RA 7160 – LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991

TITLE II – ELECTIVE OFFICIALS

CHAPTER V - RECALL

SECTION 69. By Whom Exercised. – The power of recall for loss of confidence shall be exercised by the registered
voters of a local government unit to which the local elective official subject to such recall belongs.

SECTION 70. Initiation of the Recall Process (AS AMENDED BY RA 9244)

(a) The Recall of any elective provincial, city, municipal or barangay official shall be commenced by a petition of a
registered voter in the local government unit concerned and supported by the registered voters in the local government unit
concerned during the election in which the local official sought to be recalled was elected subject to the following
percentage requirements:

(1) At least twenty-five percent (25%) in the case of local government units with a voting population of not more
than twenty thousand (20,000);

(2) At least twenty percent (20%) in the case of local government units with a voting population of at least twenty
thousand (20,000) but not more than seventy-five thousand (75,000): Provided, That in no case shall the required
petitioners be less than five thousand (5,000);

(3) At least fifteen percent (15%) in the case of local government units with a voting population of at least seventy-
five thousand (75,000) but not more than three hundred thousand (300,000): Provided, however, That in no case
shall the required number of petitioners be less than fifteen thousand (15,000); and

(4) At least ten percent (10%) in the case of local government units with a voting population of over three hundred
thousand (300,000): Provided, however, That in no case shall the required petitioners be less than forty-five
thousand (45,000)

(b) The process of recall shall be effected in accordance with the following procedure:

(1) A written petition for recall duly signed by the representatives of the petitioners before the election registrar or
his representative, shall be filed with the Comelec through its office in the local government unit concerned.

(2) The petition to recall shall contain the following:

(a) The names and addresses of the petitioners written in legible form and their signatures;

(b) The barangay, city or municipality, local legislative district and the province to which the petitioners
belong;

(c) The name of the official sought to be recalled; and

(d) A brief narration of the reasons and justifications therefor.

(3) The Comelec shall, within fifteen (15) days from the filing of the petition, certify to the sufficiency of the required
number of signatures. Failure to obtain the required number of signatures automatically nullifies the petition;

(4) If the petition is found to be sufficient in form, the Comelec or its duly authorized representative shall, within
three (3) days from the issuance of the certification, provide the official sought to be recalled a copy of the petition,
cause its publication in a national newspaper of general circulation and a newspaper of general circulation in the
locality, once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks at the expense of the petitioners and at the same time post
copies thereof in public and conspicuous places for a period of not less than ten (10) days nor more than twenty
(20) days, for the purpose of allowing interested parties to examine and verify the validity of the petition and the
authenticity of the signatures contained therein.
1
 (5) The Comelec or its duly authorized representatives shall, upon issuance of certification, proceed independently
with the verification and authentication of the signatures of the petitioners and registered voters contained therein.
Representatives of the petitioners and the official sought to be recalled shall be duly notified and shall have the
right to participate therein as mere observers. The filing of any challenge or protest shall be allowed within the
period provided in the immediately preceding paragraph and shall be ruled upon with finality within fifteen (15) days
from the date of filing of such protest or challenge;

(6) Upon the lapse of the aforesaid period, the Comelec or its duly authorized representative shall announce the
acceptance of candidates to the position and thereafter prepare the list of candidates which shall include the name
of the official sought to be recalled.”

SECTION 71. Election on Recall. (AS AMENDED BY RA 9244)

Upon the filing of a valid petition for recall with the appropriate local office of the Comelec, the Comelec or its duly
authorized representative shall set the date of the election or recall, which shall not be later than thirty (30) days upon the
completion of the procedure outlined in the preceding article, in the case of the barangay, city or municipal officials, and
forty-five (45) days in the case of provincial officials. The officials sought to be recalled shall automatically be considered as
duly registered candidate or candidates to the pertinent positions and, like other candidates, shall be entitled to be voted
upon.

SECTION 72. Effectivity of Recall. – The recall of an elective local official shall be effective only upon the election and
proclamation of a successor in the person of the candidate receiving the highest number of votes cast during the election
on recall. Should the official sought to be recalled receive the highest number of votes, confidence in him is thereby
affirmed, and he shall continue in office.

