afiado vs. comelec

8/10/2019 Afiado vs. Comelec

1/6

PUBLIC CORPORATIONS &LOCAL GOVERNMENT2

ndSemester 2014-2015

Atty. Amando Virgil D. Ligutan

Part I:Lecture on Public Corporations

Part II:Local Governance

I. PRELIMINARY READINGS

Eleanor Gonzales, Decentralization and Political Participation in the Philippines: Experiences and Issues in Societal Transformation,Institute for Popular Democracy (1997)

Alex Brillantes and Donna Moscare, Decentralization and Federalism in the Philippines, Lessons from Global Community

II. LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION

1987 Philippine Constitution (Constitution), Art. X, Secs. 1-21

Limbona v. Mangelin, G.R. No. 80391, February 28, 1989Laguna Lake Development Authority v. CA, G.R. Nos. 120865-71, December 7, 1995Lina v. Pao, G.R. No. 129093, August 30, 2001

III. LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE: DECENTRALIZATION AND LOCAL AUTONOMY

Secs. 1-5, Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC)1

i. Local Government Unit- Definition

Basco v. Pagcor, 197 SCRA 52 (1991)MMDA v Bel-Air Village Association, Inc. G.R. No. 135962, March 27, 2000

ii. Local Autonomy

Sec. 25, Art. II, ConstitutionSecs. 2,4,11,12, Art. X, Constitution

Limbona v. Mangelin, (supra.)San Juan v. Civil Service Commission, 196 SCRA 69 (1991)Ganzon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93252, August 5, 1991Magtajas v. Pryce Properties, G.R. No. 111097, July 20, 1994Pimentel v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 132988, July 19, 2000Pimentel v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 195770, July 17, 2012

Belgica, et al. v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 208566, Nov. 19, 2013

IV. CREATION, CONVERSION, ALTERATION OF BOUNDARIES & DISSOLUTION OF LOCAL GOVERNEMTN UNITS

i. Creation and Conversion

Secs. 1, 10-11, 15, 18-19, Art. X, ConstitutionSecs. 6,7, 10, 385-386, 441-442, 449-450, 460-461, LGCRepublic Act No. 9009 (2001)

Pelaez v. Auditor General, 19 SCRA 569, (1965)Municipality of Kapalong v. Moya, 166 SCRA 70 (1988)Padilla v. Comelec, 214 SCRA 735Alvarez v. Guingona, 252 SCRA 695 (1996)Cawaling v. Comelec, 368 SCRA 453 (2001)League of Cities v. Comelec Cases- G.R. No. 176951-November 28, 2008, December 21, 2009, August 24, 2010, February 15, 2011, April 12, 2011Navarro v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 180050, September 11, 2012Umali v. Comelec, G.R. No. 203974, April 22, 2014Aquino v. Comelec, G.R. No. 189793, April 7, 2010

ii. Alteration of Boundaries

Secs. 6, 10, 118-119, LGC

Mun. of Sta. Fe v. Mun. ofAritao, G.R. No. 140474, September 21, 2007Umali v. Comelec, (supra.)

Mariano v. Comelec, 242 SCRA 211 (1995)Mu n . o f Ka n a n g a v . Ma d ro n a , G .R . No . 1 4 1 3 7 5 , Ap r i l 3 0 , 2 0 0 3

iii. Abolition

Sec. 9, LGC

Salva v. Makalintal, 340 SCRA 506 (2000)

iv. Plebiscite Requirement

Sec. 10, Art. X, ConstitutionSec. 10, LGC

Padilla v. Comelec, 214 SCRA 735 ( 1992)Tobias v. Abalos, 239 SCRA 106 ( 1994)Pasig v. Comelec, 314 SCRA 179 (1999)Miranda v. Aguirre, 314 SCRA 603 (1999)Samson v. Aguirre, 315 SCRA 53 (1999)

v. Beginning of Corporate Existence

Sec. 14, LGC

Mejia vs. Balolong, 81 Phil 486

vi. De Facto Municipal Corporations

Municipality of Malabang v. Benito, 27 SCRA 533 (1969)Candijay v. Court of Appeals, 251 SCRA 530 (1995)Jimenez v. Baz, 265 SCRA 182 (1996)

vii. Attack against validity of Incorporations

Municipality of Malabang v. Benito, (supra.)

