PUBLIC CORPORATIONS &LOCAL GOVERNMENT

nd

2 Semester 2014-2015
Atty. Amando Virgil D. Ligutan

Part I:
Lecture on Public Corporations
Part II:
Local Governance
I.

PRELIMINARY READINGS
Eleanor Gonzales, Decentralization and Political Participation in the Philippines: Experiences and Issues in Societal Transformation,Institute for Popular Democracy (1997)
Alex Brillantes and Donna Moscare, Decentralization and Federalism in the Philippines, Lessons from Global Community

II.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION

1987 Philippine Constitution (Constitution), Art. X, Secs. 1-21
Limbona v. Mangelin, G.R. No. 80391, February 28, 1989
Laguna Lake Development Authority v. CA, G.R. Nos. 120865-71, December 7, 1995
Lina v. Pao, G.R. No. 129093, August 30, 2001

III.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE: DECENTRALIZATION AND LOCAL AUTONOMY

Secs. 1-5, Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC)1
i.

Local Government Unit- Definition

Basco v. Pagcor, 197 SCRA 52 (1991)
MMDA v Bel-Air Village Association, Inc. G.R. No. 135962, March 27, 2000

ii.

Local Autonomy
Sec. 25, Art. II, Constitution
Secs. 2,4,11,12, Art. X, Constitution

Limbona v. Mangelin, (supra.)

San Juan v. Civil Service Commission, 196 SCRA 69 (1991)
Ganzon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93252, August 5, 1991
Magtajas v. Pryce Properties, G.R. No. 111097, July 20, 1994
Pimentel v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 132988, July 19, 2000
Pimentel v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 195770, July 17, 2012
Belgica, et al. v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 208566, Nov. 19, 2013

IV.

CREATION, CONVERSION, ALTERATION OF BOUNDARIES & DISSOLUTION OF LOCAL GOVERNEMTN UNITS

i.

Creation and Conversion

Secs. 1, 10-11, 15, 18-19, Art. X, Constitution
Secs. 6,7, 10, 385-386, 441-442, 449-450, 460-461, LGC
Republic Act No. 9009 (2001)
Pelaez v. Auditor General, 19 SCRA 569, (1965)
Municipality of Kapalong v. Moya, 166 SCRA 70 (1988)
Padilla v. Comelec, 214 SCRA 735
Alvarez v. Guingona, 252 SCRA 695 (1996)
Cawaling v. Comelec, 368 SCRA 453 (2001)
League of Cities v. Comelec Cases- G.R. No. 176951-November 28, 2008, December 21, 2009, August 24, 2010, February 15, 2011, April 12, 2011
Navarro v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 180050, September 11, 2012
Umali v. Comelec, G.R. No. 203974, April 22, 2014
Aquino v. Comelec, G.R. No. 189793, April 7, 2010

ii.

Alteration of Boundaries
Secs. 6, 10, 118-119, LGC
Mun. of Sta. Fe v. Mun. ofAritao, G.R. No. 140474, September 21, 2007
Umali v. Comelec, (supra.)
Mariano v. Comelec, 242 SCRA 211 (1995)
Mun. of Kananga v. Madrona, G.R. No. 141375, April 30, 2003

iii.

Abolition
Sec. 9, LGC
Salva v. Makalintal, 340 SCRA 506 (2000)

iv.

Plebiscite Requirement
Sec. 10, Art. X, Constitution
Sec. 10, LGC
Padilla v. Comelec, 214 SCRA 735 (1992)
Tobias v. Abalos, 239 SCRA 106 (1994)
Pasig v. Comelec, 314 SCRA 179 (1999)
Miranda v. Aguirre, 314 SCRA 603 (1999)
Samson v. Aguirre, 315 SCRA 53 (1999)

v.

Beginning of Corporate Existence

Sec. 14, LGC
Mejia vs. Balolong, 81 Phil 486

vi.

De Facto Municipal Corporations

Municipality of Malabang v. Benito, 27 SCRA 533 (1969)
Candijay v. Court of Appeals, 251 SCRA 530 (1995)
Jimenez v. Baz, 265 SCRA 182 (1996)

vii.

