ELECTION LAWS| Case digests and topics June 24, 2019| Atty.
Jocelyn Valencia| Monica Geller’s notes
TOPICS MENTIONED IN THE NEXT CASES:
A. Kinds of Election
1. REGULAR ELECTIONS – is an election held on such dates
established by law at regular intervals. Whether national or local,
it refers to an election participated in by
a. those who possess the right of suffrage,
b. are not otherwise disqualified by law and
c. who are registered voters.
 Paras v. COMELEC 264 SCRA 49 (1996) – “ SK election is not
considered a regular elections because the said elections are
participated in by youth with ages ranging from 15 to 21, some of
whom are not qualified voters to elect local or national elective
officials”.
2. SPECIAL ELECTIONS - An election not regularly held but which
is conducted or held only for the purposes of:
a. Postponement and failure of elections declared by
comelec
b. In case a permanent vacancy shall occur in the
Senate or House of Representative at least 1 year
before the expiration of the term1, the COMELEC
shall call and hold a special election to fill the vacancy
not earlier than 60 days nor longer then 90 days after
the occurrence of the vacancy, However, in case of
such vacancy in the Senate, the special elections shall
be held simultaneously with the next succeeding
regular elections.
c. In case a vacancy occurs in the offices of the
President and Vice-President, no special elections
shall be called if the vacancy occurs within 18
months before the date of the next presidential
elections 2
B. RA 7166 - An Act Providing For Synchronized National And
Local Elections And For Electoral Reforms, Authorizing
Appropriations Therefor, And For Other Purposes
RA 9369 - (Amended RA 8436) - An act authorizing the comission
on elections to use an automated election system in the MAY
1998 NAtional or Local elections and in subsequent national
elections
"1. Automated election system, hereinafter to as AES - a system
using appropriate technology which has been demonstrated in
the voting, counting, consolidating, canvassing, and transmission
of election result, and other electoral process;
BP. 881 - Omnibus Election Code
Section 5 Postponement of election. - When for any serious
cause such as violence, terrorism, loss or destruction of election
paraphernalia or records, force majeure, and other analogous
causes of such a nature that the holding of a free, orderly and
honest election should become impossible in any political
subdivision, the Commission, motu proprio or upon a verified
petition by any interested party, and after due notice and hearing,
whereby all interested parties are afforded equal opportunity to
be heard, shall postpone the election therein to a date which
should be reasonably close to the date of the election not held,
suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not later than
thirty days after the cessation of the cause for such
postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect.
Section 6 Failure of election. - If, on account of force majeure,
violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes the election
in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed, or had
1 Sec. 4, 7166
2 Art. VII, Sec. 10, Constitution
1
been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of the
voting, or after the voting and during the preparation and the
transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass
thereof, such election results in a failure to elect, and in any of such
cases the failure or suspension of election would affect the result of
the election, the Commission shall, on the basis of a verified petition
by any interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for the
holding or continuation of the election not held, suspended or which
resulted in a failure to elect on a date reasonably close to the date of
the election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to
elect but not later than thirty days after the cessation of the cause of
such postponement or suspension of the election or failure to elect.
Section 7 Call of special election. -
(1) In case a vacancy arises in the Batasang Pambansa eighteen
months or more before a regular election, the Commission shall call
a special election to be held within sixty days after the vacancy
occurs to elect the Member to serve the unexpired term.
(2) In case of the dissolution of the Batasang Pambansa, the
President shall call an election which shall not be held earlier than
forty-five nor later than sixty days from the date of such dissolution.
The Commission shall send sufficient copies of its resolution for the
holding of the election to its provincial election supervisors and
election registrars for dissemination, who shall post copies thereof
in at least three conspicuous places preferably where public
meetings are held in each city or municipality affected.
Sec 10, Art VII, 1987 Constitution
Section 10. The Congress shall, at ten o’clock in the morning of the
third day after the vacancy in the offices of the President and
Vice-President occurs, convene in accordance with its rules without
need of a call and within seven days, enact a law calling for a
special election to elect a President and a Vice-President to be held
not earlier than forty-five days nor later than sixty days from the time
of such call. The bill calling such special election shall be deemed
certified under paragraph 2, Section 26, Article VI of this
Constitution and shall become law upon its approval on third
reading by the Congress. Appropriations for the special election
shall be charged against any current appropriations and shall be
exempt from the requirements of paragraph 4, Section 25, Article VI
of this Constitution. The convening of the Congress cannot be
suspended nor the special election postponed. No special election
shall be called if the vacancy occurs within eighteen months before
the date of the next presidential election.
CASE:
LUCERO vs. COMELEC (note here that the date of the
elections are significant)
Facts: The petitioners in this case were 2 of 5 candidates for the 2nd
legislative district of Northern Samar in the synchronized national
and local elections held on 11 May 1992.
The canvass of the provincial board of canvassers in Samar
credited Jose ong with more votes than Lucero but this tally did not
include the resutls of:
Precinct 7 have not been canvassed for having been
illegible
Precinct 13 Ballot boxes were snatched and no election
was held
Precinct 16 Copies of election returns missing
Lucero asked the COMELEC to suspend the proclamation of ONG,
direct the board of canvassers to correct the total votes and to
ELECTION LAWS| Case digests and topics June 24, 2019| Atty. Jocelyn Valencia| Monica Geller’s notes

conduct special elections pursuant to sec 6 of the omnibus (1) it should be not later than Involves a question of fact
election code thirty days after the cessation of
the cause of the postponement
or suspension of the election or
the failure to elect, and
This case eventually reached the comelec and then on January
7, 1994, it ruled, among others:

(2) it should be reasonably close Must be determined in the light

to the date of the election not of peculiar circumstances of a
“To issue an Order calling for a special election in the last
held, suspended, or which case
remaining Precinct No. 13 (Barangay Gusaran) of the
resulted in failure to elect.
Municipality of Silvino Lobos if justified by the result of the
canvass by the Provincial Board of Canvassers for Northern
Samar, and to notify the parties of the schedule of election
activities for that precinct;”

The issue in this case is, considering that the synchronized
elections were conducted on May 1992, whether the comelec
acted with grave abuse of jurisdiction for calling a special election
in precinct no 13 10 months following the day of the synchronized
elections.
Ruling: YES
In this case, the delay was not attributable to the electorate but due to
legal skirmishes or maneuvers of the petitioners which muddled simple
issues. Since the term of office of the contested position is only 3
years, the holding of the special elections within the next few
months may still be considered “reasonably close to the date of the
election not held.”

Law:
In the course of the deliberations on these cases, the Court considered
Sec. 6. Failure of election. — If, on account of force majeure,
the possible application, by analogy, of Section 10, Article VII of the
violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes the election
1987 Constitution providing that no special election in the event of a
in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed, or had
vacancy in the Offices of the President and Vice President "shall be called
been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the closing of
if the vacancy occurs within eighteen months before the date of the next
the voting, or after the voting and during the preparation and the
presidential election," and of the second paragraph of Section 4 of R. A.
transmission of the election returns or in the custody or canvass
No. 7166 which provides:
thereof, such election results in a failure to elect, and if in any of
such cases the failure or suspension of election would affect the
In case a permanent vacancy shall occur in the Senate or House of
result of the election, the Commission shall, on the basis of a
Representatives at least one (1) year before the expiration of the term,
verified petition by any interested party and after due notice and
the Commission shall call and hold a special election to fill the vacancy
hearing, call for the holding or continuation of the election not
not earlier than sixty (60) days nor longer than ninety (90) days after the
held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect on a date
occurrence of the vacancy. However, in case of such vacancy in the
reasonably close to the date of the election not held, suspended
Senate, the special election shall be held simultaneously with the next
or which resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty days
succeeding regular election.
after the cessation of the cause of such postponement or
suspension of the election or failure to elect.
Expressed view:
A view was expressed that we should not hold the special election
The first paragraph of Section 4 of R. A. No. 7166 likewise
because the underlying philosophy for the prohibition to hold the special
provides:
election if the vacancy occurred within a certain period before the next
presidential election or the next regular election, as the case may be, is
Sec. 4. Postponement, Failure of Election and Special
obviously the avoidance of the expense to be incurred in the holding of a
Elections. — The postponement, declaration of failure of election and
special election when a regular election is, after all, less than a year
the calling of special elections as provided in Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the
away.
Omnibus Election Code shall be decided by the Commission sitting en
banc by a majority votes of its members. The causes for the
Resolution of the court:
declaration of a failure of election may occur before or after the casting
The aforesaid constitutional and statutory proscriptions are inapplicable to
of votes or on the day of the election.
special elections which may be called under Section 6 of the Omnibus
Election Code.
There are, therefore, 2 reauisites for the holding of special elections
under section 6 of the Omnibus election code:

(1) that there is The failure of election in precinct #13 due to ballot Constitutional and statutory Sec 6, omnibus election code
a failure of box snatching (note that as to precinct 7, there proscriptions
election, and are questionable comelec copies of the election
returns) special election in the former is to special election under the latter is
(2) that such Ong originally had a lead of 204 votes. Based on fill permanent vacancies in the due to or by reason of a failure of
failure would the correction of the votes in favor of Lucero, Office of the President, Vice election.
affect the results of the recount in precinct 16 and in precint President, and Members of
results of the 7, this lead will be reduced to either 173 or 175 Congress occurring after the
election. depending on the votes which will be credited in election
favor of lucero in rpecinct 7. Sicne there are 213
registered voters in precinct 13, and the lead of the special election for the Offices special election under Section 6
Ong is lesser than taht number, the votes in that of the President, Vice President, would entail minimal costs
precinct could affect the existing result. So, the 2 and Senators would be because it is limited to only the
requisites then have been met. nation-wide, and that of a precincts involved and to the
Representative, district-wide. candidates who, by the result of
the election in a particular
constituency, would be affected
by the failure of election.

the elected officials have already Section 6, when specifically

served their constituencies for
more than one-half of their terms
As to the fixing of the date of the election, Sec 6 of the omnibus of office.
election code provides that
applied to the instant case,
presupposes that no candidate
had been proclaimed and
therefore the people of the
Second Legislative District of
Northern Samar would be

2
ELECTION LAWS| Case digests and topics June 24, 2019| Atty. Jocelyn Valencia| Monica Geller’s notes

unrepresented in the House of  REFERENDUM is the power of the electorate to approve or

Representatives until the reject legislation through an election called for the
special election shall ultimately purpose. The law-making body submits to the registered
determine the winning voters of its territorial jurisdiction, for approval or rejection, any
candidate, such that if none is ordinance or resolution which is duly enacted or approved by
held, they would have no such law making authority.
representation until the end of
the term.

Fourth, if the law had found it fit to Referendum may be of 2 classes:

provide a specific
determinate time-frame for the
holding of a special election
under Section 6, then it could
have easily done so in Section 4
of R. A. No. 7166.
and
a. Referendum on statutes which refer to a petition to approve or
reject an act or law, or part thereof, passed by Congress; and
b. Referendum on local law which refers to a petition to approve
or reject a law, resolution or ordinance enacted by regional
assemblies and local legislative bodies.

Sec 2, Article XVII, 1987 Constitution

CASE:

Santiago vs. Comelec (RA 6735)

SECTION 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per
centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this
section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of
this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of
this right.
Facts: Atty. Jesus Delfin filed with COMELEC a petition to amend the
constitution, to lift the term limits of elective officials by people’s initiative.
He alleged that his group, the Movement for people’s initiative intent to
exercise the power to directly propose amendments to the constitution
granted under Sec 2 of article 17. HE indicated certain provisions his
group intended to amend and attached a copy of petition for initiative of
the 1987 constitution embodying proposed amendments which consisted
deletion from certain sections of the constitution provisions concerning
term limits.

A. INITIATIVE The comelec then issued an order directing delfin to cause publication of
the petition including proposal on amendments, signature form and notice
of the hearing.

RA 6735:
During the trial, Senator Miriam santiago filed an action for
prohibition raising the argument that:

INITIATIVE IS DEFINED AS THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE TO 1. The provision on people’s initiative to amend the constitution can only
PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OR TO be implemented by law to be passed by congress and no such law has
PROPOSE AND ENACT LEGISLATION THROUGH AN ELECTION been passed;
CALLED FOR THE PURPOSE.

