Paras vs Comelec Facts:

264 SCRA 49
TOPIC: CONSTRUCTION AS TO GIVE LIFE • Petitioner Danilo E. Paras is the incumbent
TO LAW Punong Barangay of Pula, Cabanatuan City
who won during the last regular election in
Summary (Agpalo): 1994.

The issue raised in this case refers to the interpretation of the

phrase “regular or local election”p in sec. 74 of the local • A petition for his recall as Punong Barangay
government code of 1991 which states that “any elective local was led by the registered voters of the
o cial may be the subject of recall election only once during barangay.

his term of o ce for loss of con dence and “no recall shall
take place within 1 year from the date of the o cials • Acting on the petition for recall, public
assumption of o ce or 1 year immediately preceding a
respondent COMELEC resolved to approve the
regular local election.”the question is whether the phrase
“regular local election”includes the sk election which is set by
petition, scheduled the petition signing on
RA 7808 to be held every 3 years from May 1996, while the October 14, 1995, and set the recall election
regular local election was held in May 1995, also every 3 on November 13, 1995.

years thereafter. Pursuant to sec 74 of the code, there would

be no recall election from may 1995 to may 1996 nor from • At least 29.30% of the registered voters signed
may 1997-may 1998, except from may 1996- may 1997. The the petition, well above the 25% requirement
sk election which was scheduled in may 1996 is included in provided by law.

the phrase “ regular local election” there would be no recall

election from may 1996 to may 1997 which would mean that • COMELEC, however, deferred the recall
there would be no recall election at all, rendering the recall
election in view of petitioner’s opposition.

provision nugatory.

The court ruled that tot construe the phrase”regular local

• On December 6, 1995, COMELEC set anew
election” as including SK elections, “no recall election can be the recall election, this time on December 16,
conducted rendering inutile the recall provision of the LGC”. It 1995.

held that it would “be more in the keeping with the intent of
the recall provision of the code to construe regular local • To prevent the holding of the recall election,
election as one referring to an election Where the o ce held petitioner led before the RTC of Cabanatuan
by the local elective o cial sought to be recalled will be City a petition for injunction, docketed as SP
contested and be led by the electorate.” It added that this Civil Action No. 2254-AF, with the trial court
construction in accordance with the rule that in the
issuing a temporary restraining order.

interpretation of a statute, the court should start with the

assumption that the legislature intended to enact an e ective
law, and the legislature is not presumed to have done a vain
• After conducting a summary hearing, the trial
thing in the enactment of a statute.” An interpretation should if court lifted the restraining order, dismissed the
possible be avoided under which a statute or provision being petition and required petitioner and his counsel
construed is defeated or as otherwise expressed, nulli ed, to explain why they should not be cited for
destroyed, emasculated, repealed, explained away, or contempt for misrepresenting that the
rendered insigni cant, meaningless, inoperative or barangay recall election was without
nugatory.xxx
COMELEC approval.

it is likewise a basic precept in statutory construction that a • In a resolution dated January 5, 1996,
statute should be interpreted in harmony with the constitution.
Thus, the interpretation-of section 74 of the LGC, speci cally
COMELEC, for the third time, re-scheduled the
paragraph b thereof, should not be in con ict with the recall election on January 13, 1996; hence, the
constitutional mandate of section 3 of art 10 of the consti to instant petition for certiorari with urgent prayer
enact a local government code which shall provide for a more for injunction.

responsive, accountable local government structure instituted

through a system of decentralization with e ective • On January 12, 1996, the Court issued a
mechanisms of recall, initiative, and referendum xxx. temporary restraining order and required the
Moreover, petitioner’s too literal interpretation of the law leads O ce of the Solicitor General, in behalf of
to absurdity which we cannot countenance. Thus, in a case, public respondent, to comment on the petition.

the court made the following admonition: “we admonish

against a too literal reading of the law as this is apt to
constrict rather than ful ll its purpose and defeat the intention
• COMELEC through its law department led the
of its authors. That intention is usually found not in the letter required comment.

that killeth but in the spirit that vivi eth.”

ffi
ffi
fi
fi
ffi
fi
ffi
fi
ffi
fi
fi
fi
fl
ff
fi
ffi
ffi
ff
fi
fi
 • Petitioner thereafter led a reply.
barangays and members of the sangguniang
barangays, and the elective regional o cials of
• Petitioner cited Section 74 (b) of Republic Act ARMM.

No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local

Government Code, which states that “no recall • These are the only local elective o cials
shall take place within one (1) year from the deemed recognized by Section 2(2) of Article
date of the o cial’s assumption to o ce or IX-C of the Constitution which provides:

one (1) year immediately preceding a regular

local election”, petitioner insists that the o Sec. 2. The Commission on Elections
scheduled January 13, 1996 recall election is shall exercise the following powers
now barred as the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) and functions:

election was set by RA 7808 on the rst Xxx

Monday of May 1996, and every three years (2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over
thereafter.
all contests relating to the elections, returns,
and qualifications of all elective regional,
• In support thereof, petitioner cites Associated provincial, and city officials, and appellate
Labor Union vs. Letrondo-Montejo, 237 SCRA jurisdiction over all contests involving elective
621, where the Court considered the SK municipal officials decided by trial courts of
election as a regular local election, hence no general jurisdiction, or involving elective
recall election can be held for barely four barangay officials decided by trial courts of
months separate the SK election from the limited jurisdiction.”
recall election.

• A regular election, whether national or local,

can only refer to an election participated by
Issue: those who possess right of su rage, who are
not disquali ed by law, and who are registered
• W/N the SK election can be considered a voters.

regular local election.

• One of the requirements for the exercise of

su rage under Section 1, Article V of the
Ruling: Constitution is that the person must be at least
18 years old, and a registered voter pursuant
• The Supreme Court did not agree.
to the rules on registration prescribed in the
Omnibus Election Code (Sections 113-118).

• Local Government Code:

• Under the law, the SK includes the youth with

Sec. 74. Limitations on Recall – (a) Any elective ages 15 to 21 (Sec. 424, Local Government
local official may be the subject of a recall Code of 1991).

election only once during his term of office for

loss of confidence. • They include many who are not quali ed to
vote in a regular election, 15 to below 18.

(b) No recall shall take place within one (1) year

from the date of the official’s assumption to • SK election cannot be considered a “regular
office or one (1) year immediately preceding a election” for purposes of recall under Section
regular local election. 74 of the Local Government Code of 1991.

• It is likewise a basic precept in statutory • Nevertheless, recall at this time is no longer

construction that a statute should be possible because the next regular barangay
interpreted in harmony with the Constitution.
election is barely seven (7) months away,
scheduled on May 1997.

• The term “regular local election” must be

con ned to the regular election of elective local • Petition is hereby DISMISSED for having
o cials.
become moot and academic. The temporary
restraining order should be as it is hereby
• The elective local o cials are the Provincial made permanent.

Governors, Vice-Governors of provinces,

Mayors and Vice Mayors of cities and
municipalities, Members of the Sanggunians of
provinces, cities, and municipalities, punong
ffi
ff
fi

fi

ffi
ffi
fi

ff
ffi
fi
ffi
fi
ffi
 Statutory Construction Principle:

• 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 o cial to recall election once
during his term of o ce. Paragraph (b)
construed together with paragraph (a) merely
designates the period when such elective local
o cial may be subject of a recall election that
is, during the second year of his term of o ce.
ffi
ffi
ffi
ffi