V. GENERAL POWERS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

i. Police Power

General Welfare Clause- Sec. 16, LGCSec. 5 (c), LGC

Sec, 21, LGC

Binay v. Domingo, 201 SCRA 508 (1991)Dela Cruz v. Paras, G.R. No. L-42571-72, July 25, 1983Sangalang v. IAC, 176 SCRA719 (1989)

1Suggested Textbook: Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., The Local Government Code Revisited, 2011 Edition.


2/6

Technology Developers v. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 127 (1991)Tatel v. Municipality of Virac, 207 SCRA 157 (1992)Tano v. Socrates, G.R. No. 119249, August 21, 1997Patalinhug v. Court of Appeals, 229 SCRA 554 (1994)Pilapil v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97671, November 26, 1992MMDA v Bel-Air Village Association, Inc. , March 27,2000(supra.)Leonardo Tan v. Perena, G.R. No. 149743, February 18, 2005Lucena Grand Central v. JAC Liner, G.R. No. 148339, February 23, 2005City of Manila v. Laguio, G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005United BF Homeowners v. City Mayor, G.R. No. 141010, February 7, 2007White Light Corp. v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009Rimando v. Naguilian Emission, G.R. No. 198860, July 23, 2012Legaspi v. City of Cebu , G.R. No. 159110, December 10, 2013

ii. Eminent Domain

Sec. 9, Art. III, 1987 ConstitutionSec. 19, LGC

Moday v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107919, Feb. 20, 1993

Camarines Sur v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103125, May 17, 1993Cebu City v. Dedamo, G.R. No. 142971, May 7, 2002Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146587, July 2, 2002Heirs of Reyes v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 132431,February 13, 2004

City of Iloilo v. Hon. Legaspi, G.R. No. 154614, November 25, 2004Lourdes de la Paz v. City of Pasig, G.R. No. 136349, January 23, 2006Spouses Yusay v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 156684, April 6, 2011Henry Sy v. Quezon City, G.R. No. 202690, June 5, 2013

iii. Opening and closure of roads

Sec. 21, LGC, Arts. 43-45, IRR LGC

Sangalang v. IAC, G.R. No. 71169, December 22, 1988Cabrera v. Court of Appeals,G.R. No. 78673, March 18, 1991

Macasiano v. Diokno, G.R. No. 97764, August 10, 1992Pilapil v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97671, November 26, 1992 (Supra.)MMDA v. Bel Air Villages, (supra.)Figuracion v. Libi, G.R. NO. 155688, November 28, 2007New Sun Valley v. Sanggunian, G.R. No. 156686, July 27, 2011

iv. Reclassification of lands

Sec. 20, LGC

i. Purpose

ii. Authorized LGUs to reclassify lands

iii. Formal Requisites &Substantial Requisites

iv. Limitations

Chamber of Real Estate v. Secretary, G.R. No. 183409, June 18, 2010

v. Sources of Revenue, Taxation and Fiscal Administration

a. Shares in the Proceeds of National Taxes

Sec. 6, Art. X, 1987 ConstitutionSecs. 18, 284-294, LGC

Pimentel v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 132988, July 19, 2000 (supra)Province of Batangas v. Hon. Romulo, G.R. No. 152774, May 27, 2004

b. Local Taxation

Sec. 5, Art. X, 1987 ConstitutionSecs. 128-196, LGC

Estanislao v. Costales, 196 SCRA 853 (1991)Phil. Petroleum v. Municipality of Pililla, 198 SCRA 82 (1991)Tuzon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 90107, August 21, 1992