Attack against validity of Incorporations

Municipality of Malabang v. Benito, (supra.)

V.

GENERAL POWERS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

i. Police Power
General Welfare Clause- Sec. 16, LGC

Sec. 5 (c), LGC

Sec, 21, LGC
Binay v. Domingo, 201 SCRA 508 (1991)
Dela Cruz v. Paras, G.R. No. L-42571-72, July 25, 1983
Sangalang v. IAC, 176 SCRA719 (1989)

1Suggested Textbook: Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., The Local Government Code Revisited, 2011 Edition.

Technology Developers v. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 127 (1991)

Tatel v. Municipality of Virac, 207 SCRA 157 (1992)
Tano v. Socrates, G.R. No. 119249, August 21, 1997
Patalinhug v. Court of Appeals, 229 SCRA 554 (1994)
Pilapil v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97671, November 26, 1992
MMDA v Bel-Air Village Association, Inc., March 27,2000(supra.)
Leonardo Tan v. Perena, G.R. No. 149743, February 18, 2005
Lucena Grand Central v. JAC Liner, G.R. No. 148339, February 23, 2005
City of Manila v. Laguio, G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005
United BF Homeowners v. City Mayor, G.R. No. 141010, February 7, 2007
White Light Corp. v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009
Rimando v. Naguilian Emission, G.R. No. 198860, July 23, 2012
Legaspi v. City of Cebu, G.R. No. 159110, December 10, 2013
ii. Eminent Domain
Sec. 9, Art. III, 1987 Constitution
Sec. 19, LGC
Moday v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107919, Feb. 20, 1993
Camarines Sur v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103125, May 17, 1993
Cebu City v. Dedamo, G.R. No. 142971, May 7, 2002
Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146587, July 2, 2002
Heirs of Reyes v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 132431,February 13, 2004
City of Iloilo v. Hon. Legaspi, G.R. No. 154614, November 25, 2004
Lourdes de la Paz v. City of Pasig, G.R. No. 136349, January 23, 2006
Spouses Yusay v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 156684, April 6, 2011
Henry Sy v. Quezon City, G.R. No. 202690, June 5, 2013
iii. Opening and closure of roads
Sec. 21, LGC, Arts. 43-45, IRR LGC
Sangalang v. IAC, G.R. No. 71169, December 22, 1988
Cabrera v. Court of Appeals,G.R. No. 78673, March 18, 1991
Macasiano v. Diokno, G.R. No. 97764, August 10, 1992
Pilapil v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97671, November 26, 1992 (Supra.)
MMDA v. Bel Air Villages, (supra.)
Figuracion v. Libi, G.R. NO. 155688, November 28, 2007
New Sun Valley v. Sanggunian, G.R. No. 156686, July 27, 2011
iv. Reclassification of lands
Sec. 20, LGC
i.

Purpose

ii.

Authorized LGUs to reclassify lands

iii. Formal Requisites &Substantial Requisites

iv. Limitations
Chamber of Real Estate v. Secretary, G.R. No. 183409, June 18, 2010
v. Sources of Revenue, Taxation and Fiscal Administration
a. Shares in the Proceeds of National Taxes
Sec. 6, Art. X, 1987 Constitution
Secs. 18, 284-294, LGC
Pimentel v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 132988, July 19, 2000 (supra)
Province of Batangas v. Hon. Romulo, G.R. No. 152774, May 27, 2004
b. Local Taxation
Sec. 5, Art. X, 1987 Constitution
Secs. 128-196, LGC
Estanislao v. Costales, 196 SCRA 853 (1991)
Phil. Petroleum v. Municipality of Pililla, 198 SCRA 82 (1991)
Tuzon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 90107, August 21, 1992
Manila Electric Co. v. Province of Laguna, G.R. No. 131359, May 5, 1999
City of Iloilo v. Smart, G.R. No. 167260, February 27, 2009
City of Iriga v. CASURECO, G.R. No. 192945, Sept. 5, 2012
Cagayan Electric v. City of CDO, G.R. No. 191761, Nov. 14, 2012
c. Real Property Taxation
Secs. 197-283, LGC
Benguet Corp. v. Central Board, G.R. No. 100959, June 29, 1992
Province of Tarlac v. Hon. Alcantara, G.R. No. 65230, Dec. 23, 1992
Sec. of Finance v. Ilarde, G.R. No. 121782, May 9, 2005
Napocor v. Province of Quezon, G.R. No. 171586, Jan. 25, 2010
d. Share in national wealths utilization and development
Sec. 7, Art. X, 1987 Constitution
Secs. 18, 289-294, LGC

