Sanchez v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents filed separate notices of recall against petitioners, the incumbent city mayor and vice-mayor of Butuan City, on February 5, 1990. The City Election Registrar approved a schedule of signing for the recall proceedings from February 14 to March 15, 1990, and designated five signing centers, acting in line with COMELEC Resolution No. 1612. Procedural History: Private respondents later sought to amend the recall proceedings by increasing the number of signing centers and including Saturdays and Sundays. Petitioners opposed this, arguing no valid ground existed for amendment. The COMELEC, on March 2, 1990, issued Minute Resolution No. 90-0254, suspending the recall proceedings pending clarification of funding requirements. Subsequently, on May 23, 1990, the COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 2272, providing new rules and regulations on recall of elective officials. On June 27, 1990, the COMELEC issued Minute Resolution No. 90-0590, declaring the signing process conducted under Resolution No. 1612 null and void, stating it was superseded by Resolution No. 2272, and setting new dates for the signing process on August 11, 18, and 25, 1990. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for prohibition and injunction, alleging lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC in issuing Resolution No. 2272 and Minute Resolution No. 90-0590. They contended that Resolution No. 2272 was unconstitutional as no legislative enactment on recall mechanisms had yet been passed by Congress as mandated by the Constitution. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the recall-signing process.
Issue(s)
Whether Resolution No. 2272 is unconstitutional for lack of a legislative enactment on recall mechanisms. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing Minute Resolution No. 90-0590, declaring the recall proceedings under Resolution No. 1612 null and void and setting new dates based on Resolution No. 2272.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. Public respondents are enjoined from implementing Resolution No. 2272. Minute Resolution No. 90-0590 is declared null and void for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. Public respondents are further ordered to continue with the recall proceedings originally commenced under the provisions of Resolution No. 1612.
Ratio Decidendi
On the constitutionality of Resolution No. 2272: The Court found the contention that Resolution No. 2272 is unconstitutional for lack of a legislative enactment on recall mechanisms to be devoid of merit. While Article X, Section 3 of the Constitution mandates Congress to enact a local government code with an effective recall mechanism, this does not imply the repeal of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 (BP 337), the existing local government code prior to the 1987 Constitution. The constitutional provision merely states that the new code should be "more responsive." Until such a code is enacted, the existing one remains in effect, consistent with Article XVIII of the Constitution, which states that all existing laws not inconsistent with the Constitution shall remain operative. Therefore, the COMELEC's promulgation of Resolution No. 2272, pursuant to Section 59 of BP 337, is valid and constitutional. On the COMELEC's grave abuse of discretion in issuing Minute Resolution No. 90-0590: The Court agreed with the petitioners that the COMELEC acted in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Minute Resolution No. 90-0590 declared the signing process under Resolution No. 1612 null and void, citing its supersession by Resolution No. 2272, and set new dates for the signing. However, Resolution No. 2272 took effect on June 2, 1990, after its publication on May 26, 1990. By this time, three months had already elapsed since the initial notice of recall was filed on February 5, 1990. Giving Minute Resolution No. 90-0590 retroactive effect based on Resolution No. 2272 violated the fundamental rule that laws have no retroactive effect unless expressly provided, as stated in Article 4 of the Civil Code. Resolution No. 2272 did not provide for retroactive application. Furthermore, applying Resolution No. 2272 retroactively would nullify the initial notice of recall filed on February 5, 1990, because it required COMELEC approval of the signing schedule, whereas in this case, the schedule was approved by the City Election Registrar. The Court noted the inconsistency and illogical nature of having one resolution govern the filing and approval of the notice of recall and another govern the schedule and days for signing, especially when the COMELEC declared the prior process void but still scheduled new signing dates. Therefore, the recall proceedings initiated under Resolution No. 1612 should continue under its original schedule, as Resolution No. 2272 has no retroactive effect.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) committed grave abuse of discretion in giving retroactive effect to Resolution No. 2272, which superseded Resolution No. 1612, thereby nullifying recall proceedings initiated under the latter. Recall proceedings commenced under the prior resolution must continue under its original schedule, as Resolution No. 2272 has no retroactive effect.