Manila Electric Co. v. Province of Laguna, G.R. No. 131359, May 5, 1999City of Iloilo v. Smart, G.R. No. 167260, February 27, 2009City of Iriga v. CASURECO, G.R. No. 192945, Sept. 5, 2012Cagayan Electric v. City of CDO, G.R. No. 191761, Nov. 14, 2012

c. Real Property Taxation

Secs. 197-283, LGC

Benguet Corp. v. Central Board, G.R. No. 100959, June 29, 1992Province of Tarlac v. Hon. Alcantara, G.R. No. 65230, Dec. 23, 1992Sec. of Finance v. Ilarde , G.R. No. 121782, May 9, 2005Napocor v. Province of Quezon, G.R. No. 171586, Jan. 25, 2010

d. Share in national wealths utilization and development

Sec. 7, Art. X, 1987 ConstitutionSecs. 18, 289-294, LGC

e. Credit Financing

Secs. 295-303, LGC

See: DILG Opinion 05, Series 2008

f. Local Fiscal Administration

Secs. 304-383, LGC

vi. Local Initiative, Referendum & Legislation

Sec. 9, Art. X, 1987 Constitution

Casio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91192, December 2, 1991

a. Local Initiative and Referendum

Art. VI, Sec. 32, 1987 ConstitutionSecs. 120-127, LGCR.A. 6735

Garcia v. Comelec, 237 SCRA 297 (1994)SBMA v. Comelec, 262 SCRA 492 (1996


3/6

b. Acts of Sanggunian

1. Ordinance and Resolution

Secs. 48-59, LGCArt. 107, IRR of LGCSec. 511, LGC

Tatel v. Municipality of Virac, 207 SCRA 157 (1992) (supra)City of Manila v. Bagui, et al, G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005

La Carlota City v. Rojo, G.R. No. 181367, April 24, 2012De Los Reyes v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 121215, Nov. 13, 1997

Figuerres v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119172, March 25, 1999Ongsuco v. Malones, G.R. No. 182065, October 27, 2009

vii. Corporate Powers

Sec. 22, LGC, Art. 46, IRR LGCSecs. 14-15, LGC

Vergara v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 174567, March 12, 2009Municipality of Hagonoy v. Hon. Dumdum, G.R. No. 168289, March 22, 2010Antonio Ramos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 99425, March 3, 1997Solicitor General v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 199027, June 9, 2014Vincencio v. Villar, G.R. No. 182069, July 03, 2012Quisumbing v. Garcia, G.R. No. 175527, December 8, 2008

i. Authority to Negotiate and Secure Grants

Sec. 23, LGC

See: DILG Opinion 05, Series 2008

ii. Build-Operate-Transfer Agreements

Sec. 302, LGC

VI LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS

i. Province

Secs. 459-468, LGC

Caram v. Comelec, 225 SCRA 731 (1993)Province of Negros Occidental v. Zayco, G.R. No. 182574, Sept. 28, 2010

Mancenido v. Court of Appeals, 380 SCRA 419 (2000)

ii. City

Secs. 448-458

Lim v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111397, August 12, 2002Canet v. Decena, 420 SCRA 388 (2004)Aguirre v. de Castro, 321 SCRA 95 (1999)Acebedo Optical v. Court of Appeals, 329 SCRA 314 (2000)

Social Justice v. Atienza, 517 SCRA 657 (2007)

iii. Municipality

Secs. 440-447, LGC

Munez v. Arino, 241 SCRA 478 (1995)Greater Balanga Dev. Corp. v. Balanga, G.R. No. 83987, December 27, 1994

United BF Homeowners v. City Mayor, 515 SCRA 1 (2007) (supra.)Natividad v. Felix, 229 SCRA 680 ( 1994)Montuerto v. Ty, G.R. No. 177736, October 6, 2008

iv. Barangay

Secs. 384-439R.A. 8441 (1997), 9178 (2002), 9285 (2004)

i. KatarungangPambarangay

Secs. 399-422, 15SC Admin. Circular 1493

Morata v. Go, 125 SCRA 444 (1983)Uy v. Contreras, 237 SCRA 167 (1994)Wingarts v. Mejia, 242 SCRA 436 (1995)