e. Credit Financing

Secs. 295-303, LGC

See: DILG Opinion 05, Series 2008

f. Local Fiscal Administration

Secs. 304-383, LGC

vi. Local Initiative, Referendum & Legislation

Sec. 9, Art. X, 1987 Constitution
Casio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91192, December 2, 1991
a.

Local Initiative and Referendum

Art. VI, Sec. 32, 1987 Constitution
Secs. 120-127, LGC
R.A. 6735
Garcia v. Comelec, 237 SCRA 297 (1994)
SBMA v. Comelec, 262 SCRA 492 (1996

b.

Acts of Sanggunian
1.

Ordinance and Resolution

Secs. 48-59, LGC
Art. 107, IRR of LGC
Sec. 511, LGC

Tatel v. Municipality of Virac, 207 SCRA 157 (1992) (supra)

City of Manila v. Bagui, et al, G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005
La Carlota City v. Rojo, G.R. No. 181367, April 24, 2012
De Los Reyes v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 121215, Nov. 13, 1997
Figuerres v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119172, March 25, 1999
Ongsuco v. Malones, G.R. No. 182065, October 27, 2009
vii. Corporate Powers
Sec. 22, LGC, Art. 46, IRR LGC
Secs. 14-15, LGC
Vergara v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 174567, March 12, 2009
Municipality of Hagonoy v. Hon. Dumdum, G.R. No. 168289, March 22, 2010
Antonio Ramos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 99425, March 3, 1997
Solicitor General v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 199027, June 9, 2014
Vincencio v. Villar, G.R. No. 182069, July 03, 2012
Quisumbing v. Garcia, G.R. No. 175527, December 8, 2008
i.

Authority to Negotiate and Secure Grants

Sec. 23, LGC
See: DILG Opinion 05, Series 2008

ii.

Build-Operate-Transfer Agreements
Sec. 302, LGC

VI

LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS

i. Province
Secs. 459-468, LGC

Caram v. Comelec, 225 SCRA 731 (1993)

Province of Negros Occidental v. Zayco, G.R. No. 182574, Sept. 28, 2010
Mancenido v. Court of Appeals, 380 SCRA 419 (2000)
ii. City
Secs. 448-458
Lim v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111397, August 12, 2002
Canet v. Decena, 420 SCRA 388 (2004)
Aguirre v. de Castro, 321 SCRA 95 (1999)
Acebedo Optical v. Court of Appeals, 329 SCRA 314 (2000)
Social Justice v. Atienza, 517 SCRA 657 (2007)
iii. Municipality
Secs. 440-447, LGC
Munez v. Arino, 241 SCRA 478 (1995)
Greater Balanga Dev. Corp. v. Balanga, G.R. No. 83987, December 27, 1994
United BF Homeowners v. City Mayor, 515 SCRA 1 (2007) (supra.)
Natividad v. Felix, 229 SCRA 680 (1994)
Montuerto v. Ty, G.R. No. 177736, October 6, 2008
iv. Barangay
Secs. 384-439
R.A. 8441 (1997), 9178 (2002), 9285 (2004)
i. KatarungangPambarangay
Secs. 399-422, 15
SC Admin. Circular 1493
Morata v. Go, 125 SCRA 444 (1983)
Uy v. Contreras, 237 SCRA 167 (1994)
Wingarts v. Mejia, 242 SCRA 436 (1995)
Mendova v. Afable, 393 SCRA 390 (2002)
Aquino v. Aure, 546 SCRA 71 (2008)
Pang-et v. Manacnes-dao-as, G.R. No. 167261, March 2, 2007
Agbayani v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 183623, June 25, 2012
ii. SangguniangKabataan
Secs. 423-439
R.A. 10632 (2013)
v. Autonomous Regions
Art. X, Secs. 1, 15-21, 1987 Constitution
i.

Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao

R.A. 6734
R.A. 9054
Pandi v. Court of Appeals, 380 SCRA 436 (2002)
Disomangcop v. Datumanong, G.R. No. 149848, November 25, 2004

ii.

Cordillera Administrative Region

Exec. Order 220
Ordillo v. Comelec, 192 SCRA 100 (1990)
Atitiw v. Zamora, G.R. No. 143374, September 30, 2005

vi. Metropolitan Manila Development Authority

Art. X, Sec. 11, 1987 Constitution
R.A. 7924 (1995)
MMDA v Bel-Air Village Association, Inc., March 27, 2000(supra.)
MMDA v. Garin, G.R. No. 130230, April 15, 2005
MMDA v. Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay, 574 SCRA 661 (2008)

VII

LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

A.

Elective Officials

i. Qualifications
Sec. 39, LGC
Abella v. Comelec, 201 SCRA 229 (1990
Frivaldo v. Comeelc, G.R. No. 120295, June 28, 1996
Coquilla v. Comelec, G.R. No. 15194, July 31, 2002
Japzon v. Comelec, G.R. No. 180088, January 19, 2009
Mitra v. Comelec, G.R. No. 191938, July 2, 2010
Jalosjos v. Comelec,G.R. No. 193314, June 25, 2013
ii. Disqualifications
Sec. 40, LGC
Mercado v. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999
Cordora v. Comelec,G.R. No. 176947, February 19, 2009
Maquiling v. Comelec, G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013
Magno v. Comelec, G.R. No. 147904, October 4, 2002
Moreno v. Comelec, G.R. No. 168550 August 10, 2006
Tea v. Comelec, G.R. No. 195229, October 9, 2012
Blanco v. Comelec, G.R. No. 180164, June 17, 2008
Rodriguez v. Comelec, G.R. No. 120099, July 24, 1996
iii. Election
Secs. 41-42, LGC
R.A. 8553
iv.

Term of Office
Sec. 8, Art. X, 1987 Constitution
Sec. 43, LGC
R.A.s 8524, 9164, 9340
Borja v. Comelec, G.R. No. 133495, September 3, 1998
Tea v. Comelec, G.R. No. 195229, October 9, 2012 (supra.)
Talaga v. Comelec,G.R. No. 196804, October 9, 2012
Abundo v. Comelec, G.R. No. 201716, January 8, 2013
Comelec v. Cruz, G.R. No. 186616, November 20, 2009
Bolos v. Comelec, G.R. No. 184082, March 17, 2009
Monreal v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 184935, 21 December 2009,
608 SCRA 717
Ondoy v. Comelec, G.R. No. 180444, April 8, 2008

v.

Vacancies and Succession

a.

Permanent Vacancies
Secs. 44-45, LGC
Docena v. SangguiniangPanlalawigan, 198 SCRA 493 (1991)
Farias v. Barba, 256 SCRA 396 (1996)
Navarro v. Court of Appeals, 355 SCRA 672 (2001)
Talaga v. Comelec, G.R. No. 196804, October 9, 2012 (supra.)
Jalosjos v. Comelec,G.R. No. 193314, June 25, 2013 (supra.)

b.

Temporary Vacancy- Local Chief Executive

Sec. 46, LGC
Gamboa v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 134213 July 20, 1999
Immam v. Comelec, G.R. No. 134167, January 20, 2000
Velasco v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169253, February 20, 2013

c.

Approval of Leave of Absences

Sec. 47, LGC

B.

Appointive Officials
Secs. 469-490

C.

Leagues of Local Government Units and Elective Officials

Secs. 491-510

VIII

DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS AND RECALL

A. DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS
Secs. 60-68, 58, LGC
Ganzon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93252, November 8, 1991
Espiritu v. Melgar, 206 SCRA 256 (1992)
Joson v. Executive Secretary, 290 SCRA 279 (1998)
Pablico v. Villapando, G.R. No. 147870, July 31, 2002
People v. Toledano, G.R. No. 110220, May 18, 2000
Valencia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 141336, June 29, 2004
Sangguniang Barangay v. Martinez, G.R. No. 170626, March 3, 2008
Don v. Lacsa, G.R. No. 170810, August 7, 2007
Hagad v. Gozo-Dadole, 251 SCRA 242 (1995)
Alejandro v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 173121, April 3, 2013
B.

