Angobung v. Commission on Elections
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ricardo M. Angobung was elected Mayor of Tumauini, Isabela, in 1995, securing 55% of the votes. Private respondent Atty. Aurora S. de Alban was also a candidate in that election. In September 1996, de Alban initiated a recall process against Mayor Angobung. Procedural History: The petition for recall, initially filed by de Alban with the Local Election Registrar, was forwarded through COMELEC regional offices to the COMELEC En Banc. Deputy Executive Director Pio Jose Joson recommended approval, leading to COMELEC Resolution No. 96-2951 on October 15, 1996. This resolution approved the recall petition, scheduled a signing period for other registered voters, and set a recall election date. Mayor Angobung filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which issued a Temporary Restraining Order on October 25, 1996, enjoining the COMELEC from implementing its resolution. The Petition: Petitioner Angobung assails COMELEC Resolution No. 96-2951 as unconstitutional. He argues that the resolution improperly approved a recall petition initiated by only one registered voter, violating the statutory requirement of at least 25% of the total registered voters. He also contended that the recall election was scheduled within one year of the upcoming Barangay Elections, though this latter argument was later conceded to be resolved by prior jurisprudence. The core of his petition centers on the COMELEC's alleged disregard of the mandatory 25% signature requirement for initiating a recall petition under Section 69(d) of the Local Government Code of 1991.
Issue(s)
Whether COMELEC Resolution No. 96-2951 is unconstitutional and void for approving a petition for recall signed by only one person, contrary to the statutory requirement of at least 25% of the registered voters. Whether the recall election scheduled on December 2, 1996, is barred by the one-year prohibition preceding the May 12, 1997 Barangay Elections.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is GRANTED. COMELEC Resolution No. 96-2951 is declared NULL and VOID and accordingly SET ASIDE. The Temporary Restraining Order issued is made permanent.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the initiation of the recall petition by a single signatory: The Court found this ground to be impressed with merit and declared COMELEC Resolution No. 96-2951 void. The Court meticulously traced the evolution of recall provisions, from Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 to Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991). It emphasized that Section 69(d) of the Local Government Code of 1991 expressly provides that recall may be validly initiated upon a petition of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the total number of registered voters. The Court stressed that the law does not state that the petition must be signed by at least 25% of the registered voters, but rather, the petition must be "of" or "by" at least 25% of the registered voters. This means the petition must be filed by at least 25% of the total number of registered voters, in whose behalf only one person may sign in the meantime, but the petition itself must represent the collective will of this minimum percentage. The Court distinguished this from the procedure upheld in Sanchez v. COMELEC and Evardone v. COMELEC, where the issue was the COMELEC's rule-making power, not the specific procedure of allowing a petition to be filed by less than the statutory percentage. The Court found the COMELEC's procedure in the present case, allowing a petition to be filed by just one person, to be indubitably violative of clear and categorical provisions of subsisting law and the spirit underlying it. The Court reasoned that recall is a power granted to the people collectively, not to a disgruntled individual or a small minority, to prevent abuse and destabilization. The Court explicitly stated that it cannot countenance a circumvention of the explicit 25% minimum voter requirement in the initiation of the recall process. On the issue of the one-year bar on recall elections: The Court ruled that the recall election scheduled on December 2, 1996, was not barred by the May 12, 1997 Barangay Elections. Citing its pronouncement in Paras v. COMELEC, the Court clarified that the one-year bar applies only when the approaching regular local election is one where the position of the official to be recalled is to be actually contested and filled by the electorate. Since the Barangay Elections do not involve the contest for the position of Mayor, the time bar does not apply. Therefore, the COMELEC resolution cannot be invalidated on this ground.
Main Doctrine
A petition for recall of an elective local official under Section 69(d) of the Local Government Code of 1991 must be initiated by a petition of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the total number of registered voters in the local government unit concerned, and not by a single individual. The procedure of allowing just one person to file the initiatory recall petition and then setting a date for the signing of the petition is violative of the law.