EVARDONE vs. COMELEC (Public Corporation)

G.R. No. 94010 December 2, 1991

FELIPE EVARDONE, petitioner,

vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ALEXANDER APELADO, VICTORINO E. ACLAN and NOEL A. NIVAL, respondents.

G.R. No. 95063 December 2, 1991

ALEXANDER R. APELADO, VICTORINO E. ACLAN and NOEL A. NIVAL, petitioners,

vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and MAYOR FELIPE EVARDONE, respondents.

Zosimo G. Alegre for Felipe Evardone.

Elmer C. Solidon for petitioners in G.R. No. 95063.

FACTS:

Felipe Evardone is the mayor of the Municipality of Sulat, Eastern Samar.

Apelado et al. filed a petition for the recall of Evardone with the Office of the Local Election Registrar, Municipality of Sulat.

Respondent COMELEC issued Resolution No. 90-0557, approving the recommendation of Mr. Vedasto B. Sumbilla, Election Registrar of Sulat, Eastern Samar, to hold on 14 July 1990 the signing of the petition for recall against incumbent Mayor Evardone of the said Municipality.

Evardone filed before this Court a petition for prohibition with urgent prayer for immediate issuance of restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction.

The Court resolved to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO), effective immediately and continuing until further orders from the Court, ordering the respondents to cease and desist from holding the signing of the petition for recall on 14 July 1990 pursuant to respondent COMELEC's Resolution No. 2272 dated 23 May 1990.

On the same day (12 July 1990), the notice of TRO was received by the Central Office of the respondent COMELEC. But it was only on 15 July 1990 that the field agent of the respondent COMELEC received the telegraphic notice of the TRO—a day after the completion of the signing process sought to be temporarily stopped by the TRO.

In an en banc resolution the respondent COMELEC nullified the signing process held in Sulat, Eastern Samar for being violative of the order (the TRO) Apelado, et al., filed a motion for reconsideration which  COMELEC denied.

ISSUE:

The principal issue for resolution by the Court is the constitutionality of Resolution No. 2272 promulgated by respondent COMELEC by virtue of its powers under the Constitution and Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 (Local Government Code).  The resolution embodies the general rules and regulations on the recall of elective provincial, city and municipal officials.

RULING:

Article XVIII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution expressly provides that all existing laws not inconsistent with the 1987 Constitution shall remain operative, until amended, repealed or revoked.  Republic Act No. 7160 providing for the Local Government Code of 1991, approved by the President on 10 October 1991, specifically repeals B.P. Blg. 337 as provided in Sec. 534, Title Four of said Act.  But the Local Government Code of 1991 will take effect only on 1 January 1992 and therefore the old Local Government Code (B.P. Blg. 337) is still the law applicable to the present case. Prior to the enactment of the new Local Government Code, the effectiveness of B.P. Blg. 337 was expressly recognized in the proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. 

Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 shall continue to be effective until repealed by the Congress of the Philippines.

We therefore rule that Resolution No. 2272 promulgated by respondent COMELEC is valid and constitutional.  Conse­quently, the respondent COMELEC had the authority to approve the petition for recall and set the date for the signing of said petition.