Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to www.scribd.com

Scribd
Upload
21 views1 page

PARAS Vs COMELEC Version 9

The incumbent barangay captain was petitioned for recall by registered voters, exceeding the legal minimum. COMELEC accepted the petition and scheduled an election. The captain filed an injunction to prevent it, which was dismissed. On appeal, the court ruled recall elections cannot be held one year before regular local elections like the upcoming barangay elections, making the case moot.

Uploaded by

roberto valenzuela
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
21 views1 page

PARAS Vs COMELEC Version 9

The incumbent barangay captain was petitioned for recall by registered voters, exceeding the legal minimum. COMELEC accepted the petition and scheduled an election. The captain filed an injunction to prevent it, which was dismissed. On appeal, the court ruled recall elections cannot be held one year before regular local elections like the upcoming barangay elections, making the case moot.

Uploaded by

roberto valenzuela
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

PARAS vs COMELEC

FACTS:

The incumbent Punong Barangay was the petitioner in the most recent regular barangay
election. Registered voters in the barangay petitioned for his resignation as Punong Barangay.
The petition received at least 29.30 percent of the signatures of eligible voters, far exceeding
the legal minimum of 25 percent.

The public respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) decided to accept the recall
petition and schedule a recall election in response to the petition. The petitioner filed an
injunction petition with the Regional Trial Court to prevent the recall election from taking place,
but it was eventually dismissed.

The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with an urgent prayer for injunction, claiming that the
recall election is prohibited by the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) election under Section 74(b) of
the Local Government Code (LGC), which states that "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."

ISSUE:

WON the prohibition on Sec.74(b) of the LGC may refer to SK elections, where the recall
election is for Barangay post.

RULING:

NO, but the petition was rejected since it had turned academic and moot. Recall elections are
not allowed to be held one year prior to the regular local election because they could interrupt
the regular operations of the local government unit and result in additional costs.

The ban is necessary because the concerned local elective official's next regular election is just
around the corner. In the aforementioned election, the electorate might choose the official's
replacement, who would unquestionably have a longer term in office than a replacement chosen
through a recall election.

Therefore, it would be more consistent with the recall clause of the Code to interpret "regular
local election" as referring to an election where the public would decide who will fill the office
currently held by the local elective official who is seeking recall. Recall was no longer
conceivable by the time of judgment due to the restriction outlined in the same Section 74(b)
that is currently known as Barangay Elections.

You might also like