Professional Documents
Culture Documents
We answer the question in the affirmative. c.1. Referendum on statutes which refers to a From these definitions, we gather that initiative is
petition to approve or reject an act or law, or part resorted to (or initiated) by the people directly
To begin with, the process started by private either because the law-making body fails or refuses
thereof, passed by Congress; and
respondents was an INITIATIVE but respondent to enact the law, ordinance, resolution or act that
Comelec made preparations for a c.2 Referendum on local law which refers to a they desire or because they want to amend or
REFERENDUM only. In fact, in the body of the petition to approve or reject a law, resolution or modify one already existing.
Resolution as reproduced in the footnote below, the ordinance enacted by regional assemblies and local
word "referendum" is repeated at least 27 times, legislative bodies. On the other hand, in a local referendum, the law-
but "initiative" is not mentioned at all. To repeat, not making body submits to the registered voters of its
Along these statutory definitions, Justice Isagani A. territorial jurisdiction, for approval or rejection, any
once was the word "initiative" used in said body of
Cruz defines initiative as the "power of the people to ordinance or resolution, which is duly enacted or
Resolution No. 2848. And yet, this exercise is
propose bills and laws, and to enact or reject them approved by such law-making authority. Said
unquestionably an INITIATIVE.
at the polls independent of the legislative referendum shall be conducted also under the
There are statutory and conceptual demarcations assembly." On the other hand, he explains that control and direction of the Commission on
between a referendum and an initiative. In enacting referendum "is the right reserved to the people to Elections.
the "Initiative and Referendum Act, Congress adopt or reject any act or measure which has been
differentiated one term from the other, thus: passed by a legislative body and which in most In other words, while initiative is entirely the work of
cases would without action on the part of electors the electorate, referendum is begun and consented
(a) "Initiative" is the power of the people to propose to by the law-making body. Initiative is a process of
become a law."
amendments to the Constitution or to propose and law-making by the people themselves without the
participation and against the wishes of their elected actual controversies, not hypothetical questions or o The signatures affixed to the
representatives, while referendum consists merely cases. resolution were actually meant to
of the electorate approving or rejecting what has show attendance at the PRA meeting
The initiative on Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10,
been drawn up or enacted by a legislative body.
Serye 1993 is REMANDED to the Commission on o The convening of the PRA took
Hence, the process and the voting in an initiative
Elections for further proceeding consistent with the place within the 1-year
are understandably more complex than in a
foregoing discussion. prohibited period
referendum where expectedly the voters will simply
write either "Yes" of "No" in the ballot. o Recall resolution failed to obtain the
majority of all the members of the
[Note: While the above quoted laws variously refer CLAUDIO vs. COMELEC
PRA
to initiative and referendum as "powers" or "legal
G.R. NO. 140560, 140714
processes", these can be also be "rights", as Justice COMELEC granted the petition for recall and
Cruz terms them, or "concepts", or "the proposal" May 4, 2000 dismissed the opposition of Mayor Claudio.
itself (in the case of initiative) being referred to in
this Decision.]
The bone of contention in this case is Sec. 74 of the
In initiative and referendum, the Comelec exercises
FACTS Local Government Code which provides:
administration and supervision of the process itself,
akin to its powers over the conduct of elections. Limitations on Recall. - (a) Any elective local official
Jovito Claudio is the duly elected mayor of
These law-making powers belong to the people, may be the subject of a recall election only once
Pasay City in the May 11, 1988 elections. He
hence the respondent Commission cannot control or during his term of office for loss of confidence.
assumed office on July 1, 1988.
change the substance or the content of legislation.
(b) No recall shall take place within one (1) year
In the exercise of its authority, it may (in fact it During the 2nd week of May 1999, several
from the date of the official's assumption to office
should have done so already) issue relevant and barangays gathered to discuss the possibility
or one (1) year immediately preceding a regular
adequate guidelines and ruls for the orderly of filing a petition for recall against Mayor
local election. xxx
exercise of these "people-power" features of our Claudio for loss of confidence. On May 19,
Constitution. 1999, an ad hoc committee was made for ISSUES
the purpose of convening the Preparatory
2. WON initiative is Ultra Vires
Recall Assembly (PRA).
