SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 140560 : May 4, 2000

JOVITO O. CLAUDIO, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, COMMISSION ON AUDIT and RICHARD ADVINCULA, Respondents.

[G.R. No. 140714 : May 4, 2000

PREPARATORY RECALL ASSEMBLY OF PASAY CITY, herein represented by its Chairman, RICHARD ADVINCULA, Petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, COMMISSION ON AUDIT and HON. JOVITO O. CLAUDIO, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

MENDOZA, J.:

These are petitions arising from the proceedings initiated by the Preparatory Recall Assembly of Pasay City (PRA) in the Commission on Elections in E.M. No. 99-005 entitled IN THE MATTER OF THE PREPARATORY RECALL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 01, S-1999 ADOPTED ON 29 MAY 1999 FOR THE RECALL OF MAYOR JOVITO CLAUDIO OF PASAY CITY. G.R. No. 140560 is a petition for certiorari and prohibition, seeking the nullification of the resolution,¹ dated October 18, 1999, of the COMELEC giving due course to the petition for the recall of petitioner Jovito O. Claudio as mayor of Pasay City. On the other hand, G.R. No. 140714 is a petition for mandamus filed by the PRA, represented by its Chair, Richard Advincula, 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.

The facts are as follows:

Jovito O. Claudio, petitioner in G.R. No. 140560, was the duly elected mayor of Pasay City in the May 11, 1998 elections. He assumed office on July 1, 1998.

Sometime during the second week of May 1999, 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. On May 19, 1999, at the residence of barangay chair Benjamin Lim, Jr. in Barangay 11, Zone 4, Pasay City, several barangay chairs formed an ad hoc committee for the purpose of convening the PRA. Richard Advincula, private respondent in G.R. No. 140560 and petitioner in G.R. No. 140714, was designated chair.

On May 29, 1999, 1,073 members of the PRA composed of barangay chairs, kagawads, and sangguniang kabataan chairs of Pasay City, adopted Resolution No. 01, S-1999, entitled RESOLUTION TO INITIATE THE RECALL OF JOVITO O. CLAUDIO AS MAYOR OF PASAY CITY FOR LOSS OF CONFIDENCE. In a letter dated June 29, 1999, Advincula, as chair of the PRA, invited the Mayor, Vice-Mayor, Station Commander, and thirteen (13) Councilors of Pasay City to witness the formal submission to the Office of the Election Officer on July 2, 1999 of the petition for recall.

As scheduled, the petition for recall was filed on July 2, 1999, accompanied by an affidavit of service of the petition on the Office of the City Mayor. Pursuant to the rules of the COMELEC, copies of the petition were posted on the bulletin boards of the local COMELEC office, the City Hall, the Police Department, the public market at Libertad St. and Taft Avenue, and at the entrance of the Sta. Clara Church on P. Burgos St., all in Pasay City. Subsequently, a verification of the authenticity of the signatures on the resolution was conducted by Ligaya Salayon, the election officer for Pasay City designated by the COMELEC.

Oppositions to the petition were filed by petitioner Jovito O. Claudio, Rev. Ronald Langub, and Roberto L. Angeles, alleging procedural and substantive defects in the petition, to wit: (1) the signatures affixed to the resolution were actually meant to show attendance at the PRA meeting; (2) most of the signatories were only representatives of the parties concerned who were sent there merely to observe the proceedings; (3) the convening of the PRA took place within the one-year prohibited period; (4) the election case,² filed by Wenceslao Trinidad in this Court, seeking the annulment of the proclamation of petitioner Claudio as mayor of Pasay City, should first be decided before recall proceedings against petitioner could be filed; and (5) the recall resolution failed to obtain the majority of all the members of the PRA, considering that 10 were actually double entries, 14 were not duly accredited members of the barangays, 40 sangguniang kabataan officials had withdrawn their support, and 60 barangay chairs executed affidavits of retraction.

In its resolution of October 18, 1999, the COMELEC granted the petition for recall and dismissed the oppositions against it. On the issue of whether the PRA was constituted by a majority of its members, the COMELEC held that the 1,073 members who attended the May 29, 1999 meeting were more than necessary to constitute the PRA, considering that its records showed the total membership of the PRA was 1,790, while the statistics of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) showed that the total membership of the PRA was 1,876. In either case, since only a majority is required to constitute the PRA, clearly, a majority had been obtained in support of the recall resolution. Based on the verification made by election officer Ligaya Salayon, the COMELEC found the signatures of 958 members of the PRA sufficient. 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, the COMELEC ruled that it was not and that petitioner was merely using the pendency of the case to delay the recall proceedings. Finally, 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 in the negative, holding that recall is a process which starts with the filing of the petition for recall.Since the petition was filed on July 2, 1999, exactly one year and a day after petitioner Claudio's assumption of office, it was held that the petition was filed on time.

Hence, these petitions. Oral arguments were held in these cases in Baguio City on April 4, 2000, after which the Court, by the vote of 8 to 6 of its members,³ resolved to dismiss the petition in G.R. No. 140560 for lack of showing that the COMELEC committed a grave abuse of discretion. On the other hand, the Court unanimously dismissed the petition in G.R. No. 140714 on the ground that the issue raised therein had become moot and academic.

We now proceed to explain the grounds for our resolution.

In its Resolution No. 3121, dated March 9, 2000, the COMELEC set the date of the recall elections in Pasay City on April 15, 2000. Consequently, the petition for mandamus in G.R. No. 140714 to compel the COMELEC to fix a date for the recall elections in Pasay City is no longer tenable. We are thus left with only petitioner Claudio's action for certiorari and prohibition.

The bone of contention in this case is 74 of the Local Government Code (LCG)⁴ which provides:

Limitations on Recall. - (a) Any elective local official may be the subject of a recall election only once during his term of office for loss of confidence.

(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.

As defined at the hearing of these cases on April 4, 2000, the issues are:

WHETHER, under Section 74 of the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160) ...

A. 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.

B. 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.

(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, in contrast to the term "recall election" found in 74(a), which obviously refers to an election. He claims that "when several barangay chairmen met and convened on May 19, 1999 and unanimously resolved to initiate the recall, followed by the taking of votes by the PRA on May 29, 1999 for the purpose of adopting a resolution to initiate the recall of Jovito Claudio as Mayor of Pasay City for loss of confidence, the process of recall began" and, since May 29, 1999 was less than a year after he had assumed office, the PRA was illegally convened and all proceedings held thereafter, including the filing of the recall petition on July 2, 1999, were null and void.

The COMELEC, on the other hand, maintains that the process of recall starts with the filing of the petition for recall and ends with the conduct of the recall election, and that, since the petition for recall in this case was filed on July 2, 1999, exactly one year and a day after petitioner's assumption of office, the recall was validly initiated outside the one-year prohibited period.

Both petitioner Claudio and the COMELEC thus agree that the term "recall" as used in 74 refers to a process. They disagree only as to when the process starts for purposes of the one-year limitation in paragraph (b) of 74.

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, and then proceeds to the filing of a recall resolution or petition with the COMELEC, the verification of such resolution or petition, the fixing of the date of the recall election, and the holding of the election on the scheduled date.⁵ However, as used in paragraph (b) of 74, "recall" refers to the election itself by means of which voters decide whether they should retain their local official or elect his replacement. Several reasons can be cited in support of this conclusion.

First, 74 deals with restrictions on the power of recall. It is in fact entitled "Limitations on Recall." On the other hand, 69 provides that "the power of recall ...shall be exercised by the registered voters of a local government unit to which the local elective official belongs." Since the power vested on the electorate is not the power to initiate recall proceedings⁶ but the power to elect an official into office, the limitations in 74 cannot be deemed to apply to the entire recall proceedings. In other words, the term "recall" in paragraph (b) refers only to the recall election, excluding the convening of the PRA and the filing of a petition for recall with the COMELEC, or the gathering of the signatures of at least 25 % of the voters for a petition for recall.

Thus, 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. These are merely preliminary steps for the purpose of initiating a recall. The limitations in 74 apply only to the exercise of the power of recall which is vested in the registered voters. It is this - and not merely, 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 local official.

Indeed, this is the thrust of the ruling in Garcia v. COMELEC⁷ 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, and (2) that by vesting this power in a PRA, the law in effect unconstitutionally authorizes it to shorten the term of office of incumbent elective local officials. Both objections were dismissed on the ground that the holding of a PRA is not the recall itself. With respect to the first objection, it was held that it is the power to recall and not the power to initiate recall that the Constitution gave to the people. With respect to the second objection, 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 until] the people render their sovereign judgment, the official concerned remains in office . . . ."d

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, then, the prohibition in paragraph (b) against the holding of a recall, except one year after the official's assumption of office, cannot apply to such proceedings.

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. 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, and (2) that no recall shall take place within one year immediately preceding a regular local election.

The purpose of the first limitation is to provide a reasonable basis for judging the performance of an elective local official. In the Bower case⁸ cited by this Court in Angobung v. COMELEC,[9] it was held that "The only logieason 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." 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." But however the period of prohibition is determined, 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. Hence, in this case, as long as the election is held outside the one-year period, the preliminary proceedings to initiate a recall can be held even before the end of the first year in office of a local official.

