accredited members of the barangays. 1999 meeting were more than necessary to constitute the PRA. — (a) Any elective local official may be the subject of a recall election only once during his term of office for loss of confidence. No. 2000.
the recall was validly initiated outside the one-year prohibited period. 1999 for the purpose of adopting a resolution ‘to initiate the recall of Jovito Claudio as Mayor of Pasay City for loss of confidence. which obviously refers to an election. The term "regular local election" in the last clause of paragraph (b) includes the election period for that regular election or simply the date of such election. since May 29. 1999 was less than a year after he had assumed office. Thus. and that. maintains that the process of recall starts with the filing of the petition for recall and ends with the conduct of the recall election. The word "recall" in paragraph (b) covers a process which includes the convening of the Preparatory Recall Assembly and its approval of the recall resolution. the preliminary steps required to be taken to initiate a recall — which paragraph (b) of §74 seeks to limit by providing that no recall shall take place within one year from the date of assumption of office of an elective
. there may be several PRAs held (as in the case of Bataan Province in 1993) or petitions for recall filed with the COMELEC — there is no legal limit on the number of times such processes may be resorted to. §69 provides that "the power of recall . 1999 and unanimously resolved to initiate the recall. and the holding of the election on the scheduled date." Since the power vested on the electorate is not the power to initiate recall proceedings 6 but the power to elect an official into office. The limitations in §74 apply only to the exercise of the power of recall which is vested in the registered voters. 5 However. Several reasons can be cited in support of this conclusion. They disagree only as to when the process starts for purposes of the one-year limitation in paragraph (b) of §74. exactly one year and a day after petitioner’s assumption of office.A. or the gathering of the signatures of at least 25 % of the voters for a petition for recall. since the petition for recall in this case was filed on July 2. the PRA was illegally convened and all proceedings held thereafter. In other words. excluding the convening of the PRA and the filing of a petition for recall with the COMELEC. on the other hand. . shall be exercised by the registered voters of a local government unit to which the local elective official belongs. § 74 deals with restrictions on the power of recall. First. the verification of such resolution or petition. The COMELEC. B. We can agree that recall is a process which begins with the convening of the preparatory recall assembly or the gathering of the signatures at least 25% of the registered voters of a local government unit. the limitations in §74 cannot be deemed to apply to the entire recall proceedings. and then proceeds to the filing of a recall resolution or petition with the COMELEC. the term "recall" in paragraph (b) refers only to the recall election. 1999. 1999. the fixing of the date of the recall election.’ the process of recall began" and. Both petitioner Claudio and the COMELEC thus agree that the term "recall" as used in §74 refers to a process. were null and void. These are merely preliminary steps for the purpose of initiating a recall. "recall" refers to the election itself by means of which voters decide whether they should retain their local official or elect his replacement. followed by the taking of votes by the PRA on May 29. (1) On Whether the Word "Recall" in Paragraph (b) of §74 of the Local Government Code Includes the Convening of the Preparatory Recall Assembly and the Filing by it of a Recall Resolution Petitioner contends that the term "recall" in §74(b) refers to a process. including the filing of the recall petition on July 2. It is this — and not merely." On the other hand. It is in fact entitled "Limitations on Recall. He claims that "when several barangay chairmen met and convened on May 19. in contrast to the term "recall election" found in §74(a). as used in paragraph (b) of § 74. .
