ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 140560.April 4, 2000]

CLAUDIO vs. COMELEC, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 4 2000.

G.R. No. 140560(Jovito O. Claudio vs. Commission on Elections, et al.) and

G.R. No. 140714(Preparatory Recall Assembly of Pasay, represented by its Chairman, Richard Advincula vs. Commission on Elections, et al.)

At the start of the hearing on these cases this morning, the Court asked the parties' counsels if they had any objection to the participation of Justices Bellosillo, Mendoza and Pardo considering the latter's friendship and/or close personal relation with Mr. Wenceslao "Peewee" Trinidad, one of the candidates in the recall election in Pasay City on 15 April 2000. Counsels manifested they had none and expressed conformity to the participation in the proceedings in these cases of Justices Bellosillo, Mendoza and Pardo. Accordingly, the latter participated in the hearing and deliberation of these cases.

The Court, thereafter, heard oral arguments on the following questions:

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

SEC. 74. 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.

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.

Atty. Pete Quirino-Quadra argued for the petitioner in G.R. No. 140560, while Atty. Hector Danny Uy argued for the petitioner in G.R. No. 140714. Solicitor General Ricardo Galvez argued for the Commission on Elections. Atty. Uy agreed with the observation of the Court that in view of the promulgation by the Commission on 9 March 2000 of Resolution No. 3121 fixing the date of the recall election on 15 April 2000, G.R. No. 140714 has been rendered moot and academic and may now be dismissed.

After their oral arguments, the parties' counsels submitted for resolution and/or decision (a) the question of the issuance of a temporary restraining order as prayed for in petitioner Claudio's Urgent Motion for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order dated 13 March 2000, and (b) the merits of G.R. No. 140560.

In view of the urgency of deciding G.R. No. 140560, considering that the recall election is scheduled to be held on 15 April 2000, the Court, after due deliberation, RESOLVED

A. By the unanimous vote of its members present, to DISMISS G.R. No. 140714 on the ground that the issue raised therein has become moot and academic; and

B.By the vote of eight (8) Justices (Davide, Jr., CJ; and Bellosillo, Vitug, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena, Reyes and Santiago, JJ.) and with six (6) dissenting (Puno, Kapunan, Panganiban, Purisima, Pardo and de Leon, Jr., JJ.), to DISMISS the petition in G.R. No. 140560 on the ground that the Commission on Elections did not act in excess of or without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in promulgating its Resolution of 18 October 1999 in E.M. No. 99-005(RCL), entitled "In the Matter of the Preparatory Recall Assembly (PRA) Resolution No. 01 S. 1999 Adopted on 29 May 1999 for the Recall of Mayor Jovito Claudio of Pasay City," and its Resolution No. 3121 on 9 March 2000 fixing inter alia the date of the recall election on 15 April 2000.

Mr. Justice Melo, who is in Manila for the interment of his brother, took no part.

This resolution is without prejudice to the writing of an extended opinion of the Court and the filing by the Members of separate and dissenting opinions, as the case may be.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE