Paras v.

COMELEC
G.R. No. 123169
November 4, 1996
Francisco, J.

FACTS
Danilo Paras, petitioner, was the incumber Punong Barangay who won during the last regular
barangay election. The registered voters of the barangay filed a petition for his recall. The COMELEC
scheduled a recall election but was deferred because of the opposition of the petitioner invoking Sec. 74
of the Local Government Code which states no recall shall take place within one year from the date of
the officials assumption to office or one year immediately preceding a regular local election. Petitioner
maintains that the recall election is barred because of the upcoming SK Election on May 1996. The
COMELEC for the third time schedule a recall election hence the petition for certiorari.

ISSUE
Whether the SK election is a regular local election

HELD
No. Construction of a statute must take into account its context and the intention in enacting
the statute. In the present case, the SC held that regular local election should be construed as one
referring to an election where the office held by the local elective official sought to be recalled will be
contested and be filled by the electorate. This definition conforms more to the intent of the Local
Government Code (LGC). Interpreting Sec. 74 of the Code, it is deemed to have intended to subject an
elective local official to recall election once during his term of office, particularly during the second year
of his term. Therefore, the SK election that happens every three years could not be considered a regular
local election because then a recall election can never be held. To construe it as a regular local election
would defeat the purpose of the provision of the LGC on recall which affords a mode of removal of
public officers by initiation of the people before the end of his term
In interpreting statutes, it is assumed that the legislators intended to enact an effective law.
Furthermore, a statute should be interpreted in harmony with the Constitution. The mandate of Article
X, Section 3 of the Constitution to "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 mechanism of recall, initiative, and referendum," along with the recall provision in the
LGC, would be rendered inutile and inoperative if the SK election is to be considered within the purview
of Sec. 74.

EN BANC

G.R. No. 123169 November 4, 1996
DANILO E. PARAS, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N

FRANCISCO, J .:
Petitioner Danilo E. Paras is the incumbent Punong Barangay of Pula, Cabanatuan City who won during the
last regular barangay election in 1994. A petition for his recall as Punong Barangay was filed by the registered
voters of the barangay. Acting on the petition for recall, public respondent Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) resolved to approve the petition, scheduled the petition signing on October 14, 1995, and set the
recall election on November 13, 1995.
1
At least 29.30% of the registered voters signed the petition, well above
the 25% requirement provided by law. The COMELEC, however, deferred the recall election in view of
petitioner's opposition. On December 6, 1995, the COMELEC set anew the recall election, this time on
December 16, 1995. To prevent the holding of the recall election, petitioner filed before the Regional Trial Court
of Cabanatuan City a petition for injunction, docketed as SP Civil Action No. 2254-AF, with the trial court
issuing a temporary restraining order. After conducting a summary hearing, the trial court lifted the restraining
order, dismissed the petition [for injunction] and required petitioner and his counsel to explain why they should
not be cited for contempt for misrepresenting that the barangay recall election was without COMELEC
approval.
2

In a resolution dated January 5, 1996, the COMELEC, for the third time, re-scheduled the recall election an
January 13, 1996; hence, the instant petition for certiorari with urgent prayer for injunction. On January 12,
1996, the Court issued a temporary restraining order and required the Office of the Solicitor General, in behalf
of public respondent, to comment on the petition. In view of the Office of the Solicitor General's manifestation
maintaining an opinion adverse to that of the COMELEC, the latter through its law department filed the required
comment. Petitioner thereafter filed a reply.
3