Court said that it shall not pass upon the third issue WON the word “recall” in paragraph b covers a
On May 29, 1999, PRA members adopted a process which includes the convening of the
of ultra vires on the ground of prematurity. The
municipal resolution is still in the proposal stage. It resolution to initiate the recall of Mayor Preparatory Recall Assembly and its approval of the
is not yet an approved law. Should the people reject Claudio for loss of confidence recall resolution
it, then there would be nothing to contest and to Petition for recall was filed on July 2, 1999,
adjudicate. It is only when the people have voted accompanied by an affidavit of service of the
for it and it has become an approved ordinance or petition on the Office of the City Mayor. WON the term “regular local election” in paragraph
resolution that rights and obligations can be b includes the election period or the date of the
enforced or implemented thereunder. At this point, Mayor Claudio filed an opposition on the Election Day
it is merely a proposal and the writ or prohibition following grounds:
cannot issue upon a mere conjecture or possibility.
Constitutionally speaking, courts may decide only WON the Recall resolution was signed by the
majority of PRA and duly verified
RULING (1) the convening of the preparatory assembly or the official continues to enjoy the confidence of the
gathering of the signatures of at least 25% people, the prohibition in paragraph b shall not
registered voters in the LGU; apply.
WON the word “recall” in paragraph b covers a
(2) the filing of the recall resolution or petition with
process which includes the convening of the
the COMELEC;
Preparatory Recall Assembly and its approval of the It cannot be argued that to allow recall proceedings
recall resolution – NO (3) the verification of the resolution or petition; to be initiated before the official concerned has
been in office for one-year would be to allow him to
(4) fixing of the date of the recall election; and
be judged without sufficient basis. As long as the
According to Mayor Claudio, the prohibited 1-year (5) holding of the election. recall election is not held before the official
period began from the convening of the PRA on May concerned has completed one year in office, he will
29, 1999 when in it resolved to initiate the recall not be judged on his performance prematurely.
process and since May 29 is less than 1 year What are the limitations under Sec. 74 (b) on the
holding of recall? That the word “recall” used in Sec. 74(b), LGC,
from the date he assumed office (July 1,
refers to the recall election itself and not to the
1988), the filing of the recall petition was null & a) That no recall shall take place within 1 preliminary proceedings to initiate recall is due to
void. year from the date of assumption of the following reasons:
office
Comelec contends that recall process starts from b) That no recall shall take place within 1
year immediately preceding a regular 1. Because Sec. 74 speaks of limitations on "recall"
the filing of the petition for recall until the
local election which, according to Sec. 69, is a power which shall
conduct of the recall election and since the
be exercised by the registered voters of a local
petition was filed on July 2, 1999, this was exactly
government unit. Since the voters do not exercise
one year from the date Claudio assumed
Since the power vested on the electorate is not the such right except in an election, it is clear that the
office.
power to initiate recall proceedings but the power to initiation of recall proceedings is not prohibited
elect an official into office, the term "recall" in within the one-year period provided in paragraph
paragraph (b) Section 74, LGC refers only to the (b);
recall election, excluding the convening of the PRA 2. Because the purpose of the first limitation in
The word recall in Sec. 74 (b), LGC refers to the
and the filing of a petition for recall with the paragraph (b) is to provide voters a sufficient basis
election itself by means of which voters decided
COMELEC, or the gathering of the signatures of at for judging an elective local official, and final
whether they shall retain their local official or elect
least 25 % of the voters for a petition for recall. judging is not done until the day of the election; and
his replacement. IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE
RECALL ELECTION IS SET ON APRIL 15, 2000, 3. Because to construe the limitation in paragraph
IT IS MORE THAN 1 YEAR AFTER PETITIONER The holding of the PRA is NOT the recall itself. A (b) as including the initiation of recall proceedings
ASSUMED OFFICE THEREFORE THERE IS NO recall resolution merely sets the stage for the would unduly curtail freedom of speech and of
BAR AS TO HOLDING THE RECALL ELECTION official concerned before the tribunal of the people assembly guaranteed in the Constitution.