SECTION 73. Prohibition from Resignation. – The elective local official sought to be recalled shall not be allowed to
resign while the recall process is in progress.

SECTION 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 official’s assumption to office or one (1) year
immediately preceding a regular local election.

SECTION 75. Expenses Incident to Recall Elections. – All expenses incident to recall elections shall be borne by the
COMELEC. For this purpose, there shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act a contingency fund at the
disposal of the COMELEC for the conduct of recall elections.

==========================================================================================

VIII. TERMINATION OF OFFICIAL RELATIONSHIP

A. Modes of terminating official relationship: -

1. Expiration of term or tenure. 8. Abolition of office

2. Reaching the age limit. 9. Prescription of the right to office.

3. Resignation. 10. Impeachment

4. Recall 11. Death

5. Removal. 12. Failure to assume elective office within six months from proclamation

6. Abandonment. 13. Conviction of a crime.

7. Acceptance of an incompatible office. 14. Filing of a certificate of candidacy

2
E. Recall. The termination of official relationship of an elective official for loss of confidence prior to the expiration of his
term through the will of the electorate.

1. By whom exercised. By the registered voters of a local government unit to which the local elective official subject to
such recall belongs [Sec. 69, R.A. 7160].

EVARDONE V COMELEC (464 SCRA 204 / G.R. No. 94010 December 2, 1991)

*Recall is a Political Question

FACTS:
Felipe Evardone is the mayor of municipality of Sulat, Eastern Samar. Private respondent Alexander
Apelado filed a petition for recall against hi.
This prompted Evardone to file a TRO with the SC, which was granted. Before the TRO was issued, a
signing process was already made by the people. However, COMELEC nullified the signing process upon the
issuance of the said TRO.
Evardone also assailed the ground of “loss of confidence” as a ground to remove him from office.

ISSUE:
Whether “loss of confidence” is a sufficient ground to remove Evardone from office.

HELD:
YES, it is. Whether or not the electorate of the Municipality of Sulat has lost confidence in the incumbent
mayor is a political question. It belongs to the realm of politics where only the people are the judge.
“Loss of Confidence” is the formal withdrawal by an electorate of their trust in a person’s ability to
discharge his office previously bestowed on him by the same electorate. The constituents have made a judgment
and their will to recall must be afforded with high respect.
However, to hold an election on recall approximately 7 months before the regular election will be violative
of the LGC.

[EVARDONE v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 94010 (December 2, 1991) EN BANC When an official has assumed office for
two years or where the time remaining before a regular local election is only one year, no recall shall take place.
This is enshrined in Chapter 3 of BP 337, which was the law operative at the time of the filing of the petition.
Although the signing process for the recall of Sulat, Eastern Samar’s mayor is valid, a recall election to be held
seven months before the regular elections is violative of BP 337. COMELEC’s Resolution 2272 containing the
general rules and regulations on the recall of elective provincial, city and municipal officials is valid and
constitutional. The Constitution provides that laws which are not inconsistent with the 1987 Constitution shall
remain operative until amended, repealed or revoked. Section 59 of BP 337, which is still the operative law at the
time of the filing of the petition, vests COMELEC with rule-making powers. Through its rule-making power,
COMELEC promulgated Resolution 2272, thus making the resolution valid and constitutional.]
========================================================================================
2. Initiation of the recall process [Sec. 70, R.A. 7160]. By the registered voters of the local government unit.

a) By virtue of R.A. 9244, Secs. 70 and 71 of the Local Government . Code were amended, and the Preparatory
Recall Assembly has been eliminated as a mode of initiating recall of elective local government officials

3. Procedure for initiating recall. Recall of a provincial, city, municipal or barangay official shall be initiated upon petition
by at least 25% of the total number of registered voters in the local government unit concerned during the election in which
the. local official sought to be recalled was elected.

a) A written petition for recall duly signed before the election registrar or his representative, and in the presence of
a representative of the petitioner and representative of the official sought to be recalled, and in a public place in the
province, city, municipality or barangay, as the case may be, shall be filed with the Comelec through its office in the local
government unit concerned. The Comelec or its duly authorized representative shall cause the publication of the petition in
a public and conspicuous place for a period of not less than 10 days nor more than 20 days, for the purpose of verifying the
authenticity and genuineness of the petition and the required percentage of voters.

3
 i) In Angobung v. Comelec, G.R. No. 126571, March 5, 1997, the Supreme Court underscored the need for a
petition signed by at least 25% of the total number of registered voters in the constituency in order to validly initiate a recall
election. Thus, where the petition is signed only by the petitioner and does not even bear the names of the citizens who
have allegedly lost confidence in the public official, then the petition should be dismissed.

[ANGOBUNG v. COMELEC and DE ALBAN, G.R. No. 126576 (March 5, 1997) EN BANC A COMELEC Resolution
approving the petition to initiate recall against a municipal mayor is null and void for failing to comply with the minimum
number of petitioners. Section 69 (d) of the LGC mandates that the petition to initiate recall proceedings must be filed, not
by one person only, but by at least 25% of the total number of registered voters. The procedure of allowing just one person
to file the initiatory recall petition and then setting a date for the signing of the petition, which amounts to inviting and
courting the public which may have not, in the first place, even entertained any displeasure in the performance of the
official sought to be recalled, is not only violative of statutory law but also tainted with an attempt to go around the law.]

b) Upon the lapse of the aforesaid period, the Comelec or its duly authorized representative shall announce the
acceptance of candidates to the position and thereafter prepare the list of candidates which shall include the name of the
official sought to be recalled.

4. Election on Recall. Upon the filing of a valid petition for recall with the appropriate local office of the Comelec, the
Commission or its duly authorized representative shall set the date for the election on recall, which shall not be later than
30 days after the filing of the resolution or petition in the case of the barangay, city or municipal officials, and 45 days in the
case of provincial officials. The official or officials sought to be recalled shall automatically be considered as duly registered
candidate or candidates to the pertinent positions and, like other candidates, shall be entitled to be voted upon [Sec. 71,
R.A. 7160],

5. Effectivity of Recall. The recall of an elective local official shall be effective only upon the election and proclamation of a
successor in the person of the candidate receiving the highest number of votes cast during the election on recall. Should
the official sought to be recalled receive the highest number of votes, confidence in him is thereby affirmed, and he shall
continue in office [Sec. 72, R.A. No. 7160].

6. Prohibition from resignation. The elective local official sought to be recalled shall not be allowed to resign while the
recall process is in progress [Sec. 73, R.A. 7160].

7. Limitations on Recall [Sec. 74, R.A. 7160]:

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 year from the date of the official’s assumption to office or one year
immediately preceding a regular local election. In Paras v. Comelec, G.R. No. 123169, November 4, 1996, it was
held that the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) election is not a regular election within the contemplation of the Local
Government Code as would bar the holding of a recall election. Neither will the recall election of the Mayor be
barred by the barangay elections. In Angobung v. Comelec, supra., it was held that the “regular local election”
referred to in Sec. 74, Local Government Code, means that the approaching local election must be one where the
position of the official to be recalled is actually contested and to be filled by the electorate.

Paras v. Comelec [GR 123169, 4 November 1996]; Resolution

FACTS:
Danilo E. Paras is the incumbent Punong Barangay of Pula, Cabanatuan City who won during the 1994
barangay election. A petition for his recall as Punong Barangay was filed by the registered voters of the barangay.
Acting on the petition for recall, Comelec resolved to approve the petition, scheduled the petition signing on 14
October 1995, and set the recall election on 13 November 1995. 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 petitioner’s opposition. On 6 December 1995, the Comelec set anew the recall election, this time on 16
4
 December 1995. To prevent the holding of the recall election, petitioner filed before the RTC Cabanatuan City a
petition for injunction (SP Civil Action 2254-AF), with the trial court issuing a TRO. 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.