RECALL
Secs. 69-75

R.A. 9244 (2204)

Angobung v. Comelec, G.R. No. 126576, March 5, 1997
Socrates v. Comelec, G.R. No. 154512, November 12, 2002
Afiado v. Comelec, G.R. No. 141787, September 18, 2000
Claudio v. Comelec, 331 SCRA 388 (2000)
Adormeo v. Comelec, 376 SCRA 90 (2002)

IX.

HUMAN RESOURCES
Secs. 76-96, LGC
i. Discipline Over Local Appointive Officials
Secs. 84-89, LGC
Garcia v. Pajaro, G.R. No. 141149, July 5, 2002
Estampa v. City Government of Davao, G.R. No. 190681, June 21, 2010

ii. Practice of Profession

Sec. 90, LGC
Javellana v. DILG, G.R. No. 102549, August 10, 1992

EN BANC
[G.R. No. 141787. September 18, 2000]

MANUEL H. AFIADO, JASMINIO B. QUEMADO, JR. AND GLESIE L. TANGONAN, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), respondent.
DECISION
DE LEON, JR., J.:
Before us is a Petition for Mandamus with Prayer for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, praying for the early resolution of the petition for the "recall" of former ViceMayor Amelita S. Navarro (currently the Mayor) of Santiago City, which was filed with respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC).
The facts are as follows:
During the May 11, 1998 elections in Santiago City, Joel Miranda became the substitute candidate for his father, Jose "Pempe" Miranda, for the position of
Mayor. When the ballots were counted, Joel emerged as the winner over his opponent Antonio Abaya and he was later proclaimed. Amelita S. Navarro also won and was
proclaimed as the Vice-Mayor of Santiago City.
On May 13, 1998, the defeated candidate, Antonio Abaya, filed before the COMELEC against Joel Miranda a Petition to Declare Null and Void Substitution with Prayer
for Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order, docketed as SPA No. 98-288, which was later amended. The amended petition sought the
declaration of the certificate of candidacy of Jose Miranda, the father of Joel, as null and void.
The petition, as amended, was granted by the COMELEC en banc, and consequently the election and proclamation of Joel Miranda as Mayor of Santiago City was
annulled. This ruling was affirmed by the Supreme Court in a Decision promulgated on July 28, 1999 in G.R. No. 136531, entitled "Joel Miranda vs. Antonio Abaya and
COMELEC." In that decision, we ruled that since the certificate of candidacy of Jose Miranda was not valid, he could not be validly substituted by his son, Joel Miranda, as a
mayoralty candidate in Santiago City.Hence, Joel Miranda could not be validly proclaimed as the winner in the mayoralty elections. Vice-Mayor Amelita S. Navarro thus
became the new Mayor of Santiago City by virtue of the law on succession. [1] Joel Miranda filed a motion for reconsideration but this was denied with finality by the Supreme
Court in a Resolution dated September 28, 1999.
Navarro took her oath of office and assumed her position as Mayor of Santiago City on October 11, 1999.
Meanwhile, on July 12, 1999, while the said G.R. No. 136531 was still pending in the Supreme Court, petitioners Manuel H. Afiado, Jasminio B. Quemado and Glesie
L. Tangonan convened the barangay officials of Santiago City who compose the Preparatory Recall Assembly (PRA) at the Santiago City People's Coliseum after giving them
due notice. On the same date, July 12, 1999, the PRA passed and adopted Preparatory Recall Assembly Resolution No. 1 for the recall of Vice-Mayor Amelita S.
Navarro. The pertinent portions of the said Resolution No. 1 read as follows:
ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 1
-oOoRESOLUTION OF THE PREPARATORY RECALL ASSEMBLY OF THE BARANGAY OFFICIALS OF SANTIAGO CITY FOR THE RECALL OF THE INCUMBENT VICE-MAYOR
OF SANTIAGO CITY
xxx xxx xxx
WHEREAS, during the Preparatory Recall Assembly the official acts of City Vice Mayor Navarro that brought forth the loss of confidence in her capacity and fitness to discharge the duties
and to perform the functions of her public office were recounted for the contemplation and evaluation of the members present, to wit:
1. Her lack of respect and due regard for superior authority
2. Her greed for political power which worked against public interest and the general welfare
3. Her lack of regard for public officials, subordinates and lowly employees, which is conduct unbecoming of a public official and speaks of her
unprofessionalism
4. Her constant insistence to usurp the powers or authority vested upon other public officials
5. Her application of delaying tactics in the SP actions on the City Government's annual budget
6. Her disregard of parliamentary rules by imposing her unsolicited and unnecessary opinion unto the city councilors
7. Because of her preoccupation towards matters other than those of public concerns, substantial part of the legislative tasks of the Sangguniang Panlungsod
brought to it for action have remained unacted unfinished (sic);
8. Her alleged malfeasance of corruption while she was still the City Mayor in acting capacity, specifically her direct hand in the anomalous acquisition of six
dump trucks, a request for investigation for (sic) which is pending at the Office of the Ombudsman;
9. Her antagonistic attitude towards development concerns
WHEREAS, on accounts of the documented facts and stated hereinabove the members of the Preparatory Recall Assembly present have lost, after due thought their confidence upon the
incumbent City Vice Mayor Amelita S. Navarro.
NOW WHEREFORE, upon a motion duly seconded, be it -

