Title
Evardone vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 94010
Decision Date
Dec 2, 1991
Mayor Evardone challenged COMELEC's recall process; Supreme Court upheld COMELEC's authority but barred recall due to proximity to next election.
recall process
incumbent mayor
petitions

Case Summary (G.R. No. 94010)

Factual Background

The incumbent Felipe Evardone was elected Mayor of Sulat, Eastern Samar in 1988 and assumed office after proclamation. On February 14, 1990, Alexander R. Apelado, Victorino E. Aclan and Noel A. Nival filed a petition for the recall of Mayor Evardone with the Local Election Registrar of Sulat. The Election Registrar recommended that the signing of the recall petition be scheduled, and the respondent Commission on Elections issued en banc Resolution No. 90-0557 on June 20, 1990 approving a signing date of July 14, 1990. The signing proceeded on July 14, 1990 and, as attested by the Election Registrar, about 2,050 of the 6,090 registered voters of Sulat signed the petition. Felipe Evardone filed a petition for prohibition on July 10, 1990 seeking to enjoin the signing; this Court issued a temporary restraining order on July 12, 1990, but the field agents who conducted the signing did not receive the telegraphic notice of the TRO until July 15, 1990, after the signing had been completed.

Procedural History

Two petitions arose and were consolidated. G.R. No. 94010 was filed by Felipe Evardone for prohibition with an urgent prayer for injunctive relief to stop the scheduled signing on July 14, 1990. The Court issued a TRO on July 12, 1990. After the signing occurred, the respondent COMELEC en banc issued Resolution No. 90-0660 on July 26, 1990 nullifying the July 14 signing as violative of the Court’s TRO. The petitioners in the recall proceeding sought reconsideration, which the COMELEC denied on August 29, 1990. G.R. No. 95063, filed by Apelado, et al., sought certiorari review of COMELEC’s nullification. Both matters were resolved together by this Court on December 2, 1991.

Issues Presented

The principal questions framed by the parties were whether COMELEC’s Resolution No. 2272 promulgated May 23, 1990 pursuant to its rule-making power under the Constitution and Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 was constitutional and valid, and whether the TRO issued by this Court on July 12, 1990 rendered nugatory the signing of the recall petition held on July 14, 1990 when the TRO was not received by the COMELEC field agents until July 15, 1990.

Parties’ Contentions

Felipe Evardone argued that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in approving the signing without affording him due process and that COMELEC Resolution No. 2272 was unconstitutional because Article X, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution envisaged a new Local Government Code to be enacted by Congress and therefore repealed Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, leaving no basis for COMELEC to act. The respondent COMELEC replied that the 1987 Constitution’s transitional provisions kept existing laws operative unless inconsistent with the Constitution; hence Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 remained in force pending congressional enactment of a new Local Government Code, and Sections 54 to 59 of BP 337 were not inconsistent with the Constitution. The COMELEC further contended that Section 59 expressly authorized it to promulgate rules and regulations to supervise recall proceedings and that Resolution No. 2272 was therefore within its authority.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Court determined that COMELEC Resolution No. 2272 was valid and constitutional. The Court held that Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 remained operative under Article XVIII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution until repealed, amended, or revoked, and that Republic Act No. 7160, which expressly repealed BP 337, was not yet effective until January 1, 1992. The Court further held that the COMELEC had statutory authority under Section 59 of BP 337 to promulgate rules for recall elections. The Court found that the July 14 signing, though it took place before the field agents received the TRO, was conducted in good faith and without knowledge of the TRO and thus produced legal effect that could not be undone. However, the Court concluded that a recall election could no longer be held because Section 55(2) of BP 337 forbids a recall within two years of assumption of office or within one year immediately preceding a regular local election, and the Constitution mandated synchronized regular local elections on the second Monday of May, 1992. Consequently, the Court dismissed both petitions as moot and academic.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court applied the transitional provision of the 1987 Constitution, Article XVIII, Section 3, to hold that existing laws not inconsistent with the Constitution remained operative; it therefore deemed Sections 54 to 59 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 binding until the new Local Government Code took effect. The promulgation of COMELEC Resolution No. 2272 was sustained under the express grant in Section 59 empowering COMELEC to conduct and supervise recall processes and to promulgate necessary rules. The Court relied on precedent in Governor Zosimo J. Paredes, et al. v. Executive Secretary to the President of the Philippines, et al. (G.R. No. 55628) to affirm that electoral acts completed in good faith before effective notice of injunctive relief are not subject to undoing when the delay in seeking relief renders such acts irreversible. The Court found that Felipe Evardone had constructive notice of the recall proceedings but delayed his petition and that the constituents ac

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms