Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 320 views

    Claudio V Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Jennilyn Rosebel de Paz-Biong
    The Supreme Court ruled that the word "recall" in paragraph (b) of Section 74 of the Local Government Code refers to the recall election, not the preliminary proceedings to initiate recall. The Court provided three reasons for this: 1) Section 74 speaks of limitations on the power of registered voters to exercise recall, which is only through an election; 2) the purpose of the one-year limitation is to allow voters sufficient time to judge an official, which is done at the election; and 3) construing the limitation to include initiation of recall proceedings would unduly restrict constitutional rights of speech and assembly.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Claudio V Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Jennilyn Rosebel de Paz-Biong
    320 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the word "recall" in paragraph (b) of Section 74 of the Local Government Code refers to the recall election, not the preliminary proceedings to initiate recall. The Court provided three reasons for this: 1) Section 74 speaks of limitations on the power of registered voters to exercise recall, which is only through an election; 2) the purpose of the one-year limitation is to allow voters sufficient time to judge an official, which is done at the election; and 3) construing the limitation to include initiation of recall proceedings would unduly restrict constitutional rights of speech and assembly.

    Original Description:

    Claudio vs COMELEC Case Digest

    Original Title

    Claudio v Comelec

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the word "recall" in paragraph (b) of Section 74 of the Local Government Code refers to the recall election, not the preliminary proceedings to initiate recall. The Court provided three reasons for this: 1) Section 74 speaks of limitations on the power of registered voters to exercise recall, which is only through an election; 2) the purpose of the one-year limitation is to allow voters sufficient time to judge an official, which is done at the election; and 3) construing the limitation to include initiation of recall proceedings would unduly restrict constitutional rights of speech and assembly.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    320 views1 page

    Claudio V Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Jennilyn Rosebel de Paz-Biong
    The Supreme Court ruled that the word "recall" in paragraph (b) of Section 74 of the Local Government Code refers to the recall election, not the preliminary proceedings to initiate recall. The Court provided three reasons for this: 1) Section 74 speaks of limitations on the power of registered voters to exercise recall, which is only through an election; 2) the purpose of the one-year limitation is to allow voters sufficient time to judge an official, which is done at the election; and 3) construing the limitation to include initiation of recall proceedings would unduly restrict constitutional rights of speech and assembly.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Claudio v.

    COMELEC
    331 SCRA 388, 404 (2000)

    Facts:

    Jovito Claudio was the duly elected mayor of Pasay City in the May 11, 1998 elections.
    He assumed office on July 1, 1998.
    Sometime during the second week of May 1999, the chairs of several barangays in
    Pasay City gathered to discuss the possibility of filing a petition for recall against Mayor
    Claudio for loss of confidence. On May 29, 1999, 1,073 members of the PRA composed of
    barangay chairs, kagawads, and sangguniang kabataan chairs of Pasay City, adopted
    Resolution No. 01, S-1999, entitled RESOLUTION TO INITIATE THE RECALL OF JOVITO O.
    CLAUDIO AS MAYOR OF PASAY CITY FOR LOSS OF CONFIDENCE.
    He became the subject of a petition for recall filed by the Preparatory Recall Assembly
    of Pasay City (PRA) on July 2, 1999. The petition was opposed on grounds that it violated the
    one-year prohibitory period from assumption of office and the pendency of an election case
    seeking the annulment of the proclamation of the incumbent mayor, a prejudicial question.
    The petition was, nevertheless, granted by the COMELEC, ruling that recall starts with the
    filing of the petition. Aggrieved, petitioners filed separate petition.

    Issue:

    Whether or Not the word “recall” in paragraph (b) of Section 74 of the Local
    Government ode includes the convening of the preparatory recall assembly and the filing by
    it of a recall resolution.

    Held:

    NO. Recall is a process which begins with the convening of the preparatory recall
    assembly or the gathering of the signatures at least 25% of the registered voters of a local
    government unit, and then proceeds to the filing of a recall resolution or petition with the
    COMELEC, the verification of such resolution or petition, the fixing of the date of the recall
    election, and the holding of the election on the scheduled date. However, as used in paragraph
    (b) of § 74, "recall" refers to the election itself by means of which voters decide whether they
    should retain their local official or elect his replacement. The term "recall" in paragraph (b)
    refers to the recall election and not to the preliminary proceedings to initiate recall —
    1.Because §74 speaks of limitations on "recall" which, according to §69, is a power
    which shall be exercised by the registered voters of a local government unit. Since the
    voters do not exercise such right except in an election, it is clear that the initiation of
    recall proceedings is not prohibited within the one-year period provided in paragraph
    (b);
    2.Because the purpose of the first limitation in paragraph (b) is to provide voters a
    sufficient basis for judging an elective local official, and final judging is not done until
    the day of the election; and
    3.Because to construe the limitation in paragraph (b) as including the initiation of recall
    proceedings would unduly curtail freedom of speech and of assembly guaranteed in
    the Constitution.

    You might also like