as long as the election is held outside the one-year period. The second reason why the term "recall" in paragraph (b) refers to recall election is to be found in the purpose of the limitation itself. the law in effect unconstitutionally authorizes it to shorten the term of office of incumbent elective local officials. it is not the holding of PRA nor the adoption of recall resolutions that produces a judgment on the performance of the official concerned. cannot apply to such proceedings. COMELEC 7 where two objections were raised against the legality of PRAs: (1) that even the power to initiate recall proceedings is the sole prerogative of the electorate which cannot be delegated to PRAs. The purpose of the first limitation is to provide a reasonable basis for judging the performance of an elective local official. As already stated. There are two limitations in paragraph (b) on the holding of recalls: (1) that no recall shall take place within one year from the date of assumption of office of the official concerned. 9 it was held that "The only logical reason which we can ascribe for requiring the electors to wait one year before petitioning for a recall election is to prevent premature action on their part in voting to remove a newly elected official before having had sufficient time to evaluate the soundness of his policies and decisions. it was held that a recall resolution "merely sets the stage for the official concerned before the tribunal of the people so he can justify why he should be allowed to continue in office." But however the period of prohibition is determined. in this case. With respect to the second objection. this is the thrust of the ruling in Garcia v. . With respect to the first objection. COMELEC. then. as long as the recall election is not held before the official concerned has completed one year in office. that the first limitation in paragraph (b) includes the holding of assemblies for the exchange of ideas and opinions among citizens is to unduly curtail one of the most cherished rights in a free
. the official concerned remains in office ." The one-year limitation was reckoned as of the filing of a petition for recall because the Municipal Code involved in that case expressly provided that "no removal petition shall be filed against any officer or until he has actually held office for at least twelve months. . To hold. [But until] the people render their sovereign judgment. Therefore.local official. to construe the term "recall" in paragraph (b) as including the convening of the PRA for the purpose of discussing the performance in office of elective local officials would be to unduly restrict the constitutional right of speech and of assembly of its members. the prohibition in paragraph (b) against the holding of a recall. The people cannot just be asked on the day of the election to decide on the performance of their officials. it is the vote of the electorate in the Election that does. Both objections were dismissed on the ground that the holding of a PRA is not the recall itself." If these preliminary proceedings do not produce a decision by the electorate on whether the local official concerned continues to enjoy the confidence of the people. therefore. The crystallization and formation of an informed public opinion takes time. the preliminary proceedings to initiate a recall can be held even before the end of the first year in office of a local official. Hence. In the Bower case 8 cited by this Court in Angobung v. it was held that it is the power to recall and not the power to initiate recall that the Constitution gave to the people. except one year after the official’s assumption of office. Indeed. Third. and (2) that no recall shall take place within one year immediately preceding a regular local election. the principle announced is that the purpose of the limitation is to provide a reasonable basis for evaluating the performance of an elective local official. he will not be judged on his performance prematurely. and (2) that by vesting this power in a PRA. It cannot be argued that to allow recall proceedings to be initiated before the official concerned has been in office for one-year would be to allow him to be judged without sufficient basis.
according to §69. Given that question. In the case of recall elections in Kaloocan City. instead of ousting Mayor Rey Malonzo. One is that it is no disparagement of the PRA that in the ensuing election the local official whose recall is sought is actually reelected. Indeed. especially by disturbance due to political partisanship. will convening the PRA outside this period make it any more representative of the people. there may be some plausibility for the claim that PRAs are not as good a gauge of the people’s will as are the 25 % of the voters. they may result in the expression of confidence in the incumbent. it is argued that the judgments of PRAs are not "as politically unassailable as recalls initiated directly by the people. and it is not always easy to determine when criticism of his performance is politically motivated and when it is not. is a power which shall be exercised by the registered voters of a local government unit." Unfortunately. Since the voters do not exercise such right except in an election.
. as the petition filed by 25 % of the registered voters is claimed to be? To sum up. To the contrary. it is clear that the initiation of recall proceedings is not prohibited within the one-year period provided in paragraph (b). his acts become subject to scrutiny and criticism. The only safeguard against the baneful and enervating effects of partisan politics is the good sense and self restraint of the people and its leaders against such shortcomings of our political system. Laws converting municipalities into cities and providing for the holding of plebiscites during which the question of cityhood is submitted to the people for their approval are not always approved by the people. From the day an elective official assumes office. but that is not really the purpose of the limitation on recall under the law. The limitation is only intended to provide a sufficient basis for evaluating and judging the performance of an elected local official. it is wrong to assume that such assemblies will always eventuate in a recall election. the term "recall" in paragraph (b) refers to the recall election and not to the preliminary proceedings to initiate recall — 1. The issue is whether the one-year period of limitation in paragraph (b) includes the convening of the PRA. A respite from partisan politics may. have the incidental effect of providing respite from partisanship. had it been shown that the PRA was resorted to only because those behind the move to oust the incumbent mayor failed to obtain the signatures of 25% of the voters of that city to a petition for his recall. In any event. recalls initiated directly by 25% of the registered voters of a local government unit cannot be more representative of the sentiments of the people than those initiated by PRAs whose members represent the entire electorate in the local government unit.society. they reelected him. Our esteemed colleague Justice Puno says in his dissent that the purpose of the one-year period in paragraph (b) is to provide the local official concerned a "period of repose" during which" [his] attention should not be distracted by any impediment. Two points may be made against this argument. the law cannot really provide for a period of honeymoon or moratorium in politics. Indeed. Because §74 speaks of limitations on "recall" which. The other point regarding Justice Puno’s claim is that the question here is not whether recalls initiated by 25% of the voters are better. Voters who directly initiate recalls are just as vulnerable to political maneuverings or manipulations as are those composing PRAs." Justice Puno cites the "embarrassing repudiation by the people of [Kaloocan City’s] Preparatory Recall Assembly" when. Yet. no one can say that Congress is not a good judge of the will of the voters in the locality.
