DANILO E. PARAS, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

1996-11-04 | G.R. No. 123169

RESOLUTION

FRANCISCO, J.:

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

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

Petitioner's argument is simple and to the point. Citing Section 74 (b) of Republic Act No. 7160,
otherwise known as the Local Government Code, which states that "no recall shall take place within one
(1) year from the date of the official's assumption to office or one (1) year immediately preceding a
regular local election", petitioner insists that the scheduled January 13, 1996 recall election is now barred
as the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) election was set by Republic Act No. 7808 on the first Monday of
May 1996, and every three years thereafter. In support thereof, petitioner cites Associated Labor Union v.
Letrondo-Montejo, 237 SCRA 621, where the Court considered the SK election as a regular local
election. Petitioner maintains that as the SK election is a regular local election, hence no recall election
can be had for barely four months separate the SK election from the recall election. We do not agree.

The subject provision of the Local Government Code provides:

Sec. 74. Limitations on Recall.
(a) Any elective local official may be the subject of a recall election only once during his term of
office for loss of confidence.
(b) No recall shall take place within one (1) year from the date of the official's assumption to office
or one (1) year immediately preceding a regular local election.

It is a rule in statutory construction that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the
context, i.e., that every part of the statute must be considered together with the other parts, and kept
subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment. 4 The evident intent of Section 74 is to subject
an elective local official to recall election once during his term of office. Paragraph (b) construed together
with paragraph (a) merely designates the period when such elective local official may be subject of a
| Page 1 of 4
recall election, that is, during the second year of his term of office. Thus, subscribing to petitioner's
interpretation of the phrase regular local election to include the SK election will unduly circumscribe the
novel provision of the Local Government Code on recall, a mode of removal of public officers by initiation
of the people before the end of his term. And if the SK election which is set by R.A No. 7808 to be held
every three years from May 1996 were to be deemed within the purview of the phrase "regular local
election", as erroneously insisted by petitioner, then no recall election can be conducted rendering inutile
the recall provision of the Local Government Code.

In the interpretation of a statute, the Court should start with the assumption that the legislature intended
to enact an effective law, and the legislature is not presumed to have done a vain thing in the enactment
of a statute. 5 An interpretation should, if possible, be avoided under which a statute or provision being
construed is defeated, or as otherwise expressed, nullified, destroyed, emasculated, repealed, explained
away, or rendered insignificant, meaningless, inoperative or nugatory. 6

It is likewise a basic precept in statutory construction that a statute should be interpreted in harmony with
the Constitution. 7 Thus, the interpretation of Section 74 of the Local Government Code, specifically
paragraph (b) thereof, should not be in conflict with the Constitutional mandate of Section 3 of Article X
of the Constitution to "enact a local government code which shall provide for a more responsive and
accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization with effective
mechanism of recall, initiative, and referendum . . . ."

Moreover, petitioner's too literal interpretation of the law leads to absurdity which we cannot countenance.
Thus, in a case, the Court made the following admonition:

We admonish against a too-literal reading of the law as this is apt to constrict rather than fulfill its
purpose and defeat the intention of its authors. That intention is usually found not in "the letter that killeth
but in the spirit that vivifieth". . . 8

The spirit, rather than the letter of a law determines its construction; hence, a statute, as in this case,
must be read according to its spirit and intent.

Finally, recall election is potentially disruptive of the normal working of the local government unit
necessitating additional expenses, hence the prohibition against the conduct of recall election one year
immediately preceding the regular local election. The proscription is due to the proximity of the next
regular election for the office of the local elective official concerned. The electorate could choose the
official's replacement in the said election who certainly has a longer tenure in office than a successor
elected through a recall election. It would, therefore, be more in keeping with the intent of the recall
provision of the Code to construe regular local election as one referring to an election where the office
held by the local elective official sought to be recalled will be contested and be filled by the electorate.

Nevertheless, recall at this time is no longer possible because of the limitation stated under Section 74 (b)
of the Code considering that the next regular election involving the barangay office concerned is barely
seven (7) months away, the same having been scheduled on May 1997. 9

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

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado, Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza,
| Page 2 of 4
Hermosisima, Jr., Panganiban and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

DAVIDE, JR., J., concurring:

I concur with Mr. Justice Ricardo J. Francisco in his ponencia.

However, I wish to add another reason as to why the SK election cannot be considered a "regular local
election" for purposes of recall under Section 74 of the Local Government Code of 1991.

The term "regular local election" must be confined to the regular election of elective local officials, as
distinguished from the regular election of national officials. The elective national officials are the
President, Vice-President, Senators and Congressmen. The elective local officials are Provincial
Governors, Vice-Governors of provinces, Mayors and Vice-Mayors of cities and municipalities, Members
of the Sanggunians of provinces, cities and municipalities, punong barangays and members of the
sangguniang barangays, and the elective regional officials of the Autonomous Region of Muslim
Mindanao. These are the only local elective officials deemed recognized by Section 2(2) of Article IX-C
of the Constitution, which provides:

Sec. 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions:

xxx xxx xxx

(2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and
qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all
contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving
elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.

A regular election, whether national or local, can only refer to an election participated in by those who
possess the right of suffrage, are not otherwise disqualified by law, and who are registered voters. One
of the requirements for the exercise of suffrage under Section 1, Article V of the Constitution is that the
person must be at least 18 years of age, and one requisite before he can vote is that he be a registered
voter pursuant to the rules on registration prescribed in the Omnibus Election Code (Section 113-118).

Under the law, the SK includes the youth with ages ranging from 15 to 21 (Sec. 424, Local Government
Code of 1991). Accordingly, they include many who are not qualified to vote in a regular election, viz.,
those from ages 15 to less than 18. In no manner then may SK elections be considered a regular
election (whether national or local).

Indeed the Sangguniang Kabataan is nothing more than a youth organization, and although fully
recognized in the Local Government Code and vested with certain powers and functions, its elective
officials have not attained the status of local elective officials. So, in Mercado vs. Board of Election
Supervisors (243 SCRA 422 [1995]), this Court ruled that although the SK Chairman is an ex-officio
member of the sangguniang barangay an elective body that fact does not make him "an elective
barangay official," since the law specifically provides who comprise the elective officials of the
sangguniang barangay, viz., the punong barangay and the seven (7) regular sangguniang barangay
members elected at large by those qualified to exercise the right of suffrage under Article V of the
Constitution, who are likewise registered voters of the barangay. This shows further that the SK election
| Page 3 of 4
is not a regular local election for purposes of recall under Section 74 of the Local Government Code.

| Page 4 of 4