ON THAT DATE. so he can justify why he should be allowed to --------------
continue in office.
WON the term “regular local election” in paragraph
Recall is a process which involves the following If the preliminary proceeding (PRA) does not b includes the election period or the date of the
steps: produce a decision by the electorate as to whether Election Day – NO
If the “regular elections” mentioned in Sec. 74(b) SEC. 4. Election and campaign periods. — The
would include the election period, which election period shall be FIXED BY THE
Petitioner argued that “regular local elections” does
commences 90 days from the date of the election COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS in accordance with
not only mean day of the local election (May 14,
and extends to 30 days thereafter, the period Section 6, Article XII-C of the Constitution. The
2001) but the election period as well. Therefore he
during which the power of recall may be exercised period of campaign shall not be more than
contended that beginning March 30, 2000, no
will be reduced even more. (in this case, from 1 July forty- five days immediately preceding the
recall election may be held.
1999 to mid-February 2000) election, excluding the day before and the day
of the election: Provided, That for the election of
The term “regular elections” does not include the representatives to the interim Batasang Pambansa,
---------- the period of campaign shall commence on
election period.
WON the Recall resolution was signed by the February 17, 1978 except that no election campaign
majority of PRA and duly verified – YES or partisan political activity may be conducted on
To construe the word “regular elections” as March 23 and 24, 1978.
including the election period would emasculate the They contend that it runs counter to Section 6 of
right of the people to exercise the power of recall. Although the word "Attendance" appears at the top Article XII-C of the Constitution:
of the page, it is apparent that it was written by
mistake because it was crossed out by two parallel SEC. 6. Unless otherwise fixed BY THE
Actually, because no recall election may be held lines drawn across it. Apparently, it was mistaken COMMISSION in special cases, the ELECTION
until one year after the assumption of office of an for the attendance sheet which is a separate PERIOD shall commence ninety days before
elective local official, presumably on June 30 document. It is absurd to believe that the 74 the day of election and shall end thirty days
following his election, the free period is only the members of the PRA who signed the recall thereafter.
period from July 1 of the following year to about the resolution signified their attendance at the meeting For them, Sec. 4 of the 1978 Election Code
middle of May of the succeeding year. This is a twice. It is more probable to believe that they violates the Constitution because:
period of only nine months and 15 days, more or signed pages 94-104 to signify their concurrence in
less. To construe the second limitation in paragraph (a) it was decreed by the President and not by the
the recall resolution of which the pages in question
(b) as including the campaign period would reduce Commission on Elections as provided by Section 6
are part.
this period to eight months. Such an interpretation of Article XII-C; and
must be rejected, because it would devitalize the (b) the period should cover at least ninety (90)
right of recall which is designed to make local Peralta v. COMELEC days.
government units" more responsive and G.R. No. L-47771, March 11, 1978
accountable."
ISSUE:
FACTS: WON Sec. 4 of the 1978 Election Code is
In Paras v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court held that
Under Martial Law, President Ferdinand unconstitutional as regards the period it prescribes
the limitations on Sec. 74 (a) and Sec. 74 (b) would
Marcos decreed BP 881 in the exercise of his for the campaign?
mean that a local elective official may be subject
only to recall during the second year of his/her term legislative power. Petitioners question the
(in this case, from 1 July 1999 to mid-May 2000) constitutionality of Section 4 of the 1978
Election Code, which provides: RULING:
NO, it is NOT UNconstitutional.
It is apparent that there is a distinction between July 31, 2000 materially alter the results of the
the "election period" and "campaign period". election for the office of Vice-Mayor in
Thus, Section 4, Article I of the 1978 Election Code the City of Parañaque.