In a resolution dated 5 January 1996, the Comelec, for the third time, re-scheduled the recall election on 13
January 1996; hence, the instant petition for certiorari with urgent prayer for injunction. On 12 January 1996, the
Court issued a TRO and required the OSG, in behalf of Comelec, to comment on the petition. In view of the OSG’s
manifestation maintaining an opinion adverse to that of the Comelec, the latter through its law department filed the
required comment. Paras thereafter filed a reply.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for having become moot and academic, as the next regular elections
are 7months away. The TRO issued on 12 January 1996, enjoining the recall election, was made permanent.

1. Every part of statute must be interpreted with reference to the context of the whole enactment
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. In the case at bar, Paragraph (b) of Section 74 construed together with paragraph (a)
merely designates the period when such elective local official may be subject of a recall election, i.e. during the second
year of his term of office. SK elections cannot be considered a regular election as this would render inutile the recall
provision of the LGC.
2. Assumption that Legislature intended to enact an effective law
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. 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.
3. Statute interpreted in harmony with the Constitution
It is a basic precept in statutory construction that a statute should be interpreted in harmony with the Constitution. In the
case at bar, the interpretation of Section 74 of the LGC, 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.
4. Intent of law paramount; too literal interpretation discouraged
The spirit, rather than the letter of a law determines its construction; hence, a statute must be read according to its spirit
and intent. The too literal interpretation of the law leads to absurdity which the Court cannot countenance. A too-literal
reading of the law 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’.
5. Intent of the law in prohibiting recall elections for one year immediately preceding a regular election
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 official’s 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.

[PARAS v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 123169 (November 4, 1996) EN BANC A petition for recall against a Punong
Barangay even if filed within the prescribed period for filing will not prosper if the recall election is to be had outside
the prescribed period for holding the recall election. The ‘regular recall election’ mentioned in the 1- year
proscription refers to an election where the office held by the local elective official sought to be recalled will be
contested and filled by the electorate.]

5
8. SECTION 75. Expenses Incident to Recall Elections

[GOH v. BAYRON, G.R. NO. 212584 (November 25, 2014) EN BANC COMELEC is mandated to shoulder all expenses
relative to recall elections. The 2014 General Appropriations Act provide the line item appropriation to allow the
COMELEC to perform its constitutional mandate of conducting recall elections. There is no need for supplemental
legislation to authorize the COMELEC to conduct recall election for 2014.]

COMELEC is mandated to shoulder all expenses relative to recall elections. (Goh v. Bayron, G.R. No. 212584,
November 25, 2014)

The 2014 General Appropriations Act provide the line item appropriation to allow the COMELEC to perform its
constitutional mandate of conducting recall elections. There is no need for supplemental legislation to authorize the
COMELEC to conduct recall election for 2014. (Goh v. Bayron, G.R. No. 212584, November 25, 2014)

The 1987 Constitution not only guaranteed the COMELEC’s fiscal autonomy, but also granted to its head, as
authorized by law (as in the 2014 General Appropriations Act, to its Chairman), to augment items in its
appropriations from its savings. (Goh v. Bayron, G.R. No. 212584, November 25, 2014)

When the COMELEC receives a budgetary appropriation for its “Current Operating Expenditures,” such
appropriation includes expenditures to carry out its constitutional functions, including the conduct of recall elections.
(Goh v. Bayron, G.R. No. 212584, November 25, 2014)

To be valid, an appropriation must indicate a specific amount and a specific purpose. However, the purpose may
be specific even if it is broken down into different related sub-categories of the same nature. The purpose of the
appropriation is still specific – to fund elections, which naturally and logically include, even if not expressly stated,
not only regular but also special or recall elections. (Goh v. Bayron, G.R. No. 212584, November 25, 2014)

ADORMEO V COMELEC (G.R. No. 147927, February 4, 2002)

*The winner of recall election shall serve only the unexpired term. This term shall not be counted for the
purposes of the 3-term limit.

FACTS:

Ramon Talaga, Jr. served as mayor of Lucena City during terms 1992-1995 and 1995-1998. During the
1998 elections, Talaga lost to Bernard G. Tagarao. However, before Tagarao’s 1998-2001 term ended, a recall
election was conducted in May 2000 wherein Talaga won and served the unexpired term of Tagarao until June
2001. When Talaga ran for mayor in 2001, his candidacy was challenged on the ground that he had already served
as mayor for three consecutive terms in violation of the three term-limit rule. Comelec found Talaga disqualified to
run for mayor. Talaga filed a motion for reconsideration which Comelec granted. Talaga was then elected Mayor.

