PARAS vs COMELEC | G.R. No.

123169
VIII. LATIN MAXIMS | RATIO LEGIS EST ANIMA LEGIS | STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION |
P
a
g
e

1

o
f

3


Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 123169. November 4, 1996]
DANILO E. PARAS, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
FRANCISCO, J .:
Petitioner Danilo E. Paras is the incumbent Punong Barangay of Pula, Cabanatuan Citywho won during the last regular
barangay election in 1994. A petition for his recall as Punong Barangay was filed by the registered voters of the barangay.
Acting on the petition for recall, public respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) resolved to approve the petition,
scheduled the petition signing on October 14, 1995, and set the recall election on November 13, 1995.
[1]
At least 29.30% of the
registered voters signed the petition, well above the 25% requirement provided by law. The COMELEC, however, deferred the
recall election in view of petitioners opposition. On December 6, 1995, the COMELEC set anew the recall election, this time
on December 16, 1995. To prevent the holding of the recall election, petitioner filed before
the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City a petition for injunction, docketed as SP Civil Action No. 2254-AF, with the trial
court issuing a temporary restraining order. After conducting a summary hearing, the trial court lifted the restraining order,
dismissed the petition and required petitioner and his counsel to explain why they should not be cited for contempt for
misrepresenting that the barangay recall election was without COMELEC approval.
[2]

In a resolution dated January 5, 1996, the COMELEC, for the third time, re-scheduled the recall election on January 13,
1996; hence, the instant petition for certiorari with urgent prayer for injunction. On January 12, 1996, the Court issued a
temporary restraining order and required the Office of the Solicitor General, in behalf of public respondent, to comment on the
petition. In view of the Office of the Solicitor Generals manifestation maintaining an opinion adverse to that of the COMELEC,
the latter through its law department filed the required comment. Petitioner thereafter filed a reply.
[3]

Petitioners argument is simple and to the point. Citing Section 74 (b) of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the
Local Government Code, which states that no recall shall take place within one (1) year from the date of the officials
assumption to office or one (1) year immediately preceding a regular local election, petitioner insists that the scheduled
January 13, 1996 recall election is now barred as the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) election was set by Republic Act No. 7808
on the first Monday of May 1996, and every three years thereafter. In support thereof, petitioner cites Associated Labor Union
v. Letrondo-Montejo, 237 SCRA 621, where the Court considered the SK election as a regular local election. Petitioner
maintains that as the SK election is a regular local election, hence no recall election can be had for barely four months separate
the SK election from the recall election. We do not agree.
The subject provision of the Local Government Code provides:
SEC. 74. Limitations 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 officials assumption to office orone (1) year immediately
preceding a regular local election.
[Emphasis added.]
It is a rule in statutory construction that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, i.e.,
that every part of the statute must be considered together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the
whole enactment.
[4]
The evident intent of Section 74 is to subject an elective local official to recall election once during his term
of office. Paragraph (b) construed together with paragraph (a) merely designates the period when such elective local official
may be subject of a recall election, that is, during the second year of his term of office. Thus, subscribing to petitioners
interpretation of the phraseregular local election to include the SK election will unduly circumscribe the novel provision of the
Local Government Code on recall, a mode of removal of public officers by initiation of the people before the end of his
term. And if the SK election which is set by R.A. No. 7808 to be held every three years from May 1996 were to be deemed
PARAS vs COMELEC | G.R. No. 123169
VIII. LATIN MAXIMS | RATIO LEGIS EST ANIMA LEGIS | STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION |
P
a
g
e

2

o
f

3


within the purview of the phrase regular local election, as erroneously insisted by petitioner, then no recall election can be
conducted rendering inutile the recall provision of the Local Government Code.
In the interpretation of a statute, 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 a statute.
[5]
An interpretation
should, if possible, be avoided under which a statute or provision being construed is defeated, or as otherwise expressed,
nullified, destroyed, emasculated, repealed, explained away, or rendered insignificant, meaningless, inoperative or nugatory.
[6]

It is likewise a basic precept in statutory construction that a statute should be interpreted in harmony with the
Constitution.
[7]
Thus, the interpretation of Section 74 of the Local Government Code, specifically paragraph (b) thereof, should
not be in conflict with the Constitutional mandate of Section 3 of Article X of the Constitution to enact a local government code
which shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of
decentralization with effective mechanisms of recall, initiative, and referendum x x x.
Moreover, petitioners too literal interpretation of the law leads to absurdity which we cannot countenance. Thus, in a
case, the Court made the following admonition:
We admonish against a too-literal reading of the law as this is apt to constrict rather than fulfill its purpose and defeat the intention of its
authors. That intention is usually found not in the letter that killeth but in the spirit that vivifieth x x x
[8]

The spirit, rather than the letter of a law determines its construction; hence, a statute, as in this case, must be read according to
its spirit and intent.
Finally, recall election is potentially disruptive of the normal working of the local government unit necessitating additional
expenses, hence the prohibition against the conduct of recall election one year immediately preceding the regular local
election. The proscription is due to the proximity of the next regular election for the office of the local elective official
concerned. The electorate could choose the officials replacement in the said election who certainly has a longer tenure in
office than a successor elected through a recall election. It would, therefore, be more in keeping with the intent of the recall
provision of the Code to construe regular local election as one referring to an election where the office held by the local elective
official sought to be recalled will be contested and be filled by the electorate.
Nevertheless, recall at this time is no longer possible because of the limitation stated under Section 74 (b) of the Code
considering that the next regular election involving the barangay office concerned is barely seven (7) months away, the same
having been scheduled on May 1997.
[9]

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby dismissed for having become moot and academic. The temporary restraining
order issued by the Court on January 12, 1996, enjoining the recall election should be as it is hereby made permanent.
SO ORDERED.
Romero, Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Hermosisima, Jr., Panganiban, and Torres, Jr., JJ.,concur.
Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado, Bellosillo, Vitug, and Mendoza, JJ., concur in the majority and separate concurring
opinions.
Davide, Jr., Please see separate concurring opinion.