 Initiative is resorted to (or initiated) by the people directly either

2. While RA 6735 (act providing for a system of initiative and referendum)
because the law-making body fails or refuses to enact the law,
provides for 3 systems of initiative namely:
ordinance, resolution or act that they desire or because they want
to amend or modify one already existing. a) Initiative on the constitution

b) On statutes
There are 3 systems of initiative: C-S-L c) On local legislation

It failed to provide a subtitle on the initiative on the constitution unliek

other types which were provided for in subtitle 2 and 3.
a. Initiative on the Constitution which refers to a petition proposing
amendments to the Constitution;

b. Initiative on statutes which refers to a petition proposing to enact According to her, this omission meant that the people’s initiative to amend
a national legislation; and the constitution was left to some future law.
c. Initiative on local legislation which refers to a petition proposing to
enact a regional, provincial, city or municipal or barangay law,
resolution or ordinance. 3. RA 6735 provides for effectivity of the law after publication in print
media. This means that the act covers only laws and not constitutional
amendments because the latter take effect only upon ratification and not
after publication.
 INDIRECT INITIATIVE is exercised of initiative by the people
through a proposition sent to Congress or the local legislative
body for action.
Counter argument:

Contrary to the claim of the petitioners, R.A. No. 6735 is the law which
B. REFERENDUM governs the conduct of initiative to amend the Constitution. The absence
therein of a subtitle for such initiative is not fatal, since subtitles are not
requirements for the validity or sufficiency of laws.

3
ELECTION LAWS| Case digests and topics June 24, 2019| Atty. Jocelyn Valencia| Monica Geller’s notes
Issue:
Whether R.A. No. 6735, entitled An Act Providing for a System of
Initiative and Referendum and Appropriating Funds Therefor, was
intended to include or cover initiative on amendments to the
Constitution; and if so, whether the Act, as worded, adequately covers
such initiative.
Ruling: R.A. NO. 6735 INTENDED TO INCLUDE THE SYSTEM OF
INITIATIVE ON AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION, BUT IS,
UNFORTUNATELY, INADEQUATE TO COVER THAT SYSTEM.
Pertinent provision: Sec 2, Article XVII, 1987 Constitution
Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per
centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this
section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of
this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of
this right.
THSI PROVISION IS NOT SELF EXECUTORY. Without an
implementing legislation, section 2 cannot operate. Thus, although this
mode of amending the cosntitution is a mode of amendment which
bypasses congressional action, in the last analysis it still is dependent
on congressional action.
Has Congress "provided" for the implementation of the exercise of this
right? Those who answer the question in the affirmative, like the
private respondents and intervenor Senator Roco, point to us R.A. No.
6735.
But is R.A. No. 6735 a full compliance with the power and duty of
Congress to "provide for the implementation of the exercise of the
right?"
Ruling: NO
1. The act does not suggest an initiative on amendments to the
constitution
Sec. 2. Statement and Policy. — The power of the
people under a system of initiative and referendum to directly
propose, enact, approve or reject, in whole or in part, the
Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolutions passed by any
legislative body upon compliance with the requirements of this
Act is hereby affirmed, recognized and guaranteed. (Emphasis
supplied).
The inclusion of the word "Constitution" therein was a
delayed afterthought. That word is not relevant to said section,
which exclusively relates to initiative and referendum on national
laws and local laws, ordinances, and resolutions.
That section is silent as to amendments on the
Constitution. As pointed out earlier, initiative on the Constitution
is confined only to proposals to AMEND. The people are not
accorded the power to "directly propose, enact, approve, or
reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution" through the
system of initiative. They can only do so with respect to "laws,
ordinances, or resolutions."
2. It is true that section 3 (Definition) of the act defines intitatives on
amendments to the constitution and mentions it as one of the three
systems of initiative and Section 5 (Requirements) restates the
constitutional requirements as to the percentage of the registered
voters who must submit the proposal. But unlike in the case of the
other systems of initiative, the Act does not provide for the contents of
a petition for initiative on the Constitution.
Section 5, paragraph (c) requires, among other things,
statement of the proposed law sought to be enacted, approved or
rejected, amended or repealed, as the case may be. It made no
4
mention of the constitution which only strengthens the conclusion that
section 2 excludes intitiative on amendments to the constitution.
3. (SAY THAT IT DELVED INTO THE INTERPRETATION OF
LEGISLATIVE INTENT) While the Act provides subtitles for National
Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle II) and for Local Initiative and
Referendum (Subtitle III), no subtitle is provided for initiative on the
Constitution. This conspicuous silence as to the latter simply means that
the main thrust of the Act is initiative and referendum on national and
local laws. If Congress intended R.A. No. 6735 to fully provide for the
implementation of the initiative on amendments to the Constitution, it
could have provided for a subtitle therefor, considering that in the order of
things, the primacy of interest, or hierarchy of values, the right of the
people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution is far more
important than the initiative on national and local laws.
Case digest from Sasha Go Notes:
 Santiago v. COMELEC 270 SCRA 106, COMELEC cannot validly
promulgate rules and regulations to implement the exercise of the right of
the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through
the system of initiative. The power of the COMELEC to issue rules and
regulations is limited only to what is provided under (A) Section 3 of
Article IX-C of the Constitution, or (b) by a law where subordinate
legislation is authorized and which satisfies the “completeness” and
“sufficiency standard” tests.
In this case the petition to propose amendments to the Constitution
particularly the lifting of the term limits of public elective officials was not
validly initiated as it failed to comply with the signature requirement for
initiating an Initiative (Petition signed by at least 12% of all the registered
voters where each legislative district is represented at least by 3%) .
The COMELEC never acquired jurisdiction over the petition as
jurisdiction is acquired only after its filing – the petition being the initiatory
pleading.
Case:
SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN vs. COMELEC
Facts:
March 1992, the congress enacted RA 7227 (The Bases Conversion and
Development Act of 1992), which among others, provided for the creation
of the Subic Economic Zone as provided for in section 12 of said act.
RA 7227 likewise created petitioner to implement the declared national
policy of converting the Subic military reservation into alternative
productive uses
On November 24, 1992, the American navy turned over the Subic military
reservation to the Philippines government.
In April 1993, the Sangguniang Bayan of Morong, Bataan passed
Pambayang Kapasyahan Bilang 10, Serye 1993, expressing therein its
absolute concurrence, as required by said Sec. 12 of RA 7227, to join the
Subic Special Economic Zone. On September 5, 1993, the Sangguniang
Bayan of Morong submitted Pambayang Kapasyahan Bilang 10, Serye
1993 to the Office of the President.
May 1993, the respondents filed a petition to annul the Pambayang
Kapasyahan Bilang 10, Serye 1993.
The Sangguniang Bayan ng Morong acted upon the petition of
respondents Garcia, Calimbas, et al. by promulgating Pambayang
Kapasyahan Blg. 18, Serye 1993, requesting Congress of the Philippines
so amend certain provisions of RA 7227 concernign the matter cited in
the respondent’s petition.
Not satisfied and within 30 days from submission of their petition, the
respondents resorted to their power initiative udner the local government
code of 1991, sec. 122 (b)
Sec. 122. Procedure in Local Initiative. —
xxx xxx xxx
ELECTION LAWS| Case digests and topics June 24, 2019| Atty. Jocelyn Valencia| Monica Geller’s notes

(b) If no favorable action thereon is taken by the sanggunian law-making authority. Said referendum shall be modify one already exi
concerned, the proponents, through their duly authorized and conducted also under the control and direction of the Under Sec. 13 of RA 67
registered representatives, may invoke their power of initiative, giving Commission on Elections. given the opportunity to e
notice thereof to the sangguniang concerned.
July 6, 1993, COMELEC denied the petition for local initiative on the If it refuses/neglects to d
ground that the subject was merely a resolution and not an ordinance. its presentation, the
duly-authorized and re
Respondents filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus against the invoke their power of init
comelec and SB of morong to set aside the Comelec’s resolution local legislative body con
disallowing the conduct of a local initiative.
Should the proponents b
signed conformities with
On June 18, 19956, respondent Comelec issued Resolution No. 2845, statute, the Commission
adopting therein a "Calendar of Activities for local referendum on date for the initiative
certain municipal ordinance passed by the Sangguniang Bayan of proposition shall be subm
Morong, Bataan", and which indicated, among others, the the local government uni
scheduled Referendum Day (July 27, 1996, Saturday).
referendum is begun and consented to by the initiative is entirely the w
On June 27, 1996, the Comelec promulgated the assailed Resolution law-making body.
No. 2848 providing for "the rules and guidelines to govern the Referendum consists merely of the electorate approving Initiative is a process
conduct of the referendum proposing to annul or repeal or rejecting what has been drawn up or enacted by a themselves without the
Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993 of the Sangguniang Bayan of legislative body wishes of their elected
Morong, Bataan".
From the above differentiation, it follows that there is need for the
July 10, 1996, SBMA instituted a petition for certirari and prohibition Comelec to supervise an initiative more closely, its authority
contesting the validity of resolution no. 2848 alleging that the thereon extending not only to the counting and canvassing of votes
respondnet "is intent on proceeding with a local initiative that proposes but also to seeing to it that the matter or act submitted to the people
an amendment of a national law. . . . is in the proper form and language so it may be easily understood
and voted upon by the electorate.
Issue: Did respondent Comelec commit grave abuse of discretion in
promulgating and implementing Resolution No. 2848 (which provided In initiative and referendum, the Comelec exercises administration and
for the rule and guidelines to govern the conduct of the referendum supervision of the process itself, akin to its powers over the conduct of
proposing th annul or repeal kapasyahan blg 10 serye 1993) elections. These law-making powers belong to the people, hence the
respondent Commission cannot control or change the substance or
Ruling: YES. the content of legislation. In the exercise of its authority, it may (in fact it
should have done so already) issue relevant and adequate guidelines and
The process started by the respondents was an INITIATIVE but rules for the orderly exercise of these "people-power" features of our
comelec made preparations for a REFERENDUM only. Constitution.

The body of the resolution made mendtion of referendum 27 times. Not NOTE: SA BISAYA PA, WALA DAPAT NYA GICHANGE TO A
once was the word initiative used and this was supposed to be an REFERENDUM KAY ANG PEOPLE NAGBUOT. BUOT BUOT SAD
INITIATIVE. NING COMELEC.

The court discussed the statutory and conceptual demarcations of a Case digest from Sasha Go’s notes
referendum and initiative.
 SBMA v. COMELEC 252 SCRA 492 (1996).
Referendum Initiative
"Referendum" is the power of the electorate to approve or "Initiative" is the power of the people to propose
reject a legislation through an election called for the amendments to the Constitution or to propose and enact
FACTS: Sangguniang bayan passed Pambayang Kapasyahan Bilang 10, Se
purpose. It may be of two classes, namely: legislations through an election called for the purpose.
absolute concurrence as required by RA 7227 (Bases Conversion and Deve
Special Economic Zone. On September 5, 1993, the SB submitted the Ka
c.1. Referendum on statutes which refers to a petition There are three (3) systems of initiative, namely:
President. Petitioner SBMA seeks to nullify the respondent COMELEC’s Ord
to approve or reject an act or law, or part thereof, passed
stop the holding of a local initiative and referendum on the proposition to recall t
by Congress; and a.1. Initiative on the Constitution which refers to a
petition proposing amendments to the Constitution;
c.2 Referendum on local law which refers to a petition
to approve or reject a law, resolution or ordinance a.2. Initiative on
 statutes
To begin which
with, refers to a petition
the process started by respondents was an Initiative but
enacted by regional assemblies and local legislative proposing to enact a national legislation;
preparations for a and
Referendum. In the body of the COMELEC Resolution No
bodies. repeated at least 27 times, but initiative is not mentioned at all. The COME
a.3. Initiative on local legislation
referendum, thewhich refers
counting to a was entrusted to a referendum committe
of votes
petition proposing toreferendum
enact a regional,
returns,provincial, city, referendum board of canvassers and th
the canvassers
municipal, or barangay law, resolution
description or ordinance.
“referendum.