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. As already stated, it is not the holding of PRA nor the adoption of recall resolutions that produces a judgment on the performance of the official concerned; it is the vote of the electorate in the Election that does. Therefore, as long as the recall election is not held before the official concerned has completed one year in office, he will not be judged on his performance prematurely. Rtc

Third, 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 people cannot just be asked on the day of the election to decide on the performance of their officials. The crystallization and formation of an informed public opinion takes time. To hold, therefore, 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 society. Indeed, it is wrong to assume that such assemblies willalways eventuate in a recall election. To the contrary, they may result in the expression of confidence in the incumbent.

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, especially by disturbance due to political partisanship." Unfortunately, the law cannot really provide for a period of honeymoon or moratorium in politics. From the day an elective official assumes office, his acts become subject to scrutiny and criticism, and it is not always easy to determine when criticism of his performance is politically motivated and when it is not. 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. A respite from partisan politics may, have the incidental effect of providing respite from partisanship, 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.

In any event, it is argued that the judgments of PRAs are not "as politically unassailable as recalls initiated directly by the people." Justice Puno cites the "embarrassing repudiation by the people of [Kaloocan City's] Preparatory Recall Assembly" when, instead of ousting Mayor Rey Malonzo, they reelected him.

Two points may be made against this argument.

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. 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. Yet, no one can say that Congress is not a good judge of the will of the voters in the locality. In the case of recall elections in Kaloocan City, 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, 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.

Indeed, 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. Voters who directly initiate recalls are just as vulnerable to political maneuverings or manipulations as are those composing PRAs.

The other point regarding Justice Punos claim is that the question here is not whether recalls initiated by 25% of the voters are better. The issue is whether the one-year period of limitation in paragraph (b) includes the convening of the PRA. Given that question, will convening the PRA outside this period make it any more representative of the people, as the petition filed by 25 % of the registered voters is claimed to be?

To sum up, the term "recall" in paragraph (b) refers to the recall election and not to the preliminary proceedings to initiate recall -

1. Because 74 speaks of limitations on "recall" which, according to 69, is a power which shall be exercised by the registered voters of a local government unit. Since the voters do not exercise such right except in an election, it is clear that the initiation of recall proceedings is not prohibited within the one-year period provided in paragraph (b);

2. Because the purpose of the first limitation in paragraph (b) is to provide voters a sufficient basis for judging an elective local official, and final judging is not done until the day of the election; and

3. 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.

As the recall election in Pasay City is set on April 15, 2000, more than one year after petitioner assumed office as mayor of that city, we hold that there is no bar to its holding on that date.

(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, however, that the date set by the COMELEC for the recall election is within the second period of prohibition in paragraph (b). He argues that the phrase "regular local elections" in paragraph (b) does not only mean "the day of the regular local election" which, for the year 2001 is May 14, but the election period as well, which is normally at least forty five (45) days immediately before the day of the election. Hence, he contends that beginning March 30, 2000, no recall election may be held.

This contention is untenable.

The law is unambiguous in providing that "[n]o recall shall take place within . . . one (1) year immediately preceding a regular local election." Had Congress intended this limitation to refer to the campaign period, which period is defined in the Omnibus Election Code,¹⁰ it could have expressly said so.

Moreover, petitioner's interpretation would severely limit the period during which a recall election may be held. Actually, because no recall election may be held until one year after the assumption of office of an elective local official, presumably on June 30 following his election, the free period is only the period from July 1 of the following year to about the middle of May of the succeeding year. This is a period of only nine months and 15 days, more or less. To construe the second limitation in paragraph (b) as including the campaign period would reduce this period to eight months. Such an interpretation must be rejected, because it would devitalize the right of recall which is designed to make local government units" more responsive and accountable."

Indeed, there is a distinction between election period and campaign period. Under the Omnibus Election Code,¹¹ unless otherwise fixed by the COMELEC, the election period commences ninety (90) days before the day of the election and ends thirty (30) days thereafter. Thus, 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.

To recapitulate the discussion in parts 1 and 2, 74 imposes limitations on the holding of recall elections. First, paragraph (a) prohibits the holding of such election more than once during the term of office of an elective local official. Second, paragraph (b) prohibits the holding of such election within one year from the date the official assumed office. And third, paragraph (b) prohibits the holding of a recall election within one year immediately preceding a regular local election. As succinctly stated in Paras v. COMELEC,[12] "[p]aragraph(b) construed together with paragraph (a) merely designates the period when such elective local official may be subject to recall election, that is, during the second year of office."