provides that the "election period shall be fixed
o the results thereof are statistically
by the Commission on ELECTIONS IN Facts: improbable. A case in point is
ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 6, ARTICLE XII
special civil action for certiorari precinct number 483 where petitioner
(C) OF THE CONSTITUTION (90-30 rule)." The
shockingly is supposed to have
"campaign period", however, has been fixed
Petitioner and private respondent were the received zero (0) votes. Petitioner is
so that "it SHALL NOT BE MORE THAN FORTY-
candidates for vice-mayor of the City of the incumbent Vice-Mayor of the City
FIVE DAYS immediately preceding the
Parañaque in the May 11, 1998 election of Parañaque. It is, thus, impossible
election: Provided, That for the election of
that he will receive zero (0) votes in
representatives to the interim Batasang Pambansa, the city board of canvassers proclaimed
any given precinct
the period of campaign shall commence on private respondent, Florencio M. Bernabe, Jr.,
February 17, 1978 except that no election campaign the winner for having garnered a total of the COMELEC dismissed petitioner’s suit
or partisan political activity may be conducted on 71,977 votes of the total votes cast for the
the grounds relied upon by petitioner do not
March 23 and 24, 1978." vice-mayoralty position
fall under any of the instances enumerated
The distinction is further made apparent by the fact petitioner filed with the COMELEC on May 29, in Section 6 of the Omnibus Election
that the "election period" under Section 5 of 1998, an action denominated as “Petition Code. The election tribunal concluded that
Article XII-C of the Constitution EXTENDS to Declare Failure of Elections and/or based on the allegations of the petition, it is
EVEN BEYOND THE DAY OF THE ELECTION For Annulment of Elections” alleging that: clear that an election took place and that it
ITSELF, while the "campaign period", BY did not result in a failure to elect
o local elections amounts to a
REASON OF ITS NATURE AND PURPOSE, must
necessarily be BEFORE THE ELECTIONS ARE denigration of the expression of the
HELD. There is, therefore, no conflict with the true will of the people, as it was
constitutional provision. tainted with widespread election
anomalies which constitutes election Issue: whether or not public respondent acted with
fraud; with election offenses, grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s
specifically vote buying and flying petition
Election Period Campaign Period voters being allowed to vote; during
the canvassing of votes before the
period is 90 days before election until 30 Board of Canvasser, numerous Held:
period shall NOT be MORE than 45 days
days thereafter Election Returns were discovered to
contain glaring discrepancies and are
period, by reason of its nature and purpose, Petitioner’s action is a petition to declare a
replete with blatant omissions, not to
period extends BEYOND day of election must be necessarily BEFORE the day of failure of elections or annul election results. It is not
mention the fact that numerous
election an election protest.
election returns appeared to be
tampered with The COMELEC’s authority to declare a failure of
Banaga, Jr. v COMELEC o several Election Returns are found to elections is provided in our election laws. Section 4
have glaring discrepancies which may of RA 7166 provides that the COMELEC sitting en
GR No 134696
banc by a majority vote of its members may decide,
among others, the declaration of failure of election Petitioner did not allege at all that elections were Di ka let go: old cases on the subject: instructive
and the calling of special election as provided in either not held or suspended. Neither did he aver daw:
Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code. that although there was voting, nobody was
In Mitmug vs. COMELEC,[12] petitioner instituted with
elected. On the contrary, he conceded that an
There are three instances where a failure of the COMELEC an action to declare failure of
election took place for the office of vice-mayor of
election may be declared, namely, (a) the election in forty-nine precincts where less than a
Parañaque City, and that private respondent was, in
election in any polling place has not been held on quarter of the electorate were able to cast their
fact, proclaimed elected to that post.
the date fixed on account of force majeure, votes. He also lodged an election protest with the
violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous While petitioner contends that the election was Regional Trial Court disputing the result of the
causes; (b) the election in any polling place has tainted with widespread anomalies, it must be election in all precincts in his municipality. The
been suspended before the hour fixed by law for the noted that to warrant a declaration of failure of COMELEC denied motu propio and without due
closing of the voting on account of force majeure, election the commission of fraud must be such that notice and hearing the petition to declare failure of
violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous it prevented or suspended the holding of an election despite petitioner’s argument that he has
causes; or (c) after the voting and during the election, or marred fatally the preparation and meritorious grounds in support thereto, that is,
preparation and transmission of the election returns transmission, custody and canvass of the election massive disenfranchisement of voters due to
or in the custody or canvass thereof, such election returns. These essential facts ought to have been terrorism. On review, we ruled that the COMELEC
results in a failure to elect on account of force alleged clearly by the petitioner below, but he did did not gravely abuse its discretion in denying the
majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other not. petition. It was not proven that no actual voting
analogous causes. took place. Neither was it shown that even if there
Petitioner claims that public respondent gravely
was voting, the results thereon would be
In these instances, there is a resulting failure to abused its discretion when it dismissed his
tantamount to failure to elect. Considering that
elect. This is obvious in the first two scenarios, petition motu propio. However, the fact that a
there is no concurrence of the conditions seeking to
where the election was not held and where the verified petition has been filed does not mean that a
declare failure of election, there is no longer need to
election was suspended. As to the third scenario, hearing on the case should first be held before
receive evidence on alleged election irregularities.