"Indirect initiative" is exercise of initiative by the people

through a proposition sent to Congress or the local
SC DISTINGUISHED INITIATIVE FROM REFERENDUM:
legislative body for action.
As compared by Justice Isagani Cruz
"is the right reserved to the people to adopt or reject any the "power of the people to propose bills and laws, and
act or measure which has been passed by a legislative to enact or reject themInitiative
at the polls independent of theReferendum
body and which in most cases would without action on legislative assembly."
the part of electors become a law." Initiative is a process of Referendum consists merely
According to RA 7160 (Local Government Code) law-making by the people of the electorate approving or
Local Referendum Defined. — Local referendum is the Local Initiative Defined. — Local initiative
themselves withoutis thethelegalrejecting what has been drawn
legal process whereby the registered voters of the local process whereby the registeredandvoters
participation againstof thelocalup or enacted by a legislative
government units may approve, amend or reject any government unit may directly
wishespropose, enact,elected
of their or amendbody.
ordinance enacted by the sanggunian. A-A-R any ordinance. P-E-A representatives,

SC’s conclusion
in a LOCAL REFERENDUM, the law-making body
submits to the registered voters of its territorial
jurisdiction, for approval or rejection, any ordinance or
resolution which is duly enacted or approved by such
The process and the voting in Voters simply write either
INITIATIVE is resortedanto
initiative are more
(or initiated) the people“yes” or “no” in the ballot
bycomplex.
directly either because the law-making body fails or
refuses to enact the law, ordinance, resolution or act
that they desire or because they want to amend or
The Constitution clearly includes not only ordinances but also resolutions
5
ELECTION LAWS| Case digests and topics June 24, 2019| Atty. Jocelyn Valencia| Monica Geller’s notes

by a local legislative body) as appropriate subjects of a local initiative in accordance with Section 32 Article VI of
the Constitution. 2 ELEMENTS FOR AN INITIATIVE:
A. First, the people must author and thus sign the
entire proposal. No agent or representative can
sign on their behalf.
B. Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the
proposal must be embodied in a petition.
Case:
These essential elements are present only if the full
LAMBINO vs. COMELEC
text of the proposed amendments is first shown to the
people who express their assent by signing such
Facts: Raul Lambino and Erico Aumentado with other groups and
complete proposal in a petition.
individuals commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to
change the 1987 constitutio. 2006, they filed a peition before the
The full text of the proposed amendments may be either
comelec to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative under section
written on the face of the petition, or attached to it. If so
5b and c2 and section 73 of RA 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum
attached, the petition must state the fact of such attachment.
act.
Otherwise, it is physically impossible, given the time
constraint, to prove that every one of the millions of
They alleged that their petiton had the support of 6.7 million individuals
signatories has seen the full text.
constituting at least twelve per centum (12%) of all registered voters,
with each legislative district represented by at least three per centum
PURPOSE of full text requirement
(3%) of its registered voters. Their petition changes the 1987
so that registered voters can intelligently evaluate
constitution by modifying:
whether to sign the initiative petition.
1. Section 1-7 of Article VI - Legislative department;
Proponents of the initiative secure the signatures from
2. Sections 4 of Article VII - Executive department
the people and these proponenst are acting in their private
3. Adding Article XVIII - transitory provisions
capacity and nto as public officials. Thus, there is no
To shift the bicameral presidential system to unicameral parliamentary
presumption that they observed the constitutional
form of government.
requirements in gathering signatures. In the attached
signature sheet, there is NOT A SINGLE WORD OF the
COMELEC’s RULING
PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE SIGNATURE SHEET.
Denied the petition for lack of an enabling law governing initiative
petitions to amend the constitution (invoking the rule on Santiago vs.
The signature sheet merely asks a question whether the people
Comelec)
approve a shift from the Bicameral-Presidential to the
Unicameral-Parliamentary system of government. The signature
Various groups and individuals sought intervention, filing pleadings
sheet does not show to the people the draft of the proposed
supporting or opposing the Lambino Group's petition. The supporting
changes before they are asked to sign the signature sheet.
intervenors uniformly hold the view that the COMELEC committed
grave abuse of discretion in relying on Santiago.
Clearly, the signature sheet is not the "petition" that the framers of
the Constitution envisioned when they formulated the initiative clause in
Issues:
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution.
1. Whether the Lambino Group's initiative petition complies with
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on amendments to the
In addition, in reply to thier allegation that they circulated copies of
Constitution through a people's initiative;
the draft petition together with the signature sheets,
2. Whether a revisit of Santiago is necessary
The Lambino Group never alleged in the 25 August 2006 petition or the
30 August 2006 amended petition with the COMELEC that they circulated
printed copies of the draft petition together with the signature sheets.
Ruling:
Likewise, the Lambino Group did not allege in their present petition before
There is no merit to the petition.
this Court that they circulated printed copies of the draft petition together
with the signature sheets. The signature sheets do not also contain any
A. The Lambino Group miserably failed to comply with the basic
indication that the draft petition is attached to, or circulated with, the
requirements of the Constitution for conducting a people's initiative.
signature sheets.
Thus, there is even no need to revisit Santiago, as the present petition
warrants dismissal based alone on the Lambino Group's glaring failure
It is only in their Consolidated Reply to the Opposition-in-Interventions
to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution. For following
that the Lambino Group first claimed that they circulated the "petition for
the Court's ruling in Santiago, no grave abuse of discretion is
initiative filed with the COMELEC.
attributable to the Commision on Elections.
This appears to be an afterthought made after the issue was pointed out.
1. Initiative does not comply with section 2
Moreover, atty lambino could only assure the court that he circulated
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing
100k copies.
constitutional provision that allows a people's initiative to
propose amendments to the Constitution. This section states:
Thus, of the 6.3 million signatories, only 100,000 signatories could have
received with certainty one copy each of the petition, assuming a 100
i. Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may
percent distribution with no wastage. If Atty. Lambino and company
likewise be directly proposed by the people through
attached one copy of the petition to each signature sheet, only 100,000
initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per
signature sheets could have circulated with the petition. Each signature
centum of the total number of registered voters
sheet contains space for ten signatures. Assuming ten people signed
of which every legislative district must be
each of these 100,000 signature sheets with the attached petition, the
represented by at least three per centum of the
maximum number of people who saw the petition before they signed the
registered voters therein.
signature sheets would not exceed 1,000,000.
The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission
With only 100,000 printed copies of the petition, it would be physically
vividly explain the meaning of an amendment "directly
impossible for all or a great majority of the 6.3 million signatories to have
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition," -
seen the petition before they signed the signature sheets. The
"draft of the proposed constitutional amendment"
inescapable conclusion is that the Lambino Group failed to show to the
should be "ready and shown" to the people "before"
6.3 million signatories the full text of the proposed changes. If ever, not
they sign such proposal.
more than one million signatories saw the petition before they signed the
signature sheets.
The essence of amendments "directly proposed by
the people through initiative upon a petition" is that
the entire proposal on its face is a petition by the people.
B. The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution
This means two essential elements must be present.
Disallowing Revision through Initiatives
6
ELECTION LAWS| Case digests and topics June 24, 2019| Atty. Jocelyn Valencia| Monica Geller’s notes
people's initiative Congress or a constitutional convention
applies only to an amendment of the Constitution and not
can propose both amendments
to its revision. Constitution.
Under both the quantitative and qualitative tests, the Lambino
Group's initiative is a revision and not merely an amendment.
Quantitatively, the Lambino Group's proposed changes overhaul two
articles - Article VI on the Legislature and Article VII on the Executive -
affecting a total of 105 provisions in the entire Constitution.40
Qualitatively, the proposed changes alter substantially the basic plan
of government, from presidential to parliamentary, and from a
bicameral to a unicameral legislature.
A change in the structure of government is a revision of the
Constitution, as when the three great co-equal branches of
government in the present Constitution are reduced into two. This
alters the separation of powers in the Constitution.
AMENDMENT, Defined
An amendment envisages an alteration of one or a few specific and
separable provisions. The guiding original intention of an amendment
is to improve specific parts or to add new provisions deemed
necessary to meet new conditions or to suppress specific portions that
may have become obsolete or that are judged to be dangerous.
REVISION,Defined
In revision, the guiding original intention and plan contemplates a
re-examination of the entire document, or of provisions of the
document which have over-all implications for the entire document, to
determine how and to what extent they should be altered.
B. A REVISIT OF SANTIAGO IS NOT NECESSARY
The present petition warrants dismissal for failure to comply with the
basic requirements of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on the
conduct and scope of a people's initiative to amend the Constitution.
There is no need to revisit this Court's ruling in Santiago declaring RA
6735 "incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and
conditions" to cover the system of initiative to amend the Constitution.
An affirmation or reversal of Santiago will not change the outcome of
the present petition.
(But note that Santiago effectively ruled that RA 6735 does not comply
with the requirements of the Constitution to implement the initiative
clause on amendments to the Constitution.)
Nevertheless, even assuming that RA 6735 is valid to implement the
constitutional provision on initiatives to amend the Constitution, this will
not change the result here because the present petition violates
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. To be a valid initiative, the
present initiative must first comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution even before complying with RA 6735.
Even then, the present initiative violates Section 5(b) of RA 6735 which
requires that the "petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must
have at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of
registered voters as signatories." Section 5(b) of RA 6735 requires
that the people must sign the "petition x x x as signatories."
The 6.3 million signatories did not sign the petition of 25 August 2006
or the amended petition of 30 August 2006 filed with the
COMELEC. Only Atty. Lambino, Atty. Demosthenes B. Donato,
and Atty. Alberto C. Agra signed the petition and amended
petition as counsels for "Raul L. Lambino and Erico B.
Aumentado, Petitioners." In the COMELEC, the Lambino Group,
claiming to act "together with" the 6.3 million signatories, merely
attached the signature sheets to the petition and amended petition.
Thus, the petition and amended petition filed with the COMELEC
did not even comply with the basic requirement of RA 6735 that
the Lambino Group claims as valid.
Case digest from Sasha Go’s Notes
 Lambino vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153, Oct. 25, 2006
FACTS: The and
Lambino Groupto commenced
revisions the gathering signatures for an initiati
Constitution and then filed a petition with COMELEC to hold a plebiscite for rat
and Sec. 7 of RA 6735. The proposed changes under the petition will shift the
system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government. COMELEC did not
enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the Constitution, pursuant to
ISSUES:
Whether the proposed changes constitute an amendment or revision
Whether the initiative petition is sufficient compliance with the constitutional re
the people
RULING:
Initiative petition does not comply with Sec. 2, Art. XVII on direct proposal by pe
Sec. 2, Art. XVII...is the governing provision that allows a people’s initiative
Constitution. While this provision does not expressly state that the petition m
proposed amendments, the deliberations of the framers of our Constitution cl
intended to adopt relevant American jurisprudence on people’s initiative; and (
first see the full text of the proposed amendments before they sign, and that th
containing such full text.
The essence of amendments “directly proposed by the people through init
entire proposal on its face is a petition by the people. This means two essential e
2 elements of initiative
First, the people must author and thus sign the entire proposal. No agent or
behalf.
Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in
These essential elements are present only if the full text of the proposed a
people who express their assent by signing such complete proposal in a petitio
amendments may be either written on the face of the petition, or attached to it.
stated the fact of such attachment. This is an assurance that everyone of the sev
petition had seen the full text of the proposed amendments before – not after – s
Moreover, “an initiative signer must be informed at the time of signing of th
is proposed” and failure to do so is “deceptive and misleading” which renders the
In the case of the Lambino Group’s petition, there’s not a single word, ph
proposed changes in the signature sheet. Neither does the signature sheet sta
changes is attached to it. The signature sheet merely asks a question whether
the Bicameral-Presidential to the Unicameral- Parliamentary system of govern
not show to the people the draft of the proposed changes before they are asked
omission is fatal.
An initiative that gathers signatures from the people without first showing
proposed amendments is most likely a deception, and can operate as a gigantic
the Constitution requires that an initiative must be “directly proposed by the peo
that the people must sign on a petition that contains the full text of the propos
issue as amending the nation’s fundamental law, the writing of the text of the p
hidden from the people under a general or special power of attorney to unn
individuals.
The initiative violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution disallowing revisi
Article XVII of the Constitution speaks of three modes of amending the
through Congress upon three-fourths vote of all its Members. The second m
convention. The third mode is through a people’s initiative.
Section 1 of Article XVII, referring to the first and second modes, applies to
of, this Constitution.” In contrast, Section 2 of Article XVII, referring to th
“amendments to this Constitution.” This distinction was intentional as show
Constitutional Commission. A people’s initiative to change the Constitution appl
Constitution and not to its revision. In contrast, Congress or a constitutiona
amendments and revisions to the Constitution.
Does the Lambino Group’s initiative constitute a revision of the Constitution?
7
ELECTION LAWS| Case digests and topics June 24, 2019| Atty. Jocelyn Valencia| Monica Geller’s notes

Yes. By any legal test and under any jurisdiction, a shift from language.
a Bicameral-Presidential to a
Unicameral-Parliamentary system, involving the abolition of the Office of the President and the abolition of one
chamber of Congress, is beyond doubt a revision, not a mere amendment.

Amendment vs. Revision

Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle in the constitution, like altering the principle of
separation of powers or the system of checks-and-balances. There is also revision if the change alters the
substantial entirety of the constitution, as when the change affects substantial
TOPIC:provisions
REFRENDUM of theand
constitution.
INITIATIVE OnREQUIREMENTS
the other hand, amendment broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, or deletes without altering the basic
principle involved. Revision generally affects several provisions of the REQUIREMENTS:
constitution, while amendment generally
affects only the specific provision being amended.