(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. 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. According to petitioner, the 74 merely signed their names on pages 94-104 of the resolution to signify their attendance and not their concurrence. 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.

This contention has no basis. To be sure, this claim is being raised for the first time in this case. It was not raised before the COMELEC, in which the claim made by petitioner was that some of the names in the petition were double entries, that some members had withdrawn their support for the petition, 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. 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.

Although the word "Attendance" appears at the top of the page, it is apparent that it was written by mistake because it was crossed out by two parallel lines drawn across it. Apparently, it was mistaken for the attendance sheet which is a separate document. It is absurd to believe that the 74 members of the PRA who signed the recall resolution signified their attendance at the meeting twice. It is more probable to believe that they signed pages 94-104 to signify their concurrence in the recall resolution of which the pages in question are part.

The other point raised by petitioner is that the recall petition filed in the COMELEC was not duly verified, because Atty. Nelson Ng, who notarized it, is not commissioned as notary public for Pasay City but for Makati City. As in the case of the first claim, this issue was not raised before the COMELEC itself. It cannot, therefore, be raised now.

WHEREFORE , G.R. No. 140560 is DISMISSED for lack of merit, while the petition in G.R. No. 140714 is DISMISSED for having been rendered moot and academic.

SO ORDERED. MENDOZA, J

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Quisumbing, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

Melo, and Purisima, JJ., on leave.

Puno, J., see dissenting opinion.

Vitug, J., reiterate his separate opinion in the resolution of 5 Apr. 2000.

Kapunan, J., see attached separate and dissenting opinion.

Panganiban, J., joined the dissents of JJ. Puno and Kapunan. X

Pardo, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., join the dissent of J. Puno.

¹ Per Commissioner Manolo B. Gorospe, and concurred in by Commissioner Harriet O. Demetriou. Commissioner Julio F. Desamito was on leave.

² The case has since been decided by being dismissed. See Trinidad v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 134657, Dec. 15, 1999.

³ Davide, Jr., C.J., and Bellosillo, Vitug, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena, Reyes, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ. Voted to dismiss the petition. Puno, Kapunan, Panganiban, Purisima, Pardo, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., dissented and voted to grant the petitions. Melo, J., who was in Manila for the funeral of his brother, took no part.

⁴ R.A. No. 7160.

⁵ Thus, the Local Government Code provides:

SEC. 70. Initiation of the Recall Process. (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.

(b) There shall be a preparatory recall assembly in every province, city, district, and municipality which shall be composed of the following:mis

(1)......provincial level. All mayors, vice mayors, and sangguniang members of the municipalities and component cities;

(2)......City level. All punong barangay and sangguniang barangay members in the city;

(3)......Legislative District level. In cases where the sangguniang panlalawigan members are elected by district, all elective municipal officials in the district; and in cases where sangguniang panlungsod members are elected by district, all elective barangay officials in the district; and

(4)......Municipal level. All punong barangay and sangguniang barangay members in the municipality.

(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. Recall of provincial, city, 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.

(d) Recall of any elective provincial, city, municipal, or barangay official may also be validly initiated upon petition of at least twenty-five percent (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.

(1)......A written petition for recall duly signed before the election register or his representative and in the presence of a representative, of the petitioner and a representative of the official sought to be recalled, and in a public place in the province, city, municipality, or barangay, as the case may be, shall be filed with the Comelec through its office in the local government unit concerned. 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, for the purpose of verifying the authenticity and genuineness of the petition and the required percentage of voters.

(2)......Upon the lapse of the aforesaid period, 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.

SEC. 71. Election on Recall. Upon the filing of a valid resolution or petition for recall with the appropriate local office of the Comelec, the Commission or its duly authorized representative shall set the date of the election on recall, which shall not be later than thirty (30) days after the filing of the resolution or petition for recall in the case of the barangay, city, or municipal officials, and forty-five (45) days in the case of provincial officials. The official or officials sought to be recalled shall automatically be considered as duly registered candidate or candidates to the pertinent positions and, like other candidates, shall be entitled to be voted upon.

⁶ Such power is vested in the PRA or in at least 25% of the registered voters. 70(c)(d)

⁷ 227 SCRA 100 (1993)

⁸ In re Bower 41 Ill. 777, 242 N.E. 2d 252 (1968)

⁹ 269 SCRA 245, 256 (1997)

¹⁰ The Omnibus Election Code, 3, provides:

.

The campaign periods are hereby fixed as follows:

(a)......For President, Vice President and Senators, ninety (90) days before the day of the election; and

(b)......For Members of the House of Representatives and elective provincial, city and municipal officials, forty-five (45) days before the day of the election.

¹¹ Id.

¹² 264 SCRA 48, 54 (1996)