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 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
| Page 1 of 3
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, Hermosisima,
Jr., Panganiban and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

| Page 2 of 3
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 is not a regular local election for purposes of recall under Section 74 of the Local
Government Code.

| Page 3 of 3