Paras vs Comelec
Facts:
Petitioner herein was elected as the Punong Barangay of Pula, Cabanatuan City during
the 1994 Barangay Election. On the other hand, registered voters of the said barangay filed for
the recall of petitioner as Punong Barangay before the public respondent COMELEC.
Meanwhile, the COMELEC approved and set the recall of election provided that the registered
voters who signed the petition are more than the 25% requirement of law. However, COMELEC
postponed the recall election due to petitioners opposition.
Moreover, the petitioner invokes the Local Government Code (RA 7160) wherein the
scheduled 13 January 1996 recall election is barred for the reason that the SK election set by RA
7808 on May 1996 is considered to be a regular election. Hence, there can be no recall election
with just four months separating the SK election and the former.
Issue:
Whether or not the recall of election can be barred by the SK election where it is
considered as regular local election.
Ruling:
No, SK election cannot be considered as regular local election.
In statutory construction, every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to
the context. The court should start with the assumption that the legislature intended to enact an
effective law, and the legislature is not presumed to have done a vain thing in the enactment of
statute.
Rationale:
In this case, while the Supreme Court declared that the SK election cannot be considered
as regular local election, Section 74(b) of RA 7160 provides the limitation on the recall election
wherein it is no longer possible provided that the next regular local election for barangay office
is barely seven (7) months away or on May 1997. Thus, SK election can still be considered as
regular local election.
Miriam Defensor Santiago et al vs COMELEC, Jesus Delfin, Alberto Pedrosa and Lorna Pedrosa
Facts:
Private respondent Jesus Delfin filed before the COMELEC a Petition to Amend the
Constitution to Lift Term limits of elective Officials, by Peoples Initiative. Thereafter, petitioner
filed for special civil action which provides that the constitutional provision on peoples
initiative to amend the Constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress.
On the other hand, RA 6735 states the three systems of initiative initiative on Constitution, on
statutes, on local legislation.
Issue:
Whether or not RA No. 6735 An Act Providing for System of Initiative and Referendum
and Appropriating Funds Therefor intended to cover adequately the initiative on amendments to
Constitution.
Ruling:
No, RA No. 6735 did not cover adequately the initiative on amendments to Constitution.
In statutory construction, title and subtitle can be used as intrinsic aid in determining the
legislative intent.
Rationale:
In RA No. 6735, it failed to provide any subtitle on initiative on the Constitution, unlike
in the other modes of initiative. Thus, this omission indicates that the matter of peoples initiative
to amend the Constitution was left to some future law.