RESOLVED, as it is hereby RESOLVED to INVOKE THE RESCISSION OF THE ELECTORAL MANDATE OF THE INCUMBENT CITY VICE-MAYOR AMELITA S.
NAVARRO forLOSS OF CONFIDENCE through a recall election to be set by the COMMISSION ON ELECTION as provided for under Section 71 of the Local Government Code of 1991;
xxx xxx xxx
APPROVED by the majority of the members of the Preparatory Recall Assembly held on July 12, 1999 at the People's Coliseum, Santiago City, Isabela.[2]
According to the petitioners, PRA Resolution No. 1 together with all the reglementary requirements, has been forwarded and submitted to the office of respondent
COMELEC at Santiago City and later to its Head Office in Manila through the Provincial Elections Office and Regional Elections Office.
On September 9, 1999, while the subject Preparatory Recall Resolution No. 1 was under evaluation in the COMELEC's Head Office, then Vice-Mayor Amelita S.
Navarro filed a petition, docketed as EM No. 99-006, with the COMELEC which sought the nullification of the said PRA Resolution No. 1. In Navarro's petition, the herein
petitioners Afiado, Quemado and Tangonan (as officers of the Preparatory Recall Assembly of Santiago City) were impleaded as the respondents therein.
Hearings in EM No. 99-006 were then conducted at the COMELEC's head office. After the deadline for the submission of memoranda on December 1, 1999, herein
petitioners as the respondents in that case, alleged that they were not informed nor were they aware of further developments. This prompted them to file on December 27,
1999 an Urgent Motion for the Early Resolution of the Petition (EM No. 99-006). According to the herein petitioners, the act of herein respondent COMELEC in not deciding
the said petition violates Rule 18, Section 7 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure which provides that:
Sec. 7. Period to Decide by the Commission En Banc. - Any case or matter submitted to or heard by the Commission en banc shall be decided within thirty (30) days from the date it is
deemed submitted for decision or resolution, except a motion for reconsideration of a decision or resolution of a Division in Special Actions and Special cases which shall be decided within
fifteen (15) days from the date the case or matter is deemed submitted for decision, unless otherwise provided by law.
The herein petitioners allege that the act of respondent COMELEC in not resolving the petition, EM No. 99-006, within the reglementary period constitutes neglect in
the performance of its duties and responsibilities; and that the alleged inaction of respondent COMELEC will render the said case and/or PRA Resolution No. 1 moot and
academic inasmuch as recall elections cannot be undertaken anymore come June 30, 2000 pursuant to Section 74 of the 1991 Local Government Code, which provides that:
Sec. 74. Limitation on Recall. (a) any elective local official may be the subject of a recall election only once during his term of office for loss of confidence.
(b) No recall shall take place within one (1) year from the date of the official's assumption to office or one (1) year immediately preceding a regular local election.[3]
Finally, on February 18, 2000, sensing the urgency of the situation since PRA Resolution No. 1 was not yet acted upon by the COMELEC, the herein petitioners filed
the present petition for mandamus to compel respondent COMELEC to resolve and deny immediately Navaro's petition, docketed therein as EM No. 99-006, and in effect to
give due course to and implement the said PRA Resolution.
The corollary issue in the case at bench is whether or not an elective official who became City Mayor by legal succession can be the subject of a recall election by
virtue of a Preparatory Recall Assembly Resolution which was passed or adopted when the said elective official was still the Vice-Mayor.
We deny the petition.