[1]
COMELEC Resolution No. 95-3345, September 5, 1995
[2]
RTC, Cabanatuan City, Order dated December 20, 1995; Rollo, p. 28.
[3]
Rollo, pp. 64-66.
[4]
Aisporna v. Court of Appeals, 113 SCRA 464, 467.
[5]
Asturias Sugar Central, Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs, 29 SCRA 617, 627.
[6]
Id. at p. 628.
[7]
PLDT v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 90 Phil. 674.
[8]
People v. Salas, 143 SCRA 163, 167.
[9]
Petition, p. 3; Rollo, p. 5; See: Evardorne v. COMELEC, 204 SCRA 464.






PARAS vs COMELEC | G.R. No. 123169
VIII. LATIN MAXIMS | RATIO LEGIS EST ANIMA LEGIS | STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION |
P
a
g
e

3

o
f

3


Paras v. COMELECG.R. No. 123169, November 4, 1996

Ponente: Justice Francisco

Facts: Petitioner is the incumbent barangay captain of Pula, Cabanatuan City who won during the last regular barangay
election in 1994. A petition for his recall was filed by the registered voters of the barangay. A recall election was set, against
which petitioner filed a petition. Petitioner cites Section 74 (b) of LGC, which states that no recall shall take place within one (1)
year from the date of the officials assumption to office or one (1) year immediately preceding a regular local election
, petitioner insists that the scheduled January 13, 1996 recall election is now barred as the Sangguniang Kabataan
(SK) election was set by Republic Act No. 7808 on the first Monday of May1996, and every three years thereafter. Petitioner
maintains that as the SK election is a regular local election, hence no recall election can be had for barely four months separate
the SK election from the recall election. We do not agree.

Issue: Whether or not an SK election is a regular election.

Held: No. A statutes provisions must be considered with the other parts and must be kept subservient to the general intent of
the whole enactment. Paragraph (b) with (a) of LGC74 merely designates such a period, i.e. 2nd year of term. Considering the
SK election as regular will unduly circumscribe the LGC provision on recall. No recall election can be conducted if that is
the case (May 1996, every three years). It is assumed that legislature intended to enact an effective law, and interpretation
should give effect to the intent, with the whole statute. It is likewise a basic
preceptin statutory construction that a statute should be interpreted in harmony with the Constitution.
[7] Thus, the interpretation of Section 74 of the Local Government Code, specifically paragraph (b) thereof, should not be in
conflict with the Constitutional mandate of Section 3 of Article X of the Constitution to enact a local government code which
shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization
with effective mechanisms of recall, initiative, and referendum x x x. An interpretation too literal that the spirit is denied will fall
in former of the latter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTS: Petitioner Danilo E. Paras is the incumbent Punong Barangay of Pula, Cabanatuan City who won during the last
regular barangay election in 1994. A petition for his recall as Punong Barangay was filed by the registered voters of the
barangay. Acting on the petition for recall, public respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) resolved to approve the
petition
COMELEC set the recall election on November 13, 1995. But due to petitioner's opposition, it was rescheduled on December
16, 1995. The petitioner the filed a petition for injunction, docketed as SP Civil Action No. 2254-AF, with the trial court issuing a
temporary restraining order. After conducting a summary hearing, the trial court lifted the restraining order, dismissed the
petition and required petitioner and his counsel to explain why they should not be cited for contempt for misrepresenting that
the barangay recall election was without COMELEC approval.
COMELEC for the third time rescheduled the recall elections on January 13, 1996; hence, the instant petition for certiorari with
urgent prayer for injunction.
ISSUE WON the recall election dated January 13, 1996 is barred by Section 74 (b) of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known
as the Local Government Code, which states that no recall shall take place within one (1) year from the date of the officials
assumption to office or one (1) year immediately preceding a regular local election.
HELD No. Petitioner's stand that the scheduled January 13, 1996 recall election is now barred as the Sangguniang Kabataan
(SK) election was set by Republic Act No. 7808 on the first Monday of May 1996, and every three years thereafter. In support
thereof, petitioner cites Associated Labor Union v. Letrondo-Montejo, 237 SCRA 621, where the Court considered the SK
election as a regular local election. Petitioner maintains that as the SK election is a regular local election, hence no recall
election can be had for barely four months separate the SK election from the recall election should fall.
It is a rule in statutory construction that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, i.e., that
every part of the statute must be considered together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the
whole enactment. The evident intent of Section 74 is to subject an elective local official to recall election once during his term of
office. Paragraph (b) construed together with paragraph (a) merely designates the period when such elective local official may
be subject of a recall election, that is, during the second year of his term of office. Thus, subscribing to petitioners interpretation
of the phrase regular local election to include the SK election will unduly circumscribe the novel provision of the Local
Government Code on recall.
The Supreme Court said that the spirit, rather than the letter of a law determines its construction; hence, a statute, as in this
case, must be read according to its spirit and intent
The Court also said that it would, therefore, be more in keeping with the intent of the recall provision of the Code to construe
regular local election as one referring to an election where the office held by the local elective official sought to be recalled will
be contested and be filled by the electorate.
Nevertheless, recall at this time is no longer possible because of the limitation stated under Section 74 (b) of the Code
considering that the next regular election involving the barangay office concerned is barely seven (7) months away, the same
having been scheduled on May 1997.