GARCIA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS G.R. No. 111511 (October 5, 1993) (CASE DIGEST)

Facts

Petitioner Enrique T. Garcia was the duly elected Governor of Bataan. In July 1993, mayors, vice-mayors, and Sangguniang Bayan members of the province convened as a Preparatory Recall Assembly (PRA) to initiate his recall based on “loss of confidence,” pursuant to Section 70 of Republic Act 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991). Resolution No. 1, calling for the recall, was adopted by a majority of the PRA members, although only 74 genuine signatures were found on the resolution, out of a total membership of 144. Garcia challenged the PRA proceedings and its resolution before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). When the COMELEC dismissed his petition and scheduled the election, Garcia sought relief from the Supreme Court, arguing that Section 70 of R.A. 7160 (allowing PRA initiation) was unconstitutional because the people have the sole right to initiate recall, and that the PRA proceedings violated due process due to the deliberate failure to send notices to 65 members (political allies of Garcia). The Supreme Court initially granted the petition on the due process ground. When the PRA reconvened, passed a new resolution, and the case was set for full resolution, the Supreme Court addressed the underlying constitutional questions.

Issues

1. Whether Section 70 of R.A. 7160, which allows a preparatory recall assembly (PRA) to initiate the recall process, is unconstitutional because the right to initiate recall is the “sole and exclusive right” of the registered voters.
2. Whether the alternative mode of initiation through the PRA violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution by allowing the political majority to target local officials belonging to the political minority.

Ruling

“IN VIEW WHEREOF, the original Petition and the Supplemental Petition assailing the constitutionality of section 70 of R.A. 7160 insofar as it allows a preparatory recall assembly to initiate the recall process are dismissed for lack of merit.”.

Essential Elements of Jurisprudence

1. Validity of Dual Modes of Recall Initiation: Section 70 of R.A. 7160, which provides for two modes of initiating recall—either by the Preparatory Recall Assembly (PRA) or by petition of at least twenty-five (25) percent of the registered voters—is constitutional. Congress, by constitutional mandate (Art. X, Sec. 3), was given the power to choose the “effective mechanisms” of recall and was not restricted to a single mode.
2. PRA Initiation is Representative of the People: Initiation of the recall process by the PRA is deemed initiation by the people, done indirectly through their elected representatives, and this representative action is constitutionally permissible.
3. Nature of the Initiatory Resolution: A resolution passed by the PRA merely starts or initiates the recall process; it is not the recall itself. The recall is only deemed effective “upon the election and proclamation of a successor in the person of the candidate receiving the highest number of votes cast during the election on recall” (Sec. 72, LGC).
4. Due Process Requirement in PRA Proceedings: The due process clause of the Constitution requires notice as an element of fairness and must be considered “part and parcel of every law in case of its silence”. The requirement of notice to all members of the Preparatory Recall Assembly is indispensable to determine the collective wisdom of its members, and its non-observance is fatal to the validity of the resolution to recall.
5. Presumption of Validity: Every law enjoys the presumption of validity, and the annulment of a statute cannot be decreed on a doubtful or arguable implication.

Sample Q&A

Question: Governor Reyes, a newly elected provincial official, is targeted for recall by a resolution adopted by a majority of the Provincial Preparatory Recall Assembly (PRA) pursuant to the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. 7160) Sec. 70(c). Governor Reyes challenges the action, arguing that: 1) The power to initiate recall proceedings belongs “solely and exclusively” to the people via petition (R.A. 7160 Sec. 70(d)), and 2) the PRA resolution constitutes the actual removal from office, thereby subverting the electorate’s mandate. Are Governor Reyes’s claims meritorious, and under what constitutional principles may Congress establish such a mechanism?

Answer: No, Governor Reyes’s claims are without merit.

The claim that the people have the sole and exclusive right to initiate recall is incorrect. The 1987 Constitution mandates Congress to enact a local government code that provides for a system with “effective mechanisms of recall” (Art. X, Sec. 3). In fulfilling this mandate, Congress established two constitutional modes of initiation under R.A. 7160: (a) by petition of at least twenty-five (25) percent of registered voters (Sec. 70(d)), and (b) by resolution adopted by a majority of the Preparatory Recall Assembly (Sec. 70(a) and (c)). Initiation through the PRA is constitutionally permissible because the PRA members are considered elected representatives acting on behalf of the people.

Furthermore, the claim that the PRA resolution constitutes the actual recall is false. The resolution merely initiates the process. The recall of an elective official shall only be effective “upon the election and proclamation of a successor in the person of the candidate receiving the highest number of votes cast during the election on recall” (R.A. 7160, Sec. 72). Thus, the final judgment belongs to the sovereign electorate in the subsequent election.

---

#LocalGovernmentCodePH #RecallProcess #PreparatoryRecallAssembly #LGC1991 #ElectoralLawPH #RA7160 #GarciavCOMELEC #GRNo111511 #COMELEC #DueProcessInRecall #LocalAutonomy#ConstitutionalLawPH #ElectionLawPH #AdministrativeLawPH #SupremeCourtPH #PhilippineJurisprudence #LegalUpdatesPH #LawStudentsPH #PoliticalLawPH#LawPH #LegalStrategy #CourtDecisions #LegalCommunity #LawyersOfManila #PHGovt #PhilippinePolitics #PublicOffice