Scribd
Upload
671 views

Angobung Vs Comelec

(1) The Supreme Court granted Angobung's petition for certiorari and annulled the COMELEC resolution approving the recall petition filed by de Alban. (2) While the resolution did not violate the one-year ban prior to elections, it did violate the statutory requirement that a recall petition must be initiated and filed by at least 25% of registered voters, not just one person. (3) The Court ruled that allowing one person to file a recall petition and then gather additional signatures does not comply with the law and could allow ill-motivated individuals to destabilize the government.

Uploaded by

kayelaurente
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
671 views

Angobung Vs Comelec

(1) The Supreme Court granted Angobung's petition for certiorari and annulled the COMELEC resolution approving the recall petition filed by de Alban. (2) While the resolution did not violate the one-year ban prior to elections, it did violate the statutory requirement that a recall petition must be initiated and filed by at least 25% of registered voters, not just one person. (3) The Court ruled that allowing one person to file a recall petition and then gather additional signatures does not comply with the law and could allow ill-motivated individuals to destabilize the government.

Uploaded by

kayelaurente
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

ANGOBUNG vs COMELEC

G. R. No. 126576 (March 5, 1997)

This is a petition for certiorari to annul and set aside Resolution No. 96-2951 (15
October 1996) issued by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), which
approved the Petition for Recall filed and signed by only one registered voter,
private respondent Ma. Aurora S. de Alban, against petitioner incumbent Mayor
Ricardo M. Angobung; set the further signing of said petition by the rest of the
registered voters of Tumauini, Isabela on 09 November 1996; and in case the said
petition is signed by at least 25% of the total number of registered votes in
Tumauini, Isabela, scheduled the recall election on 02 December 1996. The
Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining COMELEC from
implementing and enforcing the assailed Resolution.

FACTS:
Petitioner Ricardo M. Angobung was the elected Mayor of the Municipality of
Tumauini, Isabela in the local elections of 1995. Private respondent de Alban was
also a candidate in said elections. In September 1996, de Alban filed with the
Local Election Registrar of Tumauini, Isabela, a Petition for Recall against
Angubong. Said petition was forwarded to the Regional Office in Tuguegarao,
Cagayan and then to the main office of COMELEC in Manila, for approval. Deputy
Executive Director for Operations Pio Jose Joson then submitted to the COMELEC
en banc, a Memorandum (08 October 1996) which recommends the approval of
the petition for recall filed by de Alban and its signing by other qualified voters in
order to garner at least 25% of the total number of registered voters as required
by Section 69[d] of the Local Government Code of 1991. The COMELEC en banc,
acting on said Memorandum, issued the herein assailed Resolution No. 96-2951.

Petitioner now attacks the aforementioned resolution as being unconstitutional


and therefore invalid.

ISSUES
(1) Whether the Resolution violated the one-year bar on recall elections;
(2) Whether the Resolution violated the statutory minimum requirement of 25%
as to the number of signatures supporting any petition for recall.

(1) NO. The recall election scheduled on 02 December 1996 is not


barred by the May 1997 Barangay Elections. The one-year bar finds no
application in the case; Resolution No. 96-2951 is therefore valid on this
ground.
Section 74 of the Local Government Code of 1991 provides that "no recall
shall take place within one year immediately preceding a regular local
election." For the time bar to apply, the approaching regular local election
must be one where the position of the official to be recalled is to be actually
contested and filled by the electorate.

(2) YES. Private respondent de Alban filed the petition for recall with
only herself as the filer and initiator. She claims in her petition that she
has, together with many others in Tumauini, Isabela, lost confidence in
the leadership of petitioner. The petition, however, does not bear the
names of all these other citizens of Tumauini who have reportedly also
become anxious to oust petitioner from the post of mayor.
Section 69 [d] of the Local Government Code of 1991 expressly provides
that "recall of any elective municipal official may also be validly initiated
upon petition of at least 25% of the total number of registered voters in the
local government unit concerned during the election in which the local
official sought to be recalled was elected". The law is plain and unequivocal
as to what initiates recall proceedings: only a petition of at least 25% of the
total number of registered voters may validly initiate recall proceedings.
The law does not state that the petition must be signed by at least 25% of
the registered voters but rather it must be "of" or by, at least 25% of the
registered voters, i.e., the petition must be filed, not by one person only,
but by at least 25% of the total number of registered voters.

Recall is a mode of removal of a public officer by the people before


the end of his term of office. The people's prerogative to remove a
public officer is an incident of their sovereign power and in the absence
of constitutional restraint, the power is implied in all
governmental operations. Such power has been held to be
indispensable for the proper administration of public affairs. Not
undeservedly, it is frequently described as a fundamental right of the
people in a representative democracy (Garcia v. COMELEC, 27 SCRA
100, 1993).
Recall was intended to be an effective and speedy remedy to remove an
official who is not giving satisfaction to the electorate regardless of whether or
not he is discharging his full duty to the best of his ability and as his conscience
dictates. It is a power granted to the people who, in concert, desire to change
their leaders for reasons only they, as a collective, can justify. It must be pursued
by the people, not just by one disgruntled loser in the elections or a small
percentage of disenchanted electors. Otherwise, its purpose as a direct remedy
of the people shall be defeated by the ill motives of a few among them whose
selfish resort to recall would destabilize the community and seriously disrupt the
running of government.
While the people are vested with the power to recall their elected officials,
the same power is accompanied by the concomitant responsibility to see through
all the consequences of the exercise of such power, including rising above
anonymity, confronting the official sought to be recalled, his family, his
friends, and his supporters, and seeing the recall election to its ultimate end. The
procedure of allowing just one person to file the initiatory recall petition and then
setting a date for the signing of the petition, which amounts to inviting and
courting the public which may have not, in the first place, even entertained
any displeasure in the performance of the official sought to be recalled, is not only
violative of statutory law but also tainted with an attempt to go around the
law.
The Supreme Court (1) granted the Petition for Certiorari; (2) declared
COMELEC Resolution No. 96- 2951 null and void; (3) set aside the same;
made permanent the restraining order it issued.

You might also like