On March 31, 2000 respondent COMELEC issued and promulgated in EM No. 99-006 a Resolution[4] which denied due course to the subject PRA Resolution No.
1. This development therefore rendered the present petition for mandamus moot and academic. The record shows that herein petitioners' counsel of record was furnished
copies of the COMELEC's Resolution dated March 31, 2000 by registered mail on April 1, 2000.
Anent the corollary issue as to whether or not Mayor Navarro can be the subject of recall election by virtue of Resolution No. 1 of the Preparatory Recall Assembly
which was passed when she was still the elected City Vice-Mayor, the same has become moot and academic. We quote below the pertinent portion of the COMELEC's
Resolution dated March 31, 2000 in EM No. 99-006 and to which we agree, to wit:
The assumption by legal succession of the petitioner as the new Mayor of Santiago City is a supervening event which rendered the recall proceeding against her moot and academic. A perusal
of the said Resolution reveals that the person subject of the recall process is a specific elective official in relation to her specific office. The said resolution is replete with statements, which
leave no doubt that the purpose of the assembly was to recall petitioner as Vice Mayor for her official acts as Vice Mayor. The title itself suggests that the recall is intended for the incumbent
Vice Mayor of Santiago City. The third paragraph of the resolution recounted " the official acts of City Vice Mayor Navarro that brought forth the loss of confidence in her capacity and fitness
to discharge the duties and to perform the functions of her public office." And because of such acts, the assembly "RESOLVED to invoke the rescission of the electoral mandate of the
incumbent City Vice Mayor." Clearly, the intent of the PRA as expressed in the said Resolution is to remove the petitioner as Vice Mayor for they already lost their confidence in her by reason
of her official acts as such. To recall, then, the petitioner when she is already the incumbent City Mayor is to deviate from the expressed will of the PRA. Having, thus, succeeded to the
position of City Mayor, the petitioner was placed beyond the reach of the effects of the PRA Resolution. [5]
The specific purpose of the Preparatory Recall Assembly was to remove Amelita S. Navarro as the elected Vice-Mayor of Santiago City since PRA Resolution No. 1
dated July 12, 1999 expressly states that "it is hereby resolved to invoke the rescission of the electoral mandate of the incumbent City Vice-Mayor Amelita S. Navarro for
loss of confidence through a recall election to be set by the Commission on Election as provided for under Section 71 of the Local Government Code of 1991." [6] However, the
said PRA Resolution No. 1 is no longer applicable to her inasmuch as she has already vacated the office of Vice-Mayor on October 11, 1999 when she assumed the position
of City Mayor of Santiago City.
Even if the Preparatory Recall Assembly were to reconvene to adopt another resolution for the recall of Amelita Navarro, this time as Mayor of Santiago City, the same
would still not prosper in view of Section 74 (b) of the Local Government Code of 1991 which provides that "No recall shall take place within one (1) year from the date of the
official's assumption of office or one (1) year immediately preceding a regular election." There is no more allowable time in the light of that law within which to hold recall
elections for that purpose. The then Vice-Mayor Amelita S. Navarro assumed office as Mayor of Santiago City on October 11, 1999. One year after her assumption of office as
Mayor will be October 11, 2000 which is already within the one (1) year prohibited period immediately preceding the next regular election in May 2001.
WHEREFORE, the petition for mandamus is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.