Mendova v. Afable, 393 SCRA 390 ( 2002)Aquino v. Aure, 546 SCRA 71 (2008)Pang-et v. Manacnes-dao-as, G.R. No. 167261, March 2, 2007Agbayani v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 183623, June 25, 2012

ii. SangguniangKabataan

Secs. 423-439R.A. 10632 (2013)

v. Autonomous Regions

Art. X, Secs. 1, 15-21, 1987 Constitution

i. Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao

R.A. 6734R.A. 9054

Pandi v. Court of Appeals, 380 SCRA 436 (2002)Disomangcop v. Datumanong, G.R. No. 149848, November 25, 2004

ii. Cordillera Administrative Region

Exec. Order 220

Ordillo v. Comelec, 192 SCRA 100 (1990)Atitiw v. Zamora, G.R. No. 143374, September 30, 2005

vi. Metropolitan Manila Development Authority

Art. X, Sec. 11, 1987 ConstitutionR.A. 7924 (1995)

MMDA v Bel-Air Village Association, Inc. , March 27, 2000(supra.)MMDA v. Garin, G.R. No. 130230, April 15, 2005MMDA v. Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay, 574 SCRA 661 (2008)

VII LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

A. Elective Officials


4/6

i. Qualifications

Sec. 39, LGC

Abella v. Comelec, 201 SCRA 229 (1990Frivaldo v. Comeelc, G.R. No. 120295, June 28, 1996Coquilla v. Comelec, G.R. No. 15194, July 31, 2002Japzon v. Comelec, G.R. No. 180088, January 19, 2009Mitra v. Comelec, G.R. No. 191938, July 2, 2010Jalosjos v. Comelec,G.R. No. 193314, June 25, 2013

ii. Disqualifications

Sec. 40, LGC

Mercado v. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999Cordora v. Comelec,G.R. No. 176947, February 19, 2009Maquiling v. Comelec, G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013Magno v. Comelec, G.R. No. 147904, October 4, 2002Moreno v. Comelec, G.R. No. 168550 August 10, 2006

Tea v. Comelec, G.R. No. 195229, October 9, 2012Blanco v. Comelec, G.R. No. 180164, June 17, 2008Rodriguez v. Comelec, G.R. No. 120099, July 24, 1996

iii. Election

Secs. 41-42, LGCR.A. 8553

iv. Term of Office

Sec. 8, Art. X, 1987 ConstitutionSec. 43, LGCR.A.s 8524, 9164, 9340

Borja v. Comelec, G.R. No. 133495, September 3, 1998Tea v. Comelec, G.R. No. 195229, October 9, 2012 (supra.)Talaga v. Comelec,G.R. No. 196804, October 9, 2012

Abundo v. Comelec, G.R. No. 201716, January 8, 2013Comelec v. Cruz, G.R. No. 186616, November 20, 2009Bolos v. Comelec, G.R. No. 184082, March 17, 2009Monreal v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 184935, 21 December 2009,

608 SCRA 717

Ondoy v. Comelec, G.R. No. 180444, April 8, 2008

v. Vacancies and Succession

a. Permanent Vacancies

Secs. 44-45, LGC

Docena v. SangguiniangPanlalawigan, 198 SCRA 493 (1991)Farias v. Barba, 256 SCRA 396 (1996)Navarro v. Court of Appeals, 355 SCRA 672 ( 2001)Talaga v. Comelec, G.R. No. 196804, October 9, 2012 (supra.)Jalosjos v. Comelec,G.R. No. 193314, June 25, 2013 ( supra.)