that the date set by the COMELEC for the recall election is within the second period of prohibition in paragraph (b). And third. because it would devitalize the right of recall which is designed to make local government units" more responsive and accountable. He argues that the phrase "regular local elections" in paragraph (b) does not only mean "the day of the regular local election" which. 10 it could have expressly said so. Because the purpose of the first limitation in paragraph (b) is to provide voters a sufficient basis for judging an elective local official." Had Congress intended this limitation to refer to the campaign period. Moreover. paragraph (b) prohibits the holding of such election within one year from the date the official assumed office. we hold that there is no bar to its holding on that date. As the recall election in Pasay City is set on April 15. To construe the second limitation in paragraph (b) as including the campaign period would reduce this period to eight months. paragraph (b) prohibits the holding of a recall election within one year immediately preceding a regular local election. more or less. Thus. during the second year of office. one (1) year immediately preceding a regular local election. 11 unless otherwise fixed by the COMELEC. First. there is a distinction between election period and campaign period. paragraph (a) prohibits the holding of such election more than once during the term of office of an elective local official. 12" [p]aragraph (b) construed together with paragraph (a) merely designates the period when such elective local official may be subject to recall election. Second. . because no recall election may be held until one year after the assumption of office of an elective local official. he contends that beginning March 30. for the year 2001 is May 114. however. Because to construe the limitation in paragraph (b) as including the initiation of recall proceedings would unduly curtail freedom of speech and of assembly guaranteed in the Constitution." virtua1aw library
. petitioner’s interpretation would severely limit the period during which a recall election may be held. and final judging is not done until the day of the election. which period is defined in the Omnibus Election Code. §74 imposes limitations on the holding of recall elections. presumably on June 30 following his election. To recapitulate the discussion in parts 1 and 2. which is normally at least forty five (45) days immediately before the day of the election. . 2000. but the election period as well. and 3. Hence. 2000. the free period is only the period from July 1 of the following year to about the middle of May of the succeeding year. COMELEC.2. no recall election may be held. As succinctly stated in Paras v. the election period commences ninety (90) days before the day of the election and ends thirty (30) days thereafter. that is. (2) On Whether the Phrase "Regular Local Election" in the Same Paragraph (b) of §74 of the Local Government Code includes the Election Period for that Regular Election or Simply the Date of Such Election Petitioner contends. The law is unambiguous in providing that" [n]o recall shall take place within . Actually. Such an interpretation must be rejected. to follow petitioner’s interpretation that the second limitation in paragraph (b) includes the "election period" would emasculate even more a vital right of the people. more than one year after petitioner assumed office as mayor of that city." virtua1aw library Indeed. Under the Omnibus Election Code. This is a period of only nine months and 15 days. This contention is untenable.
No. The other point raised by petitioner is that the recall petition filed in the COMELEC was not duly verified. 140714 is DISMISSED for having been rendered moot and academic. who notarized it. 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. It cannot. and that Wenceslao Trinidad’s pending election protest was a prejudicial question which must first be resolved before the petition for recall could be given due course. Although the word "Attendance" appears at the top of the page. that some members had withdrawn their support for the petition. it is apparent that it was written by mistake because it was crossed out by two parallel lines drawn across it. He contends that a majority of the signatures of the members of the PRA was not obtained because 74 members did not really sign the recall resolution. Petitioner claims that this is shown by the word "Attendance" written by hand at the top of the page on which the signatures of the 74 begin. is not commissioned as notary public for Pasay City but for Makati City. It was not raised before the COMELEC. Nelson Ng. The order of the COMELEC embodying the stipulations of the parties and defining the issues to be resolved does not include the issue now being raised by petitioner. while the petition in G.R.