Where the proposed change applies only to a specific provision of the Constitution without affecting any
other section or article, the change may generally be considered an amendment and not athe
1) To exercise revision.
power For example, AND REFERENDUM:
of INITIATIVE
a change reducing the voting age from 18 years to 15 years is an amendment and not a revision. Similarly, a
change reducing Filipino ownership of mass media companies from 100% to 60% is an amendment and not a
revision. Also, a change requiring a college degree as an additional qualification for election to the Presidency is
an amendment and not a revision. National Law or Law passed by the legislative assembly of an
autonomous region, province or city:
The changes in these examples do not entail any modification of sections or articles of the Constitution
other than the specific provision being amended. These changes do not also affecta. at theleast 10% of
structure of the total number of registered voters,
government
or the system of checks-and-balances among or within the three branches.
b. of which every legislative district is represented by at least
However, there can be no fixed rule on whether a change is an amendment or 3%a of the registered
revision. A changevoters
in athereof,
single word of one sentence of the Constitution may be a revision and not an amendment. For example, the
c. shall sign a petition for the purpose and register the same
substitution of the word “republican” with “monarchic” or “theocratic” in Section 1, Article II of the Constitution
with the COMELEC.
radically overhauls the entire structure of government and the fundamental ideological basis of the Constitution.
Thus, each specific change will have to be examined case-by-case, depending on how
d. The it affects other provisions,
percentage requirement is likewise applicable and is
as well as how it affects the structure of government, the carefully crafted system ofdeemed
checks-and-balances, and
validly initiated to a referendum or initiative affecting
the underlying ideological basis of the existing Constitution. a law, resolution or ordinance
Since a revision of a constitution affects basic principles, or several provisions of a constitution, a
deliberative body with recorded proceedings is best suited to undertake a revision. A revision requires
harmonizing not only several provisions, but also the altered principles with those
Lawthat remain
passed in aunaltered. Thus,
municipality
constitutions normally authorize deliberative bodies like constituent assemblies or constitutional conventions to
undertake revisions. On the other hand, constitutions allow people’s initiatives, which do not have fixed and
identifiable deliberative bodies or recorded proceedings, to undertake only amendments and not revisions.
a. petition is signed by at least 10% of the RV of the
municipality

Tests to determine whether amendment or revision b.

of which every barangay is represented by at least 3% of the
RV voters therein.
In California where the initiative clause allows amendments but not revisions to the constitution just like in
our Constitution, courts have developed a two-part test: the quantitative test and the qualitative test. The
quantitative test asks whether the proposed change is so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the
With
substantial entirety of the constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous respect
existing to a barangay
provisions. resolution or ordinance
The court
examines only the number of provisions affected and does not consider the degree of the change.

The qualitative test inquires into the qualitative effects of the proposed change in the constitution. The main
a. signed by at least 10% of the registered voters of said
inquiry is whether the change will accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental
barangay.
plan as to amount to a revision. Whether there is an alteration in the structure of government is a proper subject
of inquiry. Thus, a change in the nature of [the] basic governmental plan includes change in its fundamental
framework or the fundamental powers of its Branches. A change in the nature of the basic governmental plan
also includes changes that jeopardize the traditional form of government2)andathe system
petition forofancheck and balances.
INITIATIVE on the 1987 Constitution,

Under both the quantitative and qualitative tests, the Lambino Group’s initiative
a. must is abe
revision
signedandbynotatmerely
least 12% of the total number of
an amendment. Quantitatively, the Lambino Group’s proposed changes overhaulregistered two articles - Article VI on the
voters,
Legislature and Article VII on the Executive - affecting a total of 105 provisions in the entire Constitution.
Qualitatively, the proposed changes alter substantially the basic plan ofb.government,
of which every
from presidential
legislative district
to must be represented by at
parliamentary, and from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature. least 3% of the voters therein.

LIMITATION: Initiative may be initiated only after 5 years following

the ratification of the 1987 Constitution and only once every five (5)
A change in the structure of government is a revision years thereafter.

A change in the structure of government is a revision of the Constitution,

PROCEDUREas whenINthe
THEthree great co-equal
CONDUCT OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM:
branches of government in the present Constitution are reduced into two. This alters the separation of powers in
the Constitution. A shift from the present Bicameral-Presidential system 1.The
to a Unicameral-Parliamentary
COMELEC, shall schedule system is registration of voters at least 3
a special
a revision of the Constitution. Merging the legislative and executive branches is a radical change in the structure
weeks before the scheduled initiative or referendum.
of government. The abolition alone of the Office of the President as the locus of Executive Power alters the
separation of powers and thus constitutes a revision of the Constitution. Likewise,
2.After the abolition
determining alone ofofone
the sufficiency the petition, the COMELEC shall,
chamber of Congress alters the system of checks-and-balances within withinthe legislature
30 days, and constitutes
publish the same a revision
in Filipino and English at least twice in a
of the Constitution. newspaper of general and local circulation and set the date of the
Initiative or Referendum not earlier than 45 days but not later than 90
The Lambino Group theorizes that the difference between amendment and revision is only one of
days from the determination by the COMELEC of the sufficiency of the
procedure, not of substance. The Lambino Group posits that when a deliberative body drafts and proposes
petition.
changes to the Constitution, substantive changes are called revisions because members of the deliberative body
work full-time on the changes. The same substantive changes, when proposed through an initiative, are called
3.The Election Registrar shall verify the signatures on the petition on the
amendments because the changes are made by ordinary people who do not make an occupation, profession, or
basis of the registry of voters, voter’s affidavits and voter’s identification
vocation out of such endeavor. The SC, however, ruled that the express intent of the framers and the plain
cards used in the immediately preceding elections.
language of the Constitution contradict the Lambino Group’s theory. Where the intent of the framers and the
language of the Constitution are clear and plainly stated, courts do not deviate from such categorical intent and
EFFECTIVITY OF INITIATIVE or REFERENDUM
8
ELECTION LAWS| Case digests and topics June 24, 2019| Atty. Jocelyn Valencia| Monica Geller’s notes
1)The national law proposed for enactment, approval or amendment
approved by a majority of the votes cast as certified by the COMELEC,
shall become effective 15 days following completion of its publication
in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines.
2)The proposition to reject a national law approved by a majority of the
votes cast, shall be deemed repealed and the repeal shall become
effective 15 days following the completion of publication of the
proposition and the certification by the Commission. But if the
majority is not obtained, the national law sought to be rejected or
amended shall remain in full force and effect.
3)With regards to the proposition in an initiative on the
CONSTITUTION approved by a majority of the votes cast in the
plebiscite, the same shall become effective as to the day of the
plebiscite.
RECALL, defined
RECALL is the mode of removal of a public officer by the people
before the end of his term of office which shall be exercised by
the registered voters of a local government unit to which the local
elective official subject of such recall belongs.
Case:
Garcia vs. Comelec
Sasha Go’s Notes
 Garcia vs. COMELEC 227 SCRA 100 (1993) – “The people’s prerogative
incident of their sovereign power and in the absence of a constitutional restraint, the power is implied in
governmental operations.”
Facts:
Garcia was elected governor of the provicne of Bataan in the May
1992 elections. In the early evening of July 1993, some mayors,
vice-mayors and members of the Sangguniang Bayan of the twelve
(12) municipalities of the province met at the National Power
Corporation compound in Bagac, Bataan. On the following day, they
proceeded to the bagac town plaza where they constituted themselves
into a preparatory recall assembly to inititate the recall election of election. Such prerogative necessarily includes the sole and exclusive
petitioner Garcia.
Resolution #1 was passed for the recall of the petitioner on the ground
of "loss of confidence." The motion was "unanimously seconded.
The Garcia then filed with COMELEC a petition to deny due course to
Resolution #1 alleging that the PRAC failed to comply with the
"substantive and procedural requirement" laid down in Section 70 of
R.A. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991.
Before the SC, Garcia argued the following:
A. section 70 of R.A. 7160 allowing recall through the initiative of the
PRAC is unconstitutional because:
(1) the people have the sole and exclusive right to decide whether or
not to initiate proceedings, and
(2) it violated the right of elected local public officials belonging to the
political minority to equal protection of law.
B. They also argued that the proceedings followed by the PRAC in
passing Resolution No. I suffered from numerous defects, the most
fatal of which was the deliberate failure to send notices of the meeting
to sixty-five (65) members of the assembly.
Issues:
(1) whether or not all the members of the Preparatory Recall Assembly
were notified of its meeting; and
(3) assuming lack of notice, whether or not it would vitiate the
proceedings of the assembly including its Resolution No. 1.
Ruling:
1. The failure to give notice to all members of the assembly, especially
to the members known to be political allies of petitioner Garcia was
admitted by both counsels of the respondents.
The due process clause of the Constitution requiring notice as an
element of fairness is inviolable and should always be considered
as part and parcel of every law in case of its silence. The need for
notice to all the members of the assembly is also imperative for
these members represent the different sectors of the electorate of
Bataan. To the extent that they are not notified of the meeting of the
assembly, to that extent is the sovereign voice of the people they
represent nullified.
RECALL, defined
Recall is a mode of removal of a public officer by the people before the
end of his term of office. The people's prerogative to remove a public
officer is an incident of their sovereign power and in the absence of
constitutional restraint, the power is implied in all governmental
operations. Such power has been held to be indispensable for the proper
administration of public affairs. 12 Not undeservedly, it is frequently
described as a fundamental right of the people in a representative
democracy. 13
Recall is a mode of removal of elective local officials made its maiden
appearance in our 1973 Constitution. It was mandated in section 2 of
Article XI entitled Local Government.
The Batasang Pambansa then enacted BP 337 entitled "The Local
Government Code of 1983." Section 54 of its Chapter 3 provided only
one mode of initiating the recall elections of local elective officials, i.e., by
petition of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the total number of
registered voters in the local government unit concerned
In response to this constitutional call, Congress enacted R.A. 7160,
otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, which took
effect on January 1, 1992. In this Code, Congress provided for a second
mode of initiating the recall process through a preparatory recall
assembly which in the provincial level is composed of all mayors,
vice-mayors and sanggunian members of the municipalities and
component to remove
cities. a public officer is an
The legislative records reveal there were two (2) principal reasons why
this alternative mode of initiating the recall process thru an assembly was
adopted, viz:
(a) to diminish the difficulty of initiating recall thru the direct action of the
people; and
(b) to cut down on its expenses.
Petitioner’s postulation
It is first postulated by the petitioners that "the right to recall does not
extend merely to the prerogative of the electorate to reconfirm or
withdraw their confidence on the official sought to be recalled at a special
right to decide on whether to initiate a recall proceedings or not."
Court’s Ruling
We do not agree. Petitioners cannot point to any specific provision of the
Constitution that will sustain this submission. To be sure, there is nothing
in the Constitution that will remotely suggest that the people have the
"sole and exclusive right to decide on whether to initiate a recall
proceeding." The Constitution did not provide for any mode, let alone a
single mode, of initiating recall elections. Neither did it prohibit the
adoption of multiple modes of initiating recall elections.
PRAC is also initiation by the people, albeit done indirectly through
their representatives. It is not constitutionally impermissible for the people
to act through their elected representatives. Nothing less than the
paramount task of drafting our Constitution is delegated by the people to
their representatives, elected either to act as a constitutional convention
or as a congressional constituent assembly.
On the 2nd issue
WON the alternative mode of allowing a preparatory recall assembly to initiate the pro
Held:
No Ratio: A reading of the legislative history of these recall provisio
empowering a preparatory recall assembly to initiate the recall from office of local ele
House of Representatives and not the Senate. The legislative records reveal there we
this alternative mode of initiating the recall process thru an assembly was adopted,
viz
: (a) to diminish the difficulty of initiating recall thru the direct action of the people; and
Our lawmakers took note of the undesirable fact that the mechanism initiating recall
was utilized only once in the City of Angeles, Pampanga, but even this lone attemp
Former Congressman Wilfredo Cainglet explained that this initiatory process by
too cumbersome, too expensive and almost impossible to implement. Consequen
second mode of initiating the recall of local officials thru a preparatory recall
the argument that this second mode may cause instability in the local government un
9
ELECTION LAWS| Case digests and topics June 24, 2019| Atty. Jocelyn Valencia| Monica Geller’s notes

(1) Initiated by a written petition for recall duly signed before the
Petitioners cannot point to any specific provision of the Constitution that will sustain this submission.
Election RegistrarTo orbe
hissure, there
representative and in the presence of a
is nothing in the Constitution that will remotely suggest that the people have the "sole and exclusiveofright
representative thetopetitioner
decide on and a representative of the
whether to initiate official sought to be recalled, and in a public place in the
a recall proceeding." The Constitution did not provide for any mode, let aloneprovince, a single mode, of initiating or
city, municipality recall
brgy. as the case may be, shall
elections. Neither did it prohibit the adoption of multiple modes of initiating recall beelections. Thethe
filed with mandate
COMELEC given by
through its office in the local
section 3 of Article X of the Constitution is for Congress to "enact a local government code which
government unitshall provide for a
concerned.
more responsive and accountable local government structure through a system of decentralization with effective
mechanisms of recall, initiative, and referendum . . ." By this constitutional mandate,
(2) The Congress
COMELEC was clearly
shall causegiven the
the publication of the petition in a public
power to choose the effective mechanisms of recall as its discernment dictates. The power given was to select which
and conspicuous place for a period of not less than 10 days nor
among the means and methods of initiating recall elections are effective to carry out the judgment of the electorate.
more than 20 days, for the purpose of verifying the authenticity and
Congress was not straight jacketed to one particular mechanism of initiating recall elections. What the Constitution
simply required is that the mechanisms of recall, whether one or many, to be chosen genuineness
by Congress of the petition
should and the required percentage of voters.
be effective.
Using its constitutionally granted discretion, Congress deemed it wise to enact an alternative mode of initiating recall
(3) Upon the lapse of the said period, the COMELEC shall announce
elections to supplement the former mode of initiation by direct action of the people. Congress has made its choice as
called for by the Constitution and it is not the prerogative of this Court to supplantthe thisacceptance
judgment. ofThecandidates
choice may to the
be position and prepare the list of
erroneous but even then, the remedy against a bad law is to seek its amendmentcandidates or repeal by including the names
the legislative. of the official sought to be recalled
By the
principle of separation of powers, it is the legislative that determines the necessity,(as he is automatically
adequacy, considered a registered candidate and
wisdom and expediency
of any law. Petitioners also positive thesis that in passing Resolution 1, the Bataan entitled to be voted
Preparatory upon
Recall (Sec. 71
Assembly didRA 7160) but who is prohibited to
resign
not only initiate the process of recall but had de facto recalled Garcia from office, a power while
reserved thepeople
to the recall proceeding
alone. is in progress (Sec. 73).