where the preparation and the transmission of the COMELEC can act on it. The petition to declare a
election returns give rise to the consequence of failure of election and/or to annul election In Sardea vs. COMELEC,[13] all election materials and
failure to elect must as aforesaid, is interpreted to results must show on its face that the paraphernalia with the municipal board of
mean that nobody emerged as a winner. conditions necessary to declare a failure to canvassers were destroyed by the sympathizers of
elect are present. In their absence, the petition the losing mayoralty candidate. The board then
Before the COMELEC can act on a verified petition
must be denied outright.[18] Public respondent had decided to use the copies of election returns
seeking to declare a failure of election two
no recourse but to dismiss petition. Nor may furnished to the municipal trial court. Petitioner
conditions must concur, namely (1) no voting took
petitioner now complain of denial of due process, on therein filed a petition to stop the proceedings of
place in the precinct or precincts on the date fixed
this score, for his failure to properly file an election the board of canvassers on the ground that it had
by law, or even if there was voting, the election
protest. The COMELEC can only rule on what was no authority to use said election returns obtained
resulted in a failure to elect; and (2) the votes not
filed before it. It committed no grave abuse of from the municipal trial court. The petition was
cast would have affected the result of the election.
[11] discretion in dismissing his petition “to declare denied. Next, he filed a petition assailing the
Note that the cause of such failure of election
failure of elections and/or for annulment of composition of the board of canvassers. Despite
could only be any of the following: force majeure,
elections” for being groundless, hence without that petition, the board of canvassers proclaimed
violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous
merit. the winning candidates. Later on, petitioner filed
causes.
a petition to declare a failure of election alleging
that the attendant facts would justify declaration of
such failure. On review, we ruled that petitioner’s of the people is determinable, the same must as far on ground of untimeliness of the petition, despite a
first two actions involved pre-proclamation as possible be respected. finding that the same badges of fraud evident from
controversies which can no longer be entertained the results of the election based on the certificates
In Loong vs. Comelec,[14] the petition for annulment
after the winning candidates have been of canvass of votes in Parang, are also evident in
of election results or to declare failure of elections in
proclaimed. Regarding the petition to declare a the election results of the five mentioned
Parang, Sulu, on the ground of statistical
failure of election, we held that the destruction and municipalities. We ruled that COMELEC committed
improbability and massive fraud was granted by the
loss of copies of election returns intended for the grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition
COMELEC.[15] Even before the technical examination
municipal board of canvassers on account of as there is no law which provides for a reglementary
of election documents was conducted, the
violence is not one of the causes that would warrant period to file annulment of elections when there is
COMELEC already observed badges of fraud just by
the declaration of failure of election. The reason is yet no proclamation. The election resulted in a
looking at the election results in
that voting actually took place as scheduled and failure to elect on account of fraud. Accordingly, we
Parang. Nevertheless, the COMELEC dismissed the
other valid election returns still existed. Moreover, ordered the COMELEC to reinstate the aforesaid
petition for annulment of election results or to
the destruction or loss did not affect the result of petition. Those circumstances, however, are not
declare failure of elections in the municipalities of
the election. We also declared that there is failure present in this case, so that reliance on Loong by
Tapul, Panglima Estino, Pata, Siasi and Kalinggalang
of elections only when the will of the electorate has petitioner Banaga is misplaced.
Calauag. The COMELEC dismissed the latter action
been muted and cannot be ascertained. If the will