Petitioner's argument is simple and to the point. Citing Section 74 (b) of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise
known as the Local Government Code, which states that "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",
petitioner insists that the scheduled January 13, 1996 recall election is now barred as the Sangguniang
Kabataan (SK) election was set by Republic Act No. 7808 on the first Monday of May 1996, and every three
years thereafter. In support thereof, petitioner cites Associated Labor Union v. Letrondo-Montejo, 237 SCRA
621, where the Court considered the SK election as a regular local election. Petitioner maintains that as the SK
election is a regular local election, hence no recall election can be had for barely four months separate the SK
election from the recall election. We do not agree.
The subject provision of the Local Government Code provides:
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.
[Emphasis added]
It is a rule in statutory construction that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to
the context,i.e., that every part of the statute must be considered together with the other parts, and kept
subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment.
4
The evident intent of Section 74 is to subject an
elective local official to recall election once during his term of office. Paragraph (b) construed together with
paragraph (a) merely designates the period when such elective local official may be subject of a recall election,
that is, during the second year of his term of office. Thus, subscribing to petitioner's interpretation of the
phrase regular local election to include the SK election will unduly circumscribe the novel provision of the Local
Government Code on recall, a mode of removal of public officers by initiation of the people before the end of
his term. And if the SK election which is set by R.A No. 7808 to be held every three years from May 1996 were
to be deemed within the purview of the phrase "regular local election", as erroneously insisted by petitioner,
then no recall election can be conducted rendering inutile the recall provision of the Local Government
Code.
In the interpretation of a statute, the Court should start with the assumption that the legislature intended to
enact an effective law, and the legislature is not presumed to have done a vain thing in the enactment of a
statute.
5
An interpretation should, if possible, be avoided under which a statute or provision being
construed is defeated, or as otherwise expressed, nullified, destroyed, emasculated, repealed, explained
away, or rendered insignificant, meaningless, inoperative or nugatory.
6

It is likewise a basic precept in statutory construction that a statute should be interpreted in harmony with the
Constitution.
7
Thus, the interpretation of Section 74 of the Local Government Code, specifically paragraph (b)
thereof, should not be in conflict with the Constitutional mandate of Section 3 of Article X of the Constitution to
"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 mechanism of recall, initiative, and
referendum . . . ."
Moreover, petitioner's too literal interpretation of the law leads to absurdity, which we cannot countenance.
Thus, in a case, the Court made the following admonition:
We admonish against a too-literal reading of the law as this is apt to constrict rather than
fulfill its purpose and defeat the intention of its authors. That intention is usually found not
in "the letter that killeth but in the spirit that vivifieth". . .
8

The spirit, rather than the letter of a law determines its construction; hence, a statute, as in this case,
must be read according to its spirit and intent.
Finally, recall election is potentially disruptive of the normal working of the local government unit necessitating
additional expenses, hence the prohibition against the conduct of recall election one year immediately
preceding the regular local election. The proscription is due to the proximity of the next regular election for the
office of the local elective official concerned. The electorate could choose the official's replacement in the said
election who certainly has a longer tenure in office than a successor elected through a recall election. It would,
therefore, be more in keeping with the intent of the recall provision of the Code to construe regular local
election as one referring to an election where the office held by the local elective official sought to be recalled
will be contested and be filled by the electorate.
Nevertheless, recall at this time is no longer possible because of the limitation stated under Section 74 (b) of
the Code considering that the next regular election involving the barangay office concerned is barely seven (7)
months away, the same having been scheduled on May 1997.
9

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby dismissed for having become moot and academic. The temporary
restraining order issued by the Court on January 12, 1996, enjoining the recall election should be as it is hereby
made permanent.
SO ORDERED.

Separate Opinions

DAVIDE, J R., J ., concurring:
I concur with Mr. Justice Ricardo J. Francisco in his ponencia.
However, I wish to add another reason as to why the SK election cannot be considered a "regular local
election" for purposes of recall under Section 74 of the Local Government Code of 1991.
The term "regular local election" must be confined to the regular election of elective local officials, as
distinguished from the regular election of national officials. The elective national officials are the President,
Vice-President, Senators and Congressmen. The elective local officials are Provincial Governors, Vice-
Governors of provinces, Mayors and Vice-Mayors of cities and municipalities, Members of the Sanggunians of
provinces, cities and municipalities, punong barangays and members of the sangguniang barangays, and the
elective regional officials of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao. These are the only local elective
officials deemed recognized by Section 2(2) of Article IX-C of the Constitution, which provides:
Sec. 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions:
xxx xxx xxx
(2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns,
and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction
over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general
jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.
A regular election, whether national or local, can only refer to an election participated in by those who possess
the right of suffrage, are not otherwise disqualified by law, and who are registered voters. One of the
requirements for the exercise of suffrage under Section 1, Article V of the Constitution is that the person must
be at least 18 years of age, and one requisite before he can vote is that he be a registered voter pursuant to
the rules on registration prescribed in the Omnibus Election Code (Section 113-118).
Under the law, the SK includes the youth with ages ranging from 15 to 21 (Sec. 424, Local Government Code
of 1991). Accordingly, they include many who are not qualified to vote in a regular election, viz., those from
ages 15 to less than 18. In no manner then may SK elections be considered a regular election (whether
national or local).
Indeed the Sangguniang Kabataan is nothing more than a youth organization, and although fully recognized in
the Local Government Code and vested with certain powers and functions, its elective officials have not
attained the status of local elective officials. So, in Mercado vs. Board of Election Supervisors (243 SCRA 422
[1995]), this Court ruled that although the SK Chairman is an ex-officio member of the sangguniang
barangay an elective body that fact does not make him "an elective barangay official," since the law
specifically provides who comprise the elective officials of the sangguniang barangay, viz., the punong
barangay and the seven (7) regularsangguniang barangay members elected at large by those qualified to
exercise the right of suffrage under Article V of the Constitution, who are likewise registered voters of
the barangay. This shows further that the SK election is not a regular local election for purposes of recall under
Section 74 of the Local Government Code.