Again, the contention cannot command our concurrence. Petitioners have misconstrued the nature of the initiatory
process of recall by the PRAC. They have embraced the view that initiation by the PRAC is not initiation by the people.
This is a misimpression for initiation by the PRAC is also initiation by the people, albeit ON
ELECTION done indirectly through their
RECALL
representatives. It is not constitutionally impermissible for the people to act through their elected representatives.

Nothing less than the paramount task of drafting our Constitution is delegated by the people to their representatives,
 Upon
elected either to act as a constitutional convention or as a congressional constituent the filing
assembly. The ofinitiation
the resolution or petition, the shall set the date of
of a recall
process is a lesser act and there is no rhyme or reason why it cannot be entrusted the to and exercised
election on recall by not
the elected
later than 30 days for city, brgy. or
representatives of the people. More far out is petitioners' stance that a PRA resolution
municipalof recall is the
officials andrecall
45 daysitself.
for It
provincial officials.
cannot be seriously doubted that a PRA resolution of recall merely, starts the process. It is part of the process but is not
the whole process. This ought to be self evident for a PRA resolution of recall that is not submitted to the COMELEC
for validation will not recall its subject official.
EFFECTIVITY OF RECALL
Likewise, a PRA resolution of recall that is rejected by the people in the election called for the purpose bears no effect
whatsoever. The initiatory resolution merely sets the stage for the official concerned to appear before the tribunal of the
people so he can justify why he should be allowed to continue in office. Before the people render their sovereign
 isonly
judgment, the official concerned remains in office but his right to continue in office upontothe
subject electionThis
question. and isproclamation
clear in of a successor in the person
section 72 of the Local Government Code which states that "the recall of an elective of the candidate who
local official received
shall the highest number of votes cast
be effective
only upon the election and proclamation of a successor in the person of the candidate receiving
during the highest
the election number of
in recall.
votes cast during the election on recall."
 Should the official sought to be recalled receive the highest number
of votes, confidence in him is thereby affirmed and he shall continue
in office (Sec. 72).

Modes of Initiating RECALL

 Limited to a petition commenced only by the registered voters
LIMITATIONS ON RECALL
in the local unit concerned.3
 an elective official may be subject of recall elections only once
during his term exclusively on the ground of lack of confidence.
Section 69. By Whom Exercised. - The power of recall for loss of
 The recall cannot be undertaken within 1 year from the date of
confidence shall be exercised by the registered voters of a local
the official’s assumption of office or one (1) year immediately
government unit to which the local elective official subject to such
preceding a regular election (Sec. 74).
recall belongs.

Section 70: “The recall of any elective provincial, city, municipal or

barangay official shall be commenced by a petition of a registered
voter in the LGU concerned with the following percentage requirement:
 At least 25% in the case of an LGU with a voting population
of not more than 20,000
 At least 20% in the case of LGU’s with a voting population of
at least 20,000 but not more than 75,000. Provided, that in
no case shall the required petitioners be less than 5,000
 At least 15% in the case of local government units with a
voting population of at least 75,000 but not more than
300,000: Provided however, that in no case shall the
required number of petitioners be less than 15,000; and
 At least 10% in the case of local government units with a
voting population of over 300,000: Provided, however, that
in no case shall the required petitioners be less than 45,000.
CASES:
PARAS vs. COMELEC
Facts:
Petitioner is an elected barangay chairman of Pula, Cabanatuan City
in 1994. Sometime in October 1995, A petition for his recall as
Punong Barangay was filed by his constituents.
Public respondent COMELEC resolved to approve the petition and
set the recall election on November 13. In view of the petitioner’s
opposition, COMELEC deferred the election and rescheduled it on
December 16, 1995.
To prevent the recall election from taking place, the petitioner filed a
petition for injunction before the RTC. The trial court issued a TRO.
After conducting a summary hearing, the court dismissed the
petition and lifted the restraining order. The public respondent on a
resolution date January 5, 1996, rescheduled the recall election to
be held January 13, 1996. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

The petitioner argues the pursuant to Section 74b of the Local

Government code: “no recall shall take place within one (1) year
from the date of the official's assumption to office or one (1) year
3 Section 70 and 71 of RA 7160 is now amended by RA 9244, otherwise known as
immediately preceding a regular local election", petitioner insists
an Act Eliminating the Preparatory Recall Assembly as a Mode of Instituting Recall of
that the scheduled January 13, 1996 recall election is now barred as
Elective Local Government Officials.
the (SK) election was set on the first Monday of May 1996.