b. Temporary Vacancy- Local Chief Executive

Sec. 46, LGC

Gamboa v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 134213 July 20, 1999Immam v. Comelec, G.R. No. 134167, January 20, 2000Velasco v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169253, February 20, 2013

c. Approval of Leave of Absences

Sec. 47, LGC

B. Appointive Officials

Secs. 469-490

C. Leagues of Local Government Units and Elective Officials

Secs. 491-510

VIII DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS AND RECALL

A. DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS

Secs. 60-68, 58, LGC

Ganzon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93252, November 8, 1991Espiritu v. Melgar, 206 SCRA 256 (1992)Joson v. Executive Secretary, 290 SCRA 279 (1998)Pablico v. Villapando, G.R. No. 147870, July 31, 2002People v. Toledano, G.R. No. 110220, May 18, 2000Valencia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 141336, June 29, 2004Sangguniang Barangay v. Martinez, G.R. No. 170626, March 3, 2008Don v. Lacsa, G.R. No. 170810, August 7, 2007Hagad v. Gozo-Dadole, 251 SCRA 242 (1995)Alejandro v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 173121, April 3, 2013

B. RECALL

Secs. 69-75

R.A. 9244 (2204)

Angobung v. Comelec, G.R. No. 126576, March 5, 1997Socrates v. Comelec, G.R. No. 154512, November 12, 2002Afiado v. Comelec, G.R. No. 141787, September 18, 2000Claudio v. Comelec, 331 SCRA 388 ( 2000)Adormeo v. Comelec, 376 SCRA 90 (2002)

IX. HUMAN RESOURCES

Secs. 76-96, LGC

i. Discipline Over Local Appointive Officials

Secs. 84-89, LGC

Garcia v. Pajaro, G.R. No. 141149, July 5, 2002Estampa v. City Government of Davao, G.R. No. 190681, June 21, 2010

ii. Practice of Profession

Sec. 90, LGC

Javellana v. DILG, G.R. No. 102549, August 10, 1992


5/6

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 141787. September 18, 2000]

MANUEL H. AFIADO, JASMINIO B. QUEMADO, JR. AND GLESIE L. TANGONAN,petit ioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), respondent.

D E C I S I O N

DE LEON, JR., J.:

Before us is a Petition for Mandamuswith Prayer for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, praying for the early resolution of the petition for the "recall" of former Vice-Mayor Amelita S. Navarro (currently the Mayor) of Santiago City, which was filed with respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC).

The facts are as follows:

During the May 11, 1998 elections in Santiago City, Joel Miranda became the substitute candidate for his father, Jose "Pempe" Miranda, for the position ofMayor. When the ballots were counted, Joel emerged as the winner over his opponent Antonio Abaya and he was later proclaimed. Amelita S. Navarro also won and wasproclaimed as the Vice-Mayor of Santiago City.

On May 13, 1998, the defeated candidate, Antonio Abaya, filed before the COMELEC against Joel Miranda a Petition to Declare Null and Void Substitution with Prayefor Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order, docketed as SPA No. 98-288, which was later amended. The amended petition sought thedeclaration of the certificate of candidacy of Jose Miranda, the father of Joel, as null and void.

The petition, as amended, was granted by the COMELEC en banc,and consequently the election and proclamation of Joel Miranda as Mayor of Santiago City was

annulled. This ruling was affirmed by the Supreme Court in a Decision promulgated on July 28, 1999 in G.R. No. 136531, entitled "Joel Miranda vs. Antonio Abaya andCOMELEC." In that decision, we ruled that since the certificate of candidacy of Jose Miranda was not valid, he could not be validly substituted by his son, Joel Miranda, as amayoralty candidate in Santiago City.Hence, Joel Miranda could not be validly proclaimed as the winner in the mayoralty elections. Vice-Mayor Amelita S. Navarro thusbecame the new Mayor of Santiago City by virtue of the law on succession.

[1]Joel Miranda filed a motion for reconsideration but this was denied with finality by the Supreme

Court in a Resolution dated September 28, 1999.

Navarro took her oath of office and assumed her position as Mayor of Santiago City on October 11, 1999.