. therefore. the 74 merely signed their names on pages 94-104 of the resolution to signify their attendance and not their concurrence. 140560 is DISMISSED for lack of merit. this issue was not raised before the COMELEC itself. Apparently. in which the claim made by petitioner was that some of the names in the petition were double entries. WHEREFORE. To be sure. This contention has no basis. It is absurd to believe that the 74 members of the PRA who signed the recall resolution signified their attendance at the meeting twice.R. because Atty. As in the case of the first claim. this claim is being raised for the first time in this case. According to petitioner. G. No.(3) On Whether the Recall RESOLUTION was Signed by a Majority of the PRA and Duly Verified Petitioner alleges other grounds for seeking the annulment of the resolution of the COMELEC ordering the holding of a recall election. be raised now. it was mistaken for the attendance sheet which is a separate document.
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulFinal Cases by Vev'z Dangpason Balawan0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionpub corppub corpRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)List price: $0.00Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedAfiado v Comelecby joffrey_caguiaElectionby Kriska Herrero TumamakElection Laws Casesby MariaAyraCelinaBatacanLocal Government Casesby Elaine LlarinaElection Laws Casesby MariaAyraCelinaBatacanElec Cases 1by glorybelle01Adormeo vs Comelecby Raymond RoqueRecall 1by Erica NolanEvardone v. COMELEC [Local Govt Code TOOK EFFECT on Jan 1, 1992]by kjhenyo2185026 Ong v Alegreby Jerommel GabrielElection Law Case Digests Compilationby Yza G.RULE 65Pby Leyah JosefLokin vs. Comelecby Alexandra KhadkaLokinby Lea Marie Anne SibalAratea vs Comelec, En Banc G.R. No. 195229 October 9, 2012by herbs22225847Pubcorp_Aratea vs COMELEC.docby Ludica OjaTrinidad Goby MariaAyraCelinaBatacanCase Digest Adminby Danny DayanLocal Govt-case Digestsby Jane Lancie Holgado-DimaculanganSanchez v Comelec Gr No 94459-60by Liz LorenzoYason vs Comelec - Copyby Janice Bollozos AlcomendrasElection Law - Cases Chapter VI and VIIby Vyn Duag201716_brionby Akosijopay Lomala Amerol RomurosPuboff Nov 9by Carlos Poblador206666_leonenby Edgar Bontojuly01.2012_b Probe bribery in party-list accreditation process – solonsby pribhor2Atty. Risos-Vidal Vs. COMELEC and Joseph Estrada; Dissenting Opinion by Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonenby Hornbook RuleCase Digests for Constiby Isaiah CalumbaSimilar to Final CasesSkip carouselAfiado v ComelecElectionElection Laws CasesLocal Government CasesElection Laws CasesElec Cases 1Adormeo vs ComelecRecall 1Evardone v. COMELEC [Local Govt Code TOOK EFFECT on Jan 1, 1992]6 Ong v AlegreElection Law Case Digests CompilationRULE 65PLokin vs. ComelecLokinAratea vs Comelec, En Banc G.R. No. 195229 October 9, 2012Pubcorp_Aratea vs COMELEC.docTrinidad GoCase Digest AdminLocal Govt-case DigestsSanchez v Comelec Gr No 94459-60Yason vs Comelec - CopyElection Law - Cases Chapter VI and VII201716_brionPuboff Nov 9206666_leonenjuly01.2012_b Probe bribery in party-list accreditation process – solonsAtty. Risos-Vidal Vs. COMELEC and Joseph Estrada; Dissenting Opinion by Justice Marvic M.V.F. LeonenCase Digests for ConstiIbrahim vs Comelec -G.R. No. 192289. January 8, 2013Consti (Legislative)Final Cases