10
ELECTION LAWS| Case digests and topics June 24, 2019| Atty. Jocelyn Valencia| Monica Geller’s notes
Paras argues that as the SK elections is a regular election, no
recall can be had for barely four months from it.
Issue: Whether or not the recall election in question is in violation
to the provisions of Section 74b of the Local Government Code.
Ruling: no.
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.
It is a rule in statutory construction 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. 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.
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.
Sasha Go’s Notes:
Paras v. COMELEC 264 SCRA 49: SK elections is not considered a “regularrecall
recall under Sec. 74 of RA 7160. The term “regular local elections” is construed
where the office held by the local elective official sought to be recalled will be contested and be filled up by the
electorate. It is confined to the regular elections of elective national and local officials.
CASE:
ANGOBUNG vs. COMELEC
Facts: Angobung won as the duly elected mayor of Tumaini
Isabela in 1995 by attaining 55% of the votes cast. Later on,
Aurora de Alban, one of the candidates who lost, filed a petition
for recall against Angobung.
Dir of Comelec en banc filed a memorandum recommending
approval of the petition and its signing by other qualified voters in
11
order to garner at least 25% of the total number of registered voters as
required by Section 69(d) of the Local Government Code of 1991.
Thus, comelec en banc issued the resolution. Angobung attacked
the resolution for being unconstitutional on 2 main grounds:
(1) that the resolution approved the Petition for Recall albeit same was
signed by just one person in violation of the statutory 25% minimum
requirement as to the number of signatures supporting any petition for
recall; and (YES, in violation)
(2) that the resolution scheduled the recall election within one (1) year
from the May 12, 1997 Barangay Elections. (Same as paras ruling)
Issue: whether there is merit in the contentions
Ruling:
1. Recall is a mode of removal of a public officer by the people before the
end of his term of office. The people's prerogative to remove a public
officer is an incident of their sovereign power and in the absence of
constitutional restraint, the power is implied in all governmental
operations. Such power has been held to be indispensable for the proper
administration of public affairs.
Section 69 (d) of the Local Government Code of 1991 expressly provides
that "recall of any elective . . . municipal . . . 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".
The law is plain and unequivocal as to what initiates recall proceedings:
only a petition of at least 25% of the total number of registered
voters, may validly initiate recall proceedings. We take careful note of
the phrase, "petition of at least twenty-five percent (25%)" and point out
that the law does not state that the petition must be signed by at least
25% of the registered voters; rather, the petition must be "of" or by, at
least 25% of the registered voters, i.e., the petition must be filed, not by
one person only, but by at least 25% of the total number of
registered voters.
The Court cannot sanction the procedure of the filing of the recall petition
by a number of people less than the foregoing 25% statutory requirement,
much less, the filing thereof by just one person, as in the instant case,
since this is indubitably violative of clear and categorical provisions
of subsisting law.
2. Private respondent is correct in saying that in the light of our
pronouncement in Paras v. COMELEC8, the recall election scheduled on
December 2, 1996 in the instant case cannot be said to be barred by the
May 12, 1997 Barangay Elections.
In construing the meaning of the term, "regular local election" in Section
74 of the Local Government Code of 1991 which provides that "no recall
shall take place within one (1) year . . . immediately preceding a regular
local election," we ruled that for the time bar to apply, the
approaching regular local election must be one where the position
of the official to be recalled, is to be actually contested and filled by
the electorate. Thus, in the instant case where the time bar is being
invoked by petitioner mayor in view of the approaching Barangay
Elections in May 1997, there can be no application of the one year bar,
hence no invalidity may be ascribed to Resolution No. 96-2951 on this
ground.
Highlighted ruling from Sasha’s notes:
 Angobung v. COMELEC 269 SCRA 245, the petition to initiate recall procee
25% of the total number of RV and cannot be filed by one person only.
local be
elections”
initiated for
by apurposes
“petitionof
of at least 25% of the RV” and did not pro
as one referring to
signed”, considering that an process
election of signing is statutorily required to be u
CASE:
MALONZO vs. COMELEC
Facts: Petitioner was duly elected as Mayor in the elections held on May
8, 1995, winning over former Mayor Macario Asistio, Jr. Barely one year
into his term, a majority of the members of the Preparatory Recall
Assembly of the City of Caloocan which consisted of Punong Barangays
and Sangguniang Barangay members and Sangguniang Kabataan
ELECTION LAWS| Case digests and topics June 24, 2019| Atty. Jocelyn Valencia| Monica Geller’s notes
chairmen, met, and upon deliberation and election, voted for the
approval of Preparatory Recall Assembly Resolution No. 01-96,
expressing loss of confidence in Mayor Malonzo, and calling for the
initiation of recall proceedings against him.
Together with relevant documents, PRA Resolution No. 01-96 was
filed with the COMELEC for appropriate action. Comelec declared the
proceedings in order and issued a resolution to initiate recall of Mayor
Malonzo.
Malonzo raised the issue to the SC assailing the COMELEC's
resolution as having been issued with grave abuse of discretion.
The Petition, in the main, raises the issue of the validity of the
institution and proceedings of the recall, putting to fore the
propriety of the service of notices to the members of the
Preparatory Recall Assembly, and the proceedings held, resulting
in the issuance of the questioned Resolution.
Malonzo contended that: LIGA ng mga Barangay is not authorized
to initiate the recall and convene the Preparatory Recall Assembly.
Ruling:
The pertinent provisions of law, as regards the initiation of the recall
process, are Sections 69 and 70 of R.A. 7160:
Sec. 69. By whom Exercised. — 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.
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:
xxx xxx xxx
(2) City level. — All punong barangay and sangguniang barangay
members in the city;
xxx xxx xxx
(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 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.
Contention: the initiation of the recall proceedings was infirm since it
was convened by the Liga ng mga Barangays. Respondent Liga is an
organization of all barangays. It is not an organization of barangay
captains and kagawads.
Was the recall proceedings infirm it having been convened by the
Liga ng Barangays? NO.
The barangays are represented in the Liga by the barangay captains
as provided under Section 492 of the Local Government Code. It also
provides that the Kagawad may represent the barangay in the
absence of the barangay chairman."
12
The Liga ng mga Barangay is undoubtedly an entity distinct from the
Preparatory Recall Assembly. It just so happens that the personalities
representing the barangays in the Liga are the very members of the
Preparatory Recall Assembly, the majority of whom met on July 7, 1996,
and voted in favor of the resolution calling for the recall of Mayor Malonzo,
after deliberation reported in the record, in accordance with the existing
law.
Thus, the Punong Barangays and Sangguniang Barangay members
convened and voted as members of the Preparatory Recall
Assembly of the City of Caloocan, and not as members of the Liga
ng mga Barangay. The recall proceedings, therefore, cannot be denied
merit on this ground.
Sasha’s notes:
 Malonzo v. COMELEC and the Liga ng mga barangay March 11, 1997, Malonz
proceedings initiated by the said Liga composed of Punong Barangays and SK
validity of the recall proceedings and stated that while the Liga is an entity disti
that the personalities representing the barangays in the Liga are the very same m
of whom met and voted in favor of the resolution calling for the recall of Mayor M
CASE:
CLAUDIO vs. COMELEC
FACTS:Jovito Claudio was duly elected mayor of PAsay City in the MAy
1998 elections. During the 2nd week of may, the chairs of several
barangays in Pasay formed an ad hoc committee for the purpose of
convening the Preparatory recall assembly against mayor claudio.
On May 29, 1999, 1,073 members of the PRA composed of barangay
chairs, kagawads, and sangguniang kabataan chairs of Pasay City,
adopted aresolution to initiate the recall of Jovito CLaudio as MAyor of
Pasay.
Oppositions to the resolution were filed by claudio alleging rpocedural and
substantive defects such as the sigantures affixed and the fact that the
convening took place during the 1 year prohibitory period but the comelec
dismissed these oppositions and granted the petition for recall.
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.
CLAUDIO’s CONTENTION
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.
"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.
Claudio and Comelec disagree only as to when the process starts for
purposes of the one-year limitation in paragraph (b) of §74.
ISSUES:
1. Where do you reckon the 1 year prohibition from recall? The recall
election itself or the initiation of proceedings? ON THE ELECTION
ITSELF.
2. What does the phrase “Regular Local Election” mean in par (b) 74
of RA 7610?
ELECTION LAWS| Case digests and topics June 24, 2019| Atty. Jocelyn Valencia| Monica Geller’s notes
Ruling:
Recall, defined
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.
1. Recall as defined in Par (b) of 74
refers to the election itself by means of which voters decide whether
they should retain their local official or elect his replacement:
A. FIRST REASON: §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 proceedings 6 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.
Cited ruling : Garcia vs. Comelec
1. It is the power to recall and not the power to initiate recall that the Constitution
2. A recall resolution "merely sets the stage for the official concerned beforereason
justify why he should be allowed to continue in office. [But until] the people render
official concerned remains in office . . . ."
B. SECOND REASON: 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;
C. THIRD REASON: 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.
SUBSTANTIVE RULING: 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.
Contention: “election period includes campaign period”
Ruling: 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.
Indeed, there is a distinction between election period and campaign
period. Under the Omnibus Election Code, 11unless otherwise fixed by
the COMELEC, the election period commences ninety (90) days
before the day of the election and ends thirty (30) days thereafter.
13
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.
CASE:
AFIADO vs. COMELEC
 Issue is “WoN an elective official who became Mayor by legal
succession can be the subject of a recall election by virtue of a PRA
Resolution passed or adopted when the said elective official was still
the Vice-Mayor”.
Facts: Joel Miranda became the substitute candidate for his father,
for the position of Mayor in the May 1998 elections. Joel emerged
as the winner over his opponent Abaya and he was later proclaimed
with Amelita Navarro as Vice-Mayor.
Defeated Abaya filed with the COMELEC a Petition to Declare Null
and Void Substitution which later was amended seeking to declare
the certificate of candidacy of the father, Jose Miranda, as null and
void. The COMELEC ruled that the Certificate of candidacy was
not valid, hence, he cannot be validly substituted by his son Joel, as
a mayoralty candidate in Santiago City.
While the Petition of Joel was pending with the SC, the PRA of
Santiago City convened on July 12, 1999 and adopted a Resolution
calling for the recall of Vice-Mayor Navarro for loss of confidence.
After the Supreme court denied with finality the Petition of Joel,
Vice-Mayor Navarro assumed and took oath as new mayor of
Santiago City. By legal succession.
COMELECgave to the people.
denied due course the PRA Resolution as moot for the
the tribunal of the
that the people so he
“ assumption by can
legal succession of petitioner as the
their sovereign
new Mayor judgment, event
is a supervening the which rendered the recall
proceedings against her moot and academic.
 ISSUE: “WoN an elective official who became Mayor by legal
succession can be the subject of a recall election by virtue of a PRA
Resolution passed or adopted when the said elective official was still
the Vice-Mayor”.
Ruling: NO. This issue has been moot and academic.
The assumption by legal succession of the petitioner as the new
Mayor of Santiago City is a supervening event which rendered the
recall proceeding against her moot and academic. A perusal of the
said Resolution reveals that the person subject of the recall process
is a specific elective official in relation to her specific office. The said
resolution is replete with statements, which leave no doubt that the
purpose of the assembly was to recall petitioner as Vice Mayor for
her official acts as Vice Mayor. The title itself suggests that the recall
is intended for the incumbent Vice Mayor of Santiago City.
Having, thus, succeeded to the position of City Mayor, the petitioner
was placed beyond the reach of the effects of the PRA Resolution.
The specific purpose of the Preparatory Recall Assembly was to
remove Amelita S. Navarro as the elected Vice-Mayor of Santiago
City since PRA Resolution No. 1 dated July 12, 1999 expressly
states that "…it is hereby resolved to invoke the rescission of the
electoral mandate of the incumbent City Vice-Mayor Amelita S.
Navarro for loss of confidence through a recall election to be set by
the Commission on Election as provided for under Section 71 of the
Local Government Code of 1991." However, the said PRA
Resolution No. 1 is no longer applicable to her inasmuch as she has
already vacated the office of Vice-Mayor on October 11, 1999 when
she assumed the position of City Mayor of Santiago City.
ELECTION LAWS| Case digests and topics June 24, 2019| Atty. Jocelyn Valencia| Monica Geller’s notes
Even if the PRA were to reconvene to adopt another
resolution for the recall of Navarro, this time as Mayor, the
same would still not prosper in view of the limitation as
prescribed in Sec. 74 which provides that “No recall shall
take place within one year from the date of the official’s
assumption of office or one year immediately preceding a
regular elections.
Navarro assumed office on October 11, 1999 and recall elections
can only be initiated between October 11, 2000 to October 11,
2001 which is now barred by the May 14, 2001 elections.
PLEBISCITE
 PLEBISCITE is the vote of the entire people or the
aggregate of the enfranchised individuals composing a
state or nation expressing their choice for a proposed
measure.
 It is narrowly defined under RA 6735, known as the electoral
process by which an initiative on the Constitution is
approved or rejected by the people.
 It is generally associated with the amending process of the
Constitution, particularly on the ratification aspects and is
required under the following circumstances:
Related Sections in the Constitution
Sections 1,2,&4 ARTICLE XVII
SECTION 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may
be proposed by:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its
Members; or
(2) A constitutional convention.
SECTION 2.
Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at
least twelve per centum of the total number of registered
voters, of which every legislative district must be represented
by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein.
No amendment under this section shall be authorized within
five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor
oftener than once every five years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the
exercise of this right.
SECTION 4.
Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under
Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of
the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier
than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of
such amendment or revision.
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when
ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which
shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety
14
days after the certification by the Commission on Elections of the
sufficiency of the petition.
Section 10, Article X
SECTION 10. No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created,
divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered, except
in accordance with the criteria established in the Local Government Code
and subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in
the political units directly affected.
Nature/Requirements/Jurisdiction
CASE:
SANIDAD vs. COMELEC
Facts: RA 6766 was enacted into law which provided for an organic
act for the cordillera autonomous region.
Pursuant to said law, the City of Baguio and the Cordilleras which consist
of the provinces of Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao, Abra and
Kalinga-Apayao, all comprising the Cordillera Autonomous Region, shall
take part in a plebiscite for the ratification of said Organic Act originally
scheduled last December 27, 1989 which was, however, reset to January
30, 1990 by virtue of Comelec Resolution No. 2226 dated December 27,
1989.
COMELEC said that RA 6766 and other pertinent election laws,
promulgated RA 2167 which would govern the conduct of the plebiscite
on the organic law.
Comelec relied on Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution and Section 11 of
R.A. 6646 as the basis for the promulgation of the questioned Section 19
of Comelec Resolution 2167.
Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution provides:
The Commission may, during the election period, supervise or regulate
the enjoyment or utilization of all franchises or permits for the
operation of transportation and other public utilities, media of
communication or information, all grants, special privileges, or
concessions granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency
or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or
controlled corporation or its subsidiary. Such supervision or
regulation shall aim to ensure equal opportunity, time, and space, and the
right to reply, including reasonable, equal rates therefor, for public
information campaigns and forums among candidates in connection with
the objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible
elections.
the constitutionality of sec 19 of Resolution 2167 was challenged by a
newspaper columnist. Sec 19 provides:
Section 19. Prohibition on columnists, commentators or announcers. —
During the plebiscite campaign period, on the day before and on the
plebiscite day, no mass media columnist, commentator, announcer or
personality shall use his column or radio or television time to campaign for
or against the plebiscite issues.
Sanidad alleged that this provision is void and unconstitutional for it
violates the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of
the press enshrined in the constitution.
Issue: WON Sec 19 of Comelec Resolution 2167 is unconstitutional.
Ruling: Yes.
It is clear from Art. IX-C of the 1987 Constitution that what was granted to
the Comelec was the power to supervise and regulate the use and
enjoyment of franchises, permits or other grants issued for the operation
of transportation or other public utilities, media of communication or
information to the end that equal opportunity, time and space, and the
right to reply, including reasonable, equal rates therefor, for public
information campaigns and forums among candidates are ensured. The
ELECTION LAWS| Case digests and topics June 24, 2019| Atty. Jocelyn Valencia| Monica Geller’s notes
evil sought to be prevented by this provision is the possibility that a
franchise holder may favor or give any undue advantage to a
candidate in terms of advertising space or radio or television time. This
is also the reason why a "columnist, commentator, announcer or
personality, who is a candidate for any elective office is required to
take a leave of absence from his work during the campaign period.
Media practitioners exercising their freedom of expression during
plebiscite periods are neither the franchise holders nor the
candidates. In fact, there are no candidates involved in a plebiscite.
Therefore, Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 has no
statutory basis.
QUOTED IN SASHA’S NOTES : Plebiscite issues are matters of public concern and importance. The people's right to
be informed and to be able to freely and intelligently make a decision would be better served by access to an
unabridged discussion of the issues, including the forum. The people affectedCASE
should not be unduly burdened by restrictions on the forum where the right toCITY
spaces and Comelec radio time may provide a forum for expression but they do not guarantee full dissemination of
information to the public concerned because they are limited to either specific portions in newspapers or to specific
radio or television times.
CASE:
PADILLA vs. COMELEC
Facts: Pursuant to Republic Act No. 7155, the COMELEC promulgated
Resolution 2312 for the conduct of a plebiscite to create the
Municipality of Tulay na Lupa in Camarines Norte.
the plebiscite was set to be held on Dec 15 1991 in areas or units
affected namely the barangays comprising the proposed municipality
of tulay na lupa.
In the plebiscite, only 2890 votes favored its creation while 3499 voted
against. Thus, the Plebiscite board of canvassers declared the
rejection and diasapproval of the independent municipality of tulay na
lupa.
Thus, an action was field by Padilla, as governor of Camarines norte to
set aside the plebiscite conducted on December 15 1991 and a prayer
for a new plebiscite was filed.
Padilla’s Contention:
the plebiscite was a complete failure and that the results obtained were
invalid and illegal because the plebiscite, as mandated by COMELEC
Resolution No. 2312 should have been conducted only in the political
unit or units affected and should have not included the mother unit of
the Municipality of Labo, Camarines Norte. HE cited a ruling Paredes
vs. Executive Secretary “where a local unit is to be segregated from a
parent unit, only the voters of the unit to be segrated should be
included in the plebiscite.”
Issue:
1. WON the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in
promulgating Resolution 2312 and consequently, (NO)
2. WON the plebiscite conducted in the areas comprising the proposed
Municipality of Tulay na Lupa and the remaining areas of the mother
municipality of Labo is valid. (YES)
RULING:
SECTION 10, ART X. provides that:
No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be created,
divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered,
except in accordance with the criteria established in the
Local Government Code and subject to approval by a
majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units
directly affected.
It stands to reason that when the law states that the plebiscite shall
be conducted "in the political units directly affected," it means
that residents of the political entity who would be economically
dislocated by the separation of a portion thereof have a right to
vote in said plebiscite.
Evidently, what is contemplated by the phase "political units directly
affected," is the plurality of political units which would participate in the
plebiscite.
Reiteration of Tan vs. Comelec
“in the conduct of a Plebiscite, it is imperative that all constituents of the
mother and daughter units affected shall be included.”
Logically, those to be included in such political areas are the inhabitants
of the 12 barangays of the proposed Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa as
well as those living in the parent Municipality of Labo, Camarines Norte.
Thus, we conclude that respondent COMELEC did not commit grave
abuse of discretion in promulgating Resolution No. 2312.
by the issues presented in a plebiscite
expression mayvs.
OF PASIG be exercised.
COMELECComelec
FACTS: 1996, upon petition of the residents of Karangalan Village that
they be segregated from its mother Barangays Manggahan and Dela Paz,
City of Pasig, and to be converted and separated into a distinct barangay
to be known as Barangay Karangalan, the City Council of Pasig passed
and approved Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1996, creating Barangay
Karangalan in Pasig City. Plebiscite on the creation of said barangay was
thereafter set for June 22, 1996.
Sep 1996, the city of pasig issued ordinance 52 creating brgy napico in
pasig city. Plebiscite set march 1997.
Municipality of Cainta, moved to suspend these plebiscites and called the
attention of COMELEC to a pending case before the RTC of Anitpolo
Rizal for settlement of boundary dispute. These propsoed barangays
allegedly involved areas included in such dispute and thus, the plebiscites
should be suspended.
Plescite Date Comelec ruling
Baranggay Karangalan June 22, 1996 Held in abeyance
Barangay Napico March 1997 Dismissed petition fro being moot
of the holding of the plebiscite ma
Issue:
1. whether or not the plebiscites scheduled for the creation of Barangays
Karangalan and Napico should be suspended or cancelled in view of the
pending boundary dispute between the two local governments. - YES
2. WON the petition by the Municipality of Cainta can be rendered moot
and academic because a plebiscite had already been held for Barangay
Napico. NO
Ruling:
1. The City of Pasig vigorously claims that the areas covered by the
proposed Barangays Karangalan and Napico are within its territory but it
can not deny that portions of the same area are included in the boundary
dispute case pending before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo. Surely,
whether the areas in controversy shall be decided as within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Municipality of Cainta or the City of Pasig has material
bearing to the creation of the proposed Barangays Karangalan and
Napico. Indeed, a requisite for the creation of a barangay is for its
territorial jurisdiction to be properly identified by metes and bounds
or by more or less permanent natural boundaries.
Because territorial jurisdiction is an issue raised in the pending civil case,
until and unless such issue is resolved with finality, to define the territorial
jurisdiction of the proposed barangays would only be an exercise in futility.
Not only that, we would be paving the way for potentially ultra vires acts of
such barangays.
2. The Court did not agree on comelec’s ruling that since a plebisciote
has already been held, Municipality of Cainta’s petition is already moot
and academic.
In the case of TAN VS. COMELEC, Considering that the legality of the
plebiscite itself is challenged for non-compliance with constitutional
requisites, the fact that such plebiscite had been held and a new province
proclaimed and its officials appointed, the case before Us cannot truly be
viewed as already moot and academic.
15
ELECTION LAWS| Case digests and topics June 24, 2019| Atty. Jocelyn Valencia| Monica Geller’s notes

