Scribd
Upload
375 views

Paras V Comelec

1) The petitioner Danilo Paras, a barangay captain, was subject to a recall petition signed by at least 29.30% of registered voters set for November 1995, which the COMELEC deferred twice. 2) Paras argued that under the Local Government Code, no recall can be held within one year of assuming office or within one year of a regular local election, including the Sangguniang Kabataan election set in May 1996. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the intent of the recall provision was to allow recalls once per term, and defining regular local elections so broadly as to include the SK elections every 3 years would unduly limit recalls, contrary to the Constitution.

Uploaded by

Miggy Cardenas
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
375 views

Paras V Comelec

1) The petitioner Danilo Paras, a barangay captain, was subject to a recall petition signed by at least 29.30% of registered voters set for November 1995, which the COMELEC deferred twice. 2) Paras argued that under the Local Government Code, no recall can be held within one year of assuming office or within one year of a regular local election, including the Sangguniang Kabataan election set in May 1996. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the intent of the recall provision was to allow recalls once per term, and defining regular local elections so broadly as to include the SK elections every 3 years would unduly limit recalls, contrary to the Constitution.

Uploaded by

Miggy Cardenas
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Bobby Sebastian 199808067 DANILO E. PARAS vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. FACTS: Petitioner Danilo E.

Paras, who was then incumbent Punong Barangay of Pula, Cabanatuan City, won during the regular barangay election in 1994. At least 29.30% of the registered voters signed a petition for Recall, which was originally set on 13 November 1995. Because of Paras' Opposition, COMELEC deferred and reset the election to 16 November 1995. Undaunted, Petitioner sought the Regional Trial Court's intervention by filing a petition for injunction. The RTC initially issued a temporary restraining order. The RTC, however, subsequently dismised the petition and lifted the restraning order it had issued. The COMELEC then re-scheduled the election for a third time to 13 January 1996. The Petitioner then countered by filing the instant petition for certiorari with urgent prayer for injunction. The Supreme Court ordered the Office of the Solicitor General to comment in behalf of COMELEC. The OSG, however, manifested an opinion adverse to COMELEC. COMELEC then filed its own comment, to which Paras replied. 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 officials assumption to office or one (1) year immediately preceding a regular local election, Paras 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. ISSUE: Whether or not, as Paras would have it, he cannot be subject of recall scheduled mere days before the SK election, pursuant to Section 74(b) of the Local Government Code. HELD: No. 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. 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 petitioners interpretation of the phrase regular local election to include the SK election will unduly circumscribe the novel provision of the 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. 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. It is likewise a basic precept in statutory construction that a statute should be interpreted in harmony with the Constitution. Thus, he 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 mechanisms of recall, initiative, and referendum x x x.

You might also like