Evardone v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Felipe Evardone, the incumbent Mayor of Sulat, Eastern Samar, elected in 1988, faced a recall petition initiated by Alexander R. Apelado, Victorino E. Aclan, and Noel A. Nival. This petition was filed with the Office of the Local Election Registrar of Sulat on February 14, 1990. The core of the dispute revolves around the validity and procedure of this recall process, including the authority of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to promulgate regulations and the timing of the recall relative to regular elections. Procedural History: The recall petition against Mayor Evardone led to COMELEC Resolution No. 90-0557 on June 20, 1990, approving the Election Registrar's recommendation to hold the signing of the recall petition on July 14, 1990. Evardone, seeking to halt this, filed a petition for prohibition with a prayer for a restraining order (G.R. No. 94010) on July 10, 1990. This Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on July 12, 1990. Despite the TRO, the signing process proceeded on July 14, 1990, as the notice reached the COMELEC field agent only on July 15, 1990. Subsequently, COMELEC Resolution No. 90-0660 nullified this signing process. Apelado, et al., challenged this nullification via a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by COMELEC Resolution No. 90-0777. This denial led to their petition for review on certiorari (G.R. No. 95063). The Petition: Mayor Evardone, in G.R. No. 94010, petitions this Court for prohibition, arguing that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion by approving the recall signing without affording him due process and by promulgating Resolution No. 2272, which he contends is unconstitutional as it lacks a basis in law following the 1987 Constitution. In G.R. No. 95063, Apelado, et al., seek review of the COMELEC's decision nullifying the recall signing, raising the issue of whether the TRO rendered the process nugatory, given the delayed notice to the field agent. The consolidated petitions ultimately question the validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 2272 and the effect of the TRO on the recall proceedings, while also considering the statutory limitations on holding recall elections.
Issue(s)
Whether COMELEC Resolution No. 2272, which provides rules for recall elections, is constitutional and valid. Whether the signing process for the recall petition held on July 14, 1990, was rendered nugatory by the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued by the Supreme Court. Whether the recall election is legally permissible given the proximity to the regular local elections.
Ruling
Both petitions are dismissed for having become moot and academic. The Court ruled that COMELEC Resolution No. 2272 is valid and constitutional, and that the signing process, despite the TRO, was validly conducted in good faith by the constituents. However, a recall election is no longer possible due to the prohibition against holding a recall within one year preceding a regular local election.
Ratio Decidendi
On the constitutionality of COMELEC Resolution No. 2272: The Court held that Resolution No. 2272 is valid and constitutional. It reasoned that Article XVIII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution provides that existing laws not inconsistent with the Constitution remain operative. Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 (Local Government Code) was still in effect prior to the enactment of the Local Government Code of 1991, which only took effect on January 1, 1992. Chapter 3 of BP Blg. 337 (Sections 54-59) provided the mechanism for recall and expressly authorized the COMELEC to supervise such processes and promulgate necessary rules. Therefore, the COMELEC acted within its rule-making power when it issued Resolution No. 2272. On the effect of the TRO on the signing process: The Court found that the signing process was not rendered nugatory. While a TRO was issued on July 12, 1990, it was only received by the COMELEC field agent on July 15, 1990, after the signing had been completed on July 14, 1990. The Court noted that the signing was undertaken by the constituents and the Election Registrar in good faith and without knowledge of the TRO. Citing Governor Zosimo J. Paredes, et al. vs. Executive Secretary to the President of the Philippines, et al., the Court stated that 'there is no turning back the clock' once an event has occurred, especially when the delay in receiving notice was attributable to the petitioner's own lack of vigilance. On the permissibility of the recall election: The Court ruled that a recall election is no longer possible due to the limitations set forth in Section 55(2) of BP Blg. 337. This provision prohibits recall elections within one year immediately preceding a regular local election. Given that the Constitution mandates synchronized national and local elections prior to June 30, 1992, specifically on the second Monday of May 1992, holding a recall election approximately seven months before the regular local election would violate this provision. Consequently, the petitions became moot and academic.
Main Doctrine
COMELEC Resolution No. 2272, implementing the recall provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, is constitutional and valid. However, a recall election may be rendered moot and academic if it is held too close to a regular election, as prohibited by law.