Continuation of the existence of this newly proclaimed province which

petitioners strongly profess to have been illegally born, deserves to be
inquired into by this Tribunal so that, if indeed, illegality attaches to its
creation, the commission of that error should not provide the very
excuse for perpetration of such wrong.
Therefore, the plebiscite on the creation of Barangay Karangalan
should be held in abeyance pending final resolution of the boundary
dispute between the City of Pasig and the Municipality of Cainta by the
Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City. In the same vein, the plebiscite
held on March 15, 1997 to ratify the creation of Barangay Napico,
Pasig City, should be annulled and set aside.
The Court cited Art. IX-A Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution on what
can be reviewed by the Supreme Court
“SEC. 7.x x x. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law,
any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from
receipt of a copy thereof.”
What is contemplated by the term final orders, rulings and decisions of
the COMELEC reviewable by certiorari by the Supreme Court as
provided by law are those rendered in actions or proceedings before the
COMELEC and taken cognizance of by the said body in the exercise of its
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers.”

Cited Rule, Sasha’s notes:
HELD: The creation of Napico cannot be considered as moot and it is most proper that the Pfunctions.
in view of the pending boundary dispute between Pasig and Cainta which presents a PREJUDICIAL QUESTION AND
MUST BE DECIDED FIRST BEFORE THE P FOR THE PROPOSED BRGYS.
CASE:
SALVA vs. MAKALINTAL
FACTS: Feb 1998, petitioners, as officials of BRGY. SAn Rafeal,
Calaca, Batangas, filed a class suit against teh Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Batangas, Sangguniang Pambayan of Calaca,
Batangas and COMELEC for annulment Ordinance No. 05 and
Resolution No. 345, series of 1997, both enacted by the Sangguniang
Panglalawigan of Batangas, and COMELEC Resolution No. 2987,
series of 199S.
Tehse declared the abolition of brgy San Rafeal and its merger with
brgy Dacanlao, municipality of Calaca and accordingly instructed the
COMELEC to conduct the required plebiscite.
The issuance of the COMELEC resolution was not issued pursuant to
COMELEC’s Quasi-Judicial Functions but as an incident of its ministerial /
administrative
be declared null and void
TheBECourt agrees with the comment of the Solicitor General that [t]he
CONDUCTED.
issuance of [COMELEC] Resolution No. 2987 is thus a ministerial duty
of the COMELEC that is enjoined by law and is part and parcel of its
administrative functions. It involves no exercise of discretionary
authority on the part of respondent COMELEC; let alone an exercise of its
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial power to hear and resolve controversies
defining the rights and duties of party-litigants, relative to the conduct of
elections of public officers and the enforcement of the election laws.”
Briefly, COMELEC Resolution No. 2987 which provides for the rules and
regulations governing the conduct of the required plebiscite, was not
issued pursuant to the COMELEC’s quasi-judicial functions but merely as
an incident of its inherent administrative functions over the conduct of
plebiscites, thus, the said resolution may not be deemed as a “final order”
reviewable by certiorari by this Court. Any question pertaining to the
validity of said resolution may be well taken in an ordinary civil action
before the trial courts.

Teh comelec promulgated reso number 2987 providing for the rules Petition for review is granted and SC ordered RTC of Batangas to
and regulations governing the conduct of the plebiscite proceed with the dispatch of the case.

Petitioner filed an ex parte motion for the issuance of a temporary Case

restraining order to enjoin respondents from enforcing Ordinance No. BUAC/BAUTISTA vs. COMELEC
05, Resolution No. 345, and COMELEC Resolution No. 2987.
Sasha Go’s Notes

RTC denied the issuance of said TRO for lack of Jurisdiction. It held
that any petition or action questioning an act, resolution or decision of
the COMELEC must be brought before the Supreme Court. FACTS: A petition for certiorari and mandamus was filed by petitioners Bua
October 28, 2002 en banc resolution of the COMELEC which held that
controversies involving the conduct of plebiscite and annulment of its res
Hence Salva et al filed the instant petition with prayer for a TRO before
the SC.

Salva et al then sent their memorandum before the Court containing
their arguments:
Salva’s Argument
• That the RTC’s order to file before the SC encourages
multiplicity of suits
• That if when the COMELEC exercises its quasi-judicial
functions under Section 52 of the Omnibus Election
Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881), its acts are subject to
the exclusive review by this Court; but when the
COMELEC performs a purely ministerial duty, such act
is subject to scrutiny by the Regional Trial Court,17
citing Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop vs.
Ferrer:
• Corollary thereto, petitioners submit that “[t]he conduct
of [a] plebiscite, pursuant to Ordinance No. 05 and
Resolution No. 345, is not adjudicatory [or
quasi-judicial] in nature but simply ministerial or
administrative in nature [and only] in obedience to the
aforesaid Ordinance and Resolution
That even though the plebiscite has been held the case
is not moot for an actual plebiscite does not validate
ordinance or resolution.
In April 1988, a plebiscite was held in Taguig for the ratification of the Taguig
proposing the conversion of Taguig from a municipality into a city. Without comp
election returns, the PBC declared that the “NO” votes won and that the peop
Taguig to a city. The PBOC was however ordered by the COMELEC en banc to
Comelec’s response canvass which the board did and in due time issued an Order proclaiming that t
the plebiscite conducted.
the power to review or reverse COMELEC Resolution
No. 2987 solely belongs to the Supreme Court (note
that they went to the RTCPetitioners filed with
for the review the COMELEC a petition to annul the results of the plebis
of COMELEC’s
resolution) and recount of the ballots cast therein. Cayetano intervened and moved to dism
of lack of jurisdiction of the COMELEC. He claimed that a plebiscite cannot be s
He averred that the jurisdiction to hear a complaint involving the conduct of a
• if a Regional Trial Court
RTC.does not have jurisdiction to
issue writs against statutory agencies a fortiori it cannot
have any such jurisdiction over the Commission on
Elections, a constitutional independent body expressly
clothed by the 1987 Constitution
Alan Cayetanowith,intervened
among others,
and moved for reconsideration of the COMELEC
quasi-judicial functions and
jurisdiction
tasked to
withhear
oneand
of the
decide
most
a petition contesting the results of a plebiscite.
paramount aspects of a democratic government.
Eventually, the COMELEC 2nd division issued an Order on November 29,
Reconsideration. It dismissed the petition to annul the results of the plebiscite a
the temporary restraining order sought by petitioners
no jurisdiction over said case as it involves an exercise of quasi-judicia
has been rendered moot and academic by the actual
under Section 2(2), Article IX-C of the Constitution.
holding of the plebiscite sought to be enjoined.

Issue: Whether or not the issuance of the said resolution prescribing

rules for the conduct of a plebiscite is ministerial in nature such that the Section 2(2), Article IX-C of the Constitution
RTC has jurisdiction over said case. YES.
SECTION 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following po
RULING: YES.
16
ELECTION LAWS| Case digests and topics June 24, 2019| Atty. Jocelyn Valencia| Monica Geller’s notes

the choice or selection ' of candidates to public office by popular vote, the sam
connection with the conduct of plebiscite.
(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. THIRD: In referring to Article IX-C, Section 2(1), the SC said that the s
COMELEC has power to “enforce and administer all laws and regulations r
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall”.

On appeal, the COMELEC En Banc affirmed the ruling of its 2nd division. It held that the COMELEC
cannot use its power to enforce and administer all laws relative to plebiscites as this power is purely
administrative or executive and not quasi-judicial in nature. To enforce means to cause to take effect or to cause the performance of such
into actual effect or operation, a plan or measure which necessarily entails all
power for it to achieve the holding of HOPE-FRECRE.

It concluded that the jurisdiction over the petition to annul the Taguig plebiscite results is lodged with the RTC
under Section 19(6) of BP 129 which provides that the RTC shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in cases
not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court or body exercising judicial orFOURTH: Thefunctions.
quasi-judicial power of Hence,
the COMELEC is not limited to the mere administrat
the petition before the SC. plebiscite. The law is clear. It is also mandated to enforce the laws relative to th

To remove from the COMELEC the power to ascertain the true results of the
ballots is to render nugatory its constitutionally mandated power to "enforce" l
Petitioner reiterates: plebiscite.
• Jurisdiction to decide plebiscite protest cases is constitutionally vested with the COMELEC
FIFTH: If the COMELEC has quasi-judicial power to enforce laws relating to ele
reason why it cannot exercise the same power to ascertain the true results
• COMELEC Order is discriminatory as during the pendency of the Taguig case, the COMELEC assumed
Constitution provides is that the COMELEC shall exercise exclusive jurisdictio
jurisdiction over a similar case concerning the revision and recount of the plebiscite ballots involving the
elective officials.
conversion of Malolos into a City. COMELEC resolved the said case and already declared Malolos a city.
SIXTH: The provision is not a limiting provision in the sense that it only limits t
COMELEC to said cases. To repeat, the power of the COMELEC to ascer
Respondent COMELEC/Cayetano contends that: plebiscite is implicit in its power to enforce all laws relative to the conduc

• There is no such action as a plebiscite protest under the Constitution; From our earliest Constitution and election laws, the conduct of plebiscite and d
always been the business of the COMELEC and not the regular courts. If the C
• The laws and the COMELEC rules provided only for election protests; over this matter, our laws would have been amended to that effect.
• The quasi-judicial jurisdiction of the COMELEC over election contests extends only to cases enumerated
in Section 2(2), Article XI of the Constitution (sole judge of all contestsCASE:
involving), which does not include
BAGABUYA vs. COMELEC
controversies over plebiscite results, and;
Facts: October 2006, CDO’s congressman Constantino Jaraula filed
• Even if the petition to annul plebiscite results is akin to an electionHB 5859 it"An
protests, Act RTC
is the Providing for the Apportionment of the Lone
that has
jurisdiction over election protests involving municipal officials and the Legislative
COMELEC District
hasofonly
the City of Cagayan De Oro."
appellate
jurisdiction in said cases.
This law eventually became RA 9371 which increased CDO’s
legislative district from 1 to 2. for the election of MAy 2007, CDO’s
voters would be classified as belonging to either the 1st or 2nd district
Issue: WON the comelec has jurisdiction to hear and decide a petition contesting teh results of a plebiscite.
depending on their place of residence. The constituents of each district
would elect their own representative to Congress as well as eight
members of the Sangguniang Panglungsod.
HELD: YES
March 2007, the COMELEC en banc promulgated Reso 7837
The SC held that the key to the case is its nature, which involves the determination of whether the electorate
implementing RA 9371. Petitioner Rogelio Bagabuyo filed a petition
of Taguig voted in favor of or against the conversion of the municipality of Taguig. The invocation of judicial
against the COMELEC on March 2007 asking for the nullification of RA
power to settle disputes involving the conduct of a Plebiscite is misplaced.
9371 and Reso 7837 arguing that COMELEC cannot implement R.A.
No. 9371 without providing for the rules, regulations and guidelines for
the conduct of a plebiscite which is indispensable for the division or
Judicial power as defined under Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution conversion
as the duty of
of athe
local government
court unit.
of justice to
settle actual controversies involving the rights which are legally demandable and enforceable and to
determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting He contended that the
to lack or excess 2nd district was created without a plebiscite
of jurisdiction
on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. which was required by teh constitution

ISSUES: Whether or not a plebsicte was required in the increase of

CDO’sPlebiscite
FIRST: The instant case assailing the regularity of the conduct of the Taguig legislative distrcit?
does not fit the kind of
case calling for the exercise of judicial power. There is no plaintiff or defendant in the case for it merely
involves the ascertainment of the vote of the electorate on whether they approve
Bagabuya’s or disapprove the
Contention:
conversion of their municipality into a highly urbanized city.
The petitioner insists that R.A. No. 9371 converts and divides the City of
Cagayan de Oro as a local government unit, and does not merely provide
Rather, the issue in the case at bar is the determination of the sovereign
for the City's
decision
legislative
of the electorate
apportionment.
of And thus ,teh requirement of a
Taguig. The purpose of this determination is more to protect the sovereignty
plebiscite. of the people and less to
vindicate the private interest of any individual. Such a determination does not contemplate the clash
of private rights of individuals and hence cannot come under the traditional
RULING: NO jurisdiction of courts.

