LOCAL GOVERNMENT | B2015

CASE DIGESTS
ANGOBUNG v. COMELEC
March 5, 1997
Hermosisima, Jr., J
Luciano, Noel Christian
SUMMARY: A petition for recall was filed by the losing mayoralty
candidate against Mayor Angobung. Comelec recommended the approval
of the petition and the Comelec En Banc issued a Resolution approving
the same, setting the signing process and scheduling the recall election.
Mayor Angobung attacks the validity of the Resolution on the ground,
among others, that the petition was void for it was not signed by at least
!" of the registered voters as re#uired by $ec. %&'d( of the )*C. +he $C
agreed with Angobung and held that the petition should be filed by at least
!" of the registered voters and not ,ust by one person.
DOCTRINE: $ec. %&'d( )*C provides that recall of any elective
municipal official may also be validly initiated upon petition of at least
!" of the total number of registered voters in the )*- concerned during
the election in which the local official sought to be recalled was elected.
+he law is plain and une#uivocal. +he initiatory recall proceedings must
be a petition of at least !" of the total number of registered voters.
+he confusion is understandable since the signing of the
petition is statutorily re#uired to be undertaken /before the election
registrar or his representative, and in the presence of a representative0.1
+2-$, while the initiatory recall petition MA3 45+ 3E+ contain the
signatures of at least !" of total number of registered voters, it must
contain the names of at least !" of the total number of registered voters
in 625$E BE2A)7 only one person may sign the petition in the
meantime.
FACTS8 A petition for recall was filed Aurora 9e Alban 'mayoralty
candidate during the :&&! elections( against the winner of the :&&!
elections, then Mayor Ricardo Angobung of +umauini, ;sabela
Comelec Regional 5ffice recommended the approval of the
petition. 5n the strength of this recommendation, Comelec En Banc issued
Res. &%<&!:8
:. Approving the petition for recall
. $et the signing process by the rest of the registered voters of
+imauini
=. $cheduled recall election if petition is signed by at least !" of
total number of registered voters '$ec. %&'d( )*C(
Angobung attacks the resolution as being unconstitutional and thus invalid8
:. Resolution approved the petition albeit the same was signed by ,ust
one person> statute re#uires a minimum of !"
. Resolution scheduled the recall election within : year from the
May :&&? barangay elections
ISSUE8 6hether the petition for recall may be filed by one person.
HELD: 45. ;t must be filed by at least !" of the registered voters of the
)*- concerned. Comelec Res. 4ull and void.
;. +he recall election is not time<barred. +he recall election
scheduled on 9ec. , :&&% cannot be said to be barred by the
May :&&? barangay elections
A. @aras v. Comelec
:. /regular local election1 in $ec. ?A means that 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
B. +hus, there can be no application of the one<year bar.
:. $o the Com En Banc Res cannot be struck down on
this ground
;;. 2owever, the first argument of Angobung is meritorious
A. +he $ancheB and Evardone cases8
:. Before )*C :&&:, recall was governed by $ec. !A<!&
B@ ==?> $ec. !& of which grants Comelec to issue
rules and regulations
a. @ursuant to this grant, Comelec promulgated
Res. ?
. ;n $ancheB, the constitutionality of Res. ? was
upheld
a. But 45+ because there was nothing
constitutionally infirm in the procedure adopted
by the Comelec in allowing the initiatory recall
petition to be filed by only one person
LOCAL GOVERNMENT | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
b. +he issue in $ancheB was the legal basis for the
eCercise by the Comelec of its rule<making
power.
':( 4ot the propriety of the legal procedure
followed
=. +he ruling was reiterated in Evardone
B. +hus, in $ancheB and Evardone, Comelec prescribed the
procedure of8
:. Allowing the recall petition to be filed by at least :
person or by less than !" of total number of
registered voters and then
a. ;nviting voters to sign said petition on a date set
for that purpose
. And since this is the issue in this case, $C sought to
resolve the propriety of the procedure
C. $ec. %&'d( )*C provides that recall of any elective
municipal official may also be validly initiated upon
petition of at least !" of the total number of registered
voters in the )*- concerned during the election in which
the local official sought to be recalled was elected
:. )aw is plain and une#uivocal.
. +he initiatory recall proceedings must be a petition of
at least !" of the total number of registered voters
a. 45+E8 @etition be /of1 and not /by1
b. +hus, it must be filed by at least !" of the
registered voters
9. +he confusion is understandable since the signing of the
petition is statutorily re#uired to be undertaken /before
the election registrar or his representative, and in the
presence of a representative0.1
:. +2-$, while the initiatory recall petition MA3 45+
3E+ contain the signatures of at least !" of total
number of registered voters,
a. ;t must contain the names of at least !" of the
total number of registered voters in 625$E
BE2A)7 only one person may sign the petition
in the meantime
. +he procedure of filing a petition by less than !" of
the registered voters, much less the filing of one
person cannot be sanctioned
E. 4ature of Recall
:. !" re#uirement is the same as a ma,ority of the
constitutions and recall statutes in American states
. Recall must be pursued by the people and not ,ust
one disgruntled loser in the elections or a small
percentage of disenchanted electors
DISPOSITIVE: @E+;+;54 75R CER+;5RAR; *RA4+E9. Comelec
Res. &%<&!: declared null and void.