Meanwhile, on July 12, 1999, while the said G.R. No. 136531 was still pending in the Supreme Court, petitioners Manuel H. Afiado, Jasminio B. Quemado and GlesieL. Tangonan convened the barangay officials of Santiago City who compose the Preparatory Recall Assembly (PRA) at the Santiago City People's Coliseum after giving themdue notice. On the same date, July 12, 1999, the PRA passed and adopted Preparatory Recall Assembly Resolution No. 1 for the recall of Vice-Mayor Amelita SNavarro. The pertinent portions of the said Resolution No. 1 read as follows:

ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 1

-oOo-

RESOLUTION OF THE PREPARATORY RECALL ASSEMBLY OF THE BARANGAY OFFICIALS OF SANTIAGO CITY FOR THE RECALL OF THE INCUMBENT VICE-MAYOROF SANTIAGO CITY

xxx xxx xxx

WHEREAS, during the Preparatory Recall Assembly the official acts of City Vice Mayor Navarro that brought forth the loss of confidence in her capacity and fitness to discharge the duties

and to perform the functions of her public office were recounted for the contemplat ion and evaluation of the members present, to wi t:

1. Her lack of respect and due regard for superior authority

2. Her greed for political power which worked against public interest and the general welfare

3. Her lack of regard for public officials, subordinates and lowly employees, which is conduct unbecoming of a public official and speaks of herunprofessionalism

4. Her constant insistence to usurp the powers or authority vested upon other public officials

5. Her application of delaying tactics in the SP actions on the City Government's annual budget

6. Her disregard of parliamentary rules by imposing her unsolicited and unnecessary opinion unto the city councilors

7. Because of her preoccupation towards matters other than those of public concerns, substantial part of the legislative tasks of the Sangguniang Panlungsodbrought to it for action have remained unacted unfinished (sic);

8. Her alleged malfeasance of corruption while she was still the City Mayor in acting capacity, specifically her direct hand in the anomalous acquisition of sixdump trucks, a request for investigation for (sic) which is pending at the Office of the Ombudsman;

9. Her antagonistic attitude towards development concerns

WHEREAS, on accounts of the documented facts and stated hereinabove the members of the Preparatory Recall Assembly present have lost, after due thought their confidence upon the

incumbent City Vice Mayor Amelita S. Navarro.

NOW WHEREFORE, upon a motion duly seconded, be it -
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141787.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141787.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141787.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141787.htm#_ftn1


6/6

RESOLVED, as it is hereby RESOLVEDto INVOKE THE RESCISSION OF THE ELECTORAL MANDATE OF THE INCUMBENT CITY VICE-MAYOR AMELITA S.NAVARRO forLOSS OF CONFIDENCEthrough a recall election to be set by the COMMISSION ON ELECTION as provided for under Section 71 of the Local Government Code of 1991

xxx xxx xxx

APPROVEDby the majority of the members of the Preparatory Recall Assembly held on July 12, 1999 at the People's Coliseum, Santiago City, Isabela.[2]

According to the petitioners, PRA Resolution No. 1 together with all the reglementary requirements, has been forwarded and submitted to the office of respondenCOMELEC at Santiago City and later to its Head Office in Manila through the Provincial Elections Office and Regional Elections Office.

On September 9, 1999, while the subject Preparatory Recall Resolution No. 1 was under evaluation in the COMELEC's Head Office, then Vice-Mayor Amelita S.Navarro filed a petition, docketed as EM No. 99-006, with the COMELEC which sought the nullification of the said PRA Resolution No. 1. In Navarro's petition, the herein

petitioners Afiado, Quemado and Tangonan (as officers of the Preparatory Recall Assembly of Santiago City) were impleaded as the respondents therein.

Hearings in EM No. 99-006 were then conducted at the COMELEC's head office. After the deadline for the submission of memoranda on December 1, 1999, hereinpetitioners as the respondents in that case, alleged that they were not informed nor were they aware of further developments. This prompted them to file on December 271999 an Urgent Motion for the Early Resolution of the Petition (EM No. 99-006). According to the herein petitioners, the act of herein respondent COMELEC in not decidingthe said petition violates Rule 18, Section 7 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure which provides that:

Sec. 7. Period to Decide by the Commission En Banc . - Any case or matter submit ted to or heard by the Commission en banc shall be decided within thirty (30) days from the date it is

deemed submitted for decision or resolution, except a motion for reconsideration of a decision or resolution of a Division in Special Actions and Special cases which shall be decided withinfifteen (15) days from the date the case or matter is deemed submitted for decision, unless otherwise provided by law.