FACTS:
Petitioner was the incumbent Punong Barangay who won during the last regular barangay election. A
petition for his recall as Punong Barangay was filed by the registered voters of the barangay. At least
29.30% of the registered voters signed the petition, well above the 25% requirement provided by
law. Acting on the petition for recall, public respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) resolved to
approve the petition and set recall election date. To prevent the holding of recall election, petitioner
filed before the Regional Trial Court a petition for injunction which was later dismissed. Petitioner filed
petition for certiorari with urgent prayer for injunction, insisting that the recall election is barred by the
Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) election under Sec. 74(b) of Local Government Code (LGC) which states that
no recall shall take place within one (1) year from the date of the officials assumption to office or one
(1) year immediately preceding a regular local election.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the prohibition on Sec.74(b) of the LGC may refer to SK elections, where the recall
election is for Barangay post.
HELD:
NO. But petition was dismissed for having become moot and academic.
RATIO:
Recall election is potentially disruptive of the normal working of the local government unit necessitating
additional expenses, hence the prohibition against the conduct of recall election one year immediately
preceding the regular local election. The proscription is due to the proximity of the next regular election
for the office of the local elective official concerned. The electorate could choose the officials
replacement in the said election who certainly has a longer tenure in office than a successor elected
through a recall election.
It would, therefore, be more in keeping with the intent of the recall provision of the Code to construe
regular local election as one referring to an election where the office held by the local elective official
sought to be recalled will be contested and be filled by the electorate.
By the time of judgment, recall was no longer possible because of the limitation stated under the same
Section 74(b) now referred to as Barangay Elections.
CONCURRING OPINION:
DAVIDE:
A regular election, whether national or local, can only refer to an election participated in by those who
possess the right of suffrage, are not otherwise disqualified by law, and who are registered voters. One
of the requirements for the exercise of suffrage under Section 1, Article V of the Constitution is that the
person must be at least 18 years of age, and one requisite before he can vote is that he be a registered
voter pursuant to the rules on registration prescribed in the Omnibus Election Code (Section 113-118).
Under the law, the SK includes the youth with ages ranging from 15 to 21 (Sec. 424, Local Government
Code of 1991). Accordingly, they include many who are not qualified to vote in a regular election, viz.,
those from ages 15 to less than 18. In no manner then may SK elections be considered a regular election
(whether national or local).


FACTS:
A petition for recall was filed against Paras, who is the incumbent Punong Barangay. The recall election was
deferred due to Petitioners opposition that under Sec. 74 of RA No. 7160, no recall shall take place within one
year from the date of the officials assumption to office or one year immediately preceding a
regular local election. Since the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) election was set on the first Monday of May 2006,
no recall may be instituted.

ISSUE:
W/N the SK election is a local election.

HELD:
No. Every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to its context, and it must be considered
together and kept subservient to its general intent. The evident intent of Sec. 74 is to subject an elective local
official to recall once during his term, as provided in par. (a) and par. (b). The spirit, rather than the letter of a
law, determines its construction. Thus, interpreting the phrase regular local election to include SK election will
unduly circumscribe the Code for there will never be a recall election rendering inutile the provision. In
interpreting a statute, the Court assumed that the legislature intended to enact an effective law. An
interpretation should be avoided under which a statute or provision being construed is defeated, meaningless,
inoperative or nugatory.