The Court upheld COMELEC’s arguments saying tha RA 9731 only

SECOND: A plebiscite involves the expression of the public will on a public issue.the
increased The determination of
representation of the
CDO in the HOR and Sangguniang
public will is a subject that does not fit the jurisdiction of civil courts, for PAnglungsod.
civil courts are established essentially
to resolve controversies between private persons.
This argument essentially proceeds from a misunderstanding of the
constitutional concepts of apportionment of legislative districts and
While the jurisdiction of the COMELEC is most commonly invoked overdivision
popularofelections
local government
that whichunits.
involves

17
ELECTION LAWS| Case digests and topics June 24, 2019| Atty. Jocelyn Valencia| Monica Geller’s notes

Legislative apportionment ReapportionmentUnder the wordings of section 1, no division of Cagayan de Oro City as a
the determination of the number of representatives political
is the realignment and corporate
or change entity takes
in legislative place or is mandated. Cagayan de Oro
districts
which a State, county or other subdivision may send to brought about by City politically
changes remains and
in population a single unit and its administration is not divided
mandated
a legislative body. It is the allocation of seats in a along territorial
by the constitutional lines. of
requirement Its territory
equality remains
of completely whole and intact;
legislative body in proportion to the population; the representation. there is only the addition of another legislative district and the delineation
drawing of voting district lines so as to equalize of the city into two districts for purposes of representation in the House of
population and voting power among the districts. Representatives. Thus, Article X, Section 10 of the Constitution does not
emphasis is given to the number of people represented; come into play and no plebiscite is necessary to validly apportion
the uniform and progressive ratio to be observed among Cagayan de Oro City into two districts.
the representative districts; and accessibility and
commonality of interests in terms of each district being, This legislative reapportionment carries effects beyond the creation of
as far as practicable, continuous, compact and adjacent anotehr congressional district as it provides for additional Sangguniang
territory. Panglungsod seats to be voted for along teh lines of the congressional
reapportionment made.

The effect on the Sangguniang Panglunsod, however, is not directly

Sec. 10, Article X Sec. 5, Article VI traceable to R.A. No. 9371 but to another law - R.A. No. 663641 - whose
No province, city, municipality, or barangay may be Section
Article VI (entitled 3 provides:
Legislative Department) of the 1987
created, divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary Constitution lays down the rules on legislative
substantially altered, except in accordance with the apportionment underSECTIONits Section 5 which
3. Other provides:
Cities. - The provision of any law to the contrary
criteria established in the local government code and notwithstanding the City of Cebu, City of Davao, and any other city with
subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in more thanofone representative district
Sec. 5(1). (1) The House Representatives shall be shall have eight (8) councilors
a plebiscite in the political unit directly affected.
composed of for not each
moredistrict
than whotwo shall
hundredbe residents
fifty thereof to be elected by the
qualified voters therein,
members unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall beprovided that the cities of Cagayan de Oro,
Zamboanga,
elected from legislative Bacolod,
districts Iloilo and
apportioned other cities comprising a representative
among
district
the provinces, cities, and shall
the have twelve Manila
Metropolitan (12) councilors
area each and all other cities shall
in accordance have with ten
the (10) councilors
number each
of their to be elected at large by the qualified voters
respective
inhabitants, and of the
on said
the cities:
basis Provided,
of a uniformThat inandno case shall the present number of
progressive ratio, councilors
and those according
who, as to their charters
provided by law,be reduced.
shall be elected through a party-list system of
registered national, regional
The effect andlaw
of this sectoral parties
does not divideorthe city territorially or as a corporate
organizations. entity. It merely enhances voter representation by giving each city greater
Expressly speaks of how local government units may be The concern thatsayleaps from the
in congress andtext
SP. of Article VI,
"created, divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary Section 5 is political representation and the means to
substantially altered." Its concern is the commencement, make a legislative district sufficiently represented so
Effect:
the termination, and the modification of local government that the people can be effectively heard.
units' corporate existence and territorial coverage; and it
speaks of two specific standards that must be observed in Before reapportionment After
implementing this concern, namely, the criteria CDO had only 1 congressman and 12 city councilors 2 congressmen (eash
established in the local government code and the citywide for 500k people councilors (each district to
approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in
the political units directly affected.
Thus, since no such creation, division, merger, abolition or alteration of
The Constitution and the Local Government Code no plebiscite boundaries
requirement existsgovernment
of a local under unit
the took place, there is no need for a
expressly require a plebiscite to carry out any creation, apportionment or reapportionment
plebiscite. provision.
division, merger, abolition or alteration of boundary of a
local government unit.
The local government units, on the other hand, are The legislative district that Article VI, Section 5
political and corporate units. They are the territorial and speaks of may,CASE in a sense, be called a political unit
political subdivisions of the state. because it is theALDABA
basis for vs.
the COMELEC
election of a member of
Facts:
the House of Representatives and members of the
local legislative The
body.City of Malolos and the Municipalities of Hagonoy, Calumpit, Pulilan,
They possess legal personality on the authority of the Bulacan, and
Constitution and by action of the Legislature. Paombong comprise the current first district of the province of Bulacan. In
It is not, however, a political
2007 subdivision
the population of through which
functions of government
Malolos Cityarewas
carried out. ItThe
223,069. canNSO
moreprojected that, using the established
The Constitution defines them as entities that Congress
appropriately be described as a
population growth rate representative unit
can, by law, create, divide, abolish, merge; or whose
that may or mayofnot encompass
3.78 the whole1995
percent between of a city
and or
2000, its population in 2010 will be
boundaries can be altered based on standards again
a province, but 254,030.
unlike the latter, it is not a corporate
established by both the Constitution and the Legislature.
unit.

As a corporate entity with a distinct and separate juridical

Thus, RA
Not being a corporate unit,9591 was enacted
a district to act
does not amend
for Section 57 of RA 8754, the charter
personality from the State, it acts as "an agency of the
and in behalf ofofthe
tehpeople
city ofcomprising
malolos, making a separate district from teh existing first
the district;
community in the administration of local affairs" and the
legislative
it merely delineates thedistrict
areasofoccupied
Bulacan. by the
mediums through which the people act in their corporate
people who will choose a representative in their
capacity on local concerns.
national affairs.June 2009, peitioners Victorino Aldaba, et. Al. Filed an action challenging
the constitutionality of RA 9591 pointing out that:
In light of these roles, the Constitution saw it fit to
Hence, there is no need for any plebiscite in the
expressly secure the consent of the people affected by Petitioners contended that R.A. 9591 is unconstitutional for the following
creation, dissolution or any other similar action on a
the creation, division, merger, abolition or alteration of reasons:
legislative district.
boundaries of local government units through a plebiscite.
a) that the law failed to comply with the requirement of Section 5(3),
Article VI of the 1987 Constitution that a city must have a population of at
least 250,000;

b) that the creation of a separate district amounts to a conversion and

requires the conduct of a plebiscite;
On the nature of RA 9371 and Comelec Reso 7837

R.A. No. 9371 is, on its face, purely and simply a reapportionment Note: Article VI, Sec 5(3)
legislation passed in accordance with the authority granted to
Congress under Article VI, Section 5(4) of the Constitution.
18
ELECTION LAWS| Case digests and topics June 24, 2019| Atty. Jocelyn Valencia| Monica Geller’s notes

(3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable,
contiguous, compact and adjacent territory. Each city with a
population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province,
shall have at least one representative.
ISSUE: Whether or not R.A. 9591, “Án act creating a legislative district
for the City of Malolos, Bulacan” is unconstitutional as petitioned. And
whether the City of Malolos has at least 250,000 actual or projected.
RULING: UNCONSTITUTIONAL
It was emphasized that the 1935 Constitution, that this Court ruled that
the aim of legislative reappointment is to equalize the population and
voting power among districts.
On Justice Abad’s Dissenting Opinion,
he stated relatively the same justifications as to the
unconstitutionality of the said R.A. relatively the same with Justice
Carpio’s explanations.
He also mentioned that the R.A 9591 is not concerned with the
creation or conversion of ta local government unit but only
with the establishment of a new legislative district. The same is
not governed by the requirements of the E.O. 135. (on this, we
can insert that there would have been no need for a plebiscite)

It was declared by the Supreme Court that the R.A. 9591 is
unconstitutional for being violative of Section 5 (3), Article VI of the
1987 Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the
1987 Constitution on the grounds that, as required by the 1987
Constitution, a city must have at least 250,000 population.
Aside from failing to comply with Section 5(3), Article VI of the
Constitution on the population requirement, the creation by RA 9591 of a
legislative district for Malolos City, carving the city from the former First
Legislative District, leaves the town of Bulacan isolated from the rest
of the geographic mass of that district.

In relation with this, Regional Director Miranda issued a Certification
which is based on the demographic projections, was declared without
legal effect because the Regional Director has no basis and no
authority to issue the Certification. Sec 6, EO 135 provides:
SEC. 6. Guidelines on the Issuances of Certification of Population
Sizes Pursuant to Section 7, 386, 442, 450, 452, and 461 of the New
Local Government Code
This contravenes the requirement in Section 5(3), Article VI that each
legislative district shall "comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous,
compact, and adjacent territory."
It was impracticable for Congress to create a district with contiguous,
compact, and adjacent territory because Malolos city lies at the center of
the First Legislative District. The geographic lay-out of the First
Legislative District is not an insuperable condition making compliance
with Section 5(3) impracticable.

1. The National Statistics Office shall issue certification on data that it
has collected and processed as well as on statistics that it has
estimated.
2. For census years, certification on population size will be based on
actual population census counts; while for the intercensal years, the
certification will be made on the basis of a set of demographic
projections or estimations declared official by the National Statistical
Coordination Board.
To adhere to the constitutional mandate, and thus maintain fidelity to its
purpose of ensuring efficient representation, the practicable alternative for
Congress was to include the municipality of Bulacan in Malolos City’s
legislative district. Although unorthodox, the resulting contiguous and
compact district fulfills the constitutional requirements of geographic unity
and population floor, ensuring efficient representation of the minimum
mass of constituents.

3. Certification of population census counts will be made as of the

census reference date, such as May 1, 1990, while those of
intercensal population estimates will be made as of middle of every
year.
4. Certification of population size based on projections may specify
the range within which the true count is deemed likely to fall. The
range will correspond to the official low and high population
projections.
5. The smallest geographic area for which a certification on
population size may be issued will be the barangay for census
population counts, and the city or municipality for intercensal
estimates. If an LGU wants to conduct its own population census,
during off-census years, approval must be sought from the NSCB and
the conduct must be under the technical supervision of NSO from
planning to data processing.
6. Certifications of population size based on published census results
shall be issued by the Provincial Census Officers of by the Regional
Census Officers. Certifications based on projections or estimates,
however, will be issued by the NSO Administrator or his designated
certifying officer.

Regional Director Miranda’s Certification, (that the "projected

population of the [City] of Malolos will be 254,030 by the year 2010
using the population growth rate of 3.78[%] between 1995 and 2000"),
fell short of EO 135’s requirements that:
(a) for intercensal years, the certification should be based on a set of
demographic projections and estimates declared official by the
National Statistical and Coordination Board (NSCB);
(b) certifications on intercensal population estimates will be as of the
middle of every year; and
(c) certifications based on projections or estimates must be issued by
the NSO Administrator or his designated certifying officer.

It was also computed that the correct figures using the growth rate,
even if compounded, the Malolos population of 223,069 as of August 1,
2007 will grow to only 249,333 as of August 1, 2010.

19