The herein petitioners allege that the act of respondent COMELEC in not resolving the petition, EM No. 99-006, within the reglementary period constitutes neglect inthe performance of its duties and responsibilities; and that the alleged inaction of respondent COMELEC will render the said case and/or PRA Resolution No. 1 moot andacademic inasmuch as recall elections cannot be undertaken anymore come June 30, 2000 pursuant to Section 74 of the 1991 Local Government Code, which provides that:

Sec. 74.Limitation on Recall. -

(a) any elective local official may be the subject of a recall election only once dur ing 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.[3]

Finally, on February 18, 2000, sensing the urgency of the situation since PRA Resolution No. 1 was not yet acted upon by the COMELEC, the herein petitioners filedthe present petition for mandamusto compel respondent COMELEC to resolve and deny immediately Navaro's petition, docketed therein as EM No. 99-006, and in effect togive due course to and implement the said PRA Resolution.

The corollary issue in the case at bench is whether or not an elective official who became City Mayor by legal succession can be the subject of a recall election byvirtue of a Preparatory Recall Assembly Resolution which was passed or adopted when the said elective official was still the Vice-Mayor.

We deny the petition.

On March 31, 2000 respondent COMELEC issued and promulgated in EM No. 99-006 a Resolutio n[4]

which denied due course to the subject PRA Resolution No1. This development therefore rendered the present petition for mandamusmoot and academic. The record shows that herein petitioners' counsel of record was furnishedcopies of the COMELEC's Resolution dated March 31, 2000 by registered mail on April 1, 2000.

Anent the corollary issue as to whether or not Mayor Navarro can be the subject of recall election by virtue of Resolution No. 1 of the Preparatory Recall Assemblywhich was passed when she was still the elected City Vice-Mayor, the same has become moot and academic. We quote below the pertinent portion of the COMELEC'sResolution dated March 31, 2000 in EM No. 99-006 and to which we agree, to wit:

The assumption by legal succession of the petit ioner 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 itse lf suggests that the recall is intended for the incumbent

Vice Mayor of Santiago City. The third paragraph of the resolution recounted " the official acts of City Vice Mayor Navarro that brought forth the loss of confidence in her capacity and fitness

to discharge the duties and to perform the functions of her public office."And because of such acts, the assembly "RESOLVED to invoke the rescission of the electoral mandate of the

incumbent City Vice Mayor."Clearly, the intent of the PRA as expressed in the said Resolution is to remove the petitioner as Vice Mayor for they already lost their confidence in her by reason

of her official acts as such. To recall, then, the petitioner when she is already the incumbent City Mayor is to deviate from the expressed will of the PRA. Having, thus, succeeded to theposition of City Mayor, the petitioner was placed beyond the reach of the effects of the PRA Resolution.[5]

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. 1dated July 12, 1999 expressly states that "it is hereby resolved to invoke the rescission of the electoral mandate of theincumbent City Vice-Mayor Amelita S. Navarro foloss 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."

[6]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.

Even if the Preparatory Recall Assembly were to reconvene to adopt another resolution for the recall of Amelita Navarro, this time as Mayor of Santiago City, the samewould still not prosper in view of Section 74 (b) of the Local Government Code of 1991 which provides that "No recall shall take place within one (1) year from the date of theofficial's assumption of office or one (1) year immediately preceding a regular election." There is no more allowable time in the light of that law within which to hold recalelections for that purpose. The then Vice-Mayor Amelita S. Navarro assumed office as Mayor of Santiago City on October 11, 1999. One year after her assumption of office asMayor will be October 11, 2000 which is already within the one (1) year prohibited period immediately preceding the next regular election in May 2001.

WHEREFORE, the petition for mandamusis hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141787.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141787.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141787.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141787.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141787.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141787.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141787.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141787.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141787.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141787.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141787.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141787.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141787.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141787.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141787.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141787.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141787.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141787.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141787.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/141787.htm#_ftn2

afiado vs. comelec

Documents