ISSUE:

Whether Talaga was disqualified to run as mayor given that he had already served two full terms and he
won in the 2000 recall elections.

HELD:

The term limit for elective local officials must be taken to refer to the right to be elected as well as the right
to serve in the same elective position. Consequently, it is not enough that an individual has served three
consecutive terms in an elective local office, he must also have been elected to the same position for the same
number of times before the disqualification can apply.
For nearly two years Talaga was a private citizen. The continuity of his mayorship was disrupted by his
defeat in the 1998 elections. The time between his second term and the recall election is sufficient interruption.
Thus, there was no three consecutive terms as contemplated in the disqualifications in the LGC.
Talaga only served two consecutive full terms. There was a disruption when he was defeated in the 1998
elections. His election during the 2000 recall election is not a continuation of his two previous terms which could

6
constitute his third term thereby barring him for running for a fourth term. Victory in the 2000 recall election is not
the “voluntary renunciation” contemplated by the law.

SOCRATES V COMELEC (G.R. No. 154512, November 12, 2002)

FACTS:

Hagedorn had served as mayor of Puerto Princesa City for three consecutive terms: in 1992-1995, 1995-
1998 and 1998-2001. Obviously aware of the three-term limit principle, Hagedorn opted not to ran for the same
position in the 2001 elections, in which Socrates ran and eventually won. However, midway into his term, the
incumbent mayor, Socrates, faced recall proceedings. Hagedorn filed his certificate of candidacy for mayor in the
recall election. Socrates filed a petition to disqualify Hagedorn on the ground that the latter cannot run for the said
post for his 4th consecutive term having been elected and having served as mayor for 3 consecutive full terms
immediately prior to the recall election for the same post.

ISSUE:

Is Hagedorn disqualified to run under the three-term limit rule?

HELD:

The three-term limit rule for elective local officials is found in Section 8, Article X of the Constitution, which
states:
"Section 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined
by law, shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary
renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his
service for the full term for which he was elected."
This three-term limit rule is reiterated in Section 43 (b) of RA No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local
Government Code, which provides:
Section 43. Term of Office. – (a) x x x

(b) No local elective official shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms in the same position. Voluntary
renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of service
for the full term for which the elective official was elected."

These constitutional and statutory provisions have two parts. The first part provides that an elective local
official cannot serve for more than three consecutive terms. The clear intent is that only consecutive terms count in
determining the three-term limit rule. The second part states that voluntary renunciation of office for any length of
time does not interrupt the continuity of service. The clear intent is that involuntary severance from office for any
length of time interrupts continuity of service and prevents the service before and after the interruption from being
joined together to form a continuous service or consecutive terms.

After three consecutive terms, an elective local official cannot seek immediate reelection for a fourth term.
The prohibited election refers to the next regular election for the same office following the end of the third
consecutive term. Any subsequent election, like a recall election, is no longer covered by the prohibition for two
reasons. First, a subsequent election like a recall election is no longer an immediate reelection after three
consecutive terms. Second, the intervening period constitutes an involuntary interruption in the continuity of
service.

What the Constitution prohibits is an immediate reelection for a fourth term following three consecutive
terms. The Constitution, however, does not prohibit a subsequent reelection for a fourth term as long as the
reelection is not immediately after the end of the third consecutive term. A recall election mid-way in the term
following the third consecutive term is a subsequent election but not an immediate reelection after the third term.

After Hagedorn ceased to be mayor on June 30, 2001, he became a private citizen until the recall election
of September 24, 2002. From June 30, 2001 until the recall election on September 24, 2002, the mayor of Puerto
Princesa was Socrates. During the same period, Hagedorn was simply a private citizen. This period is clearly an
interruption in the continuity of Hagedorn’s service as mayor, not because of his voluntary renunciation, but
7
because of a legal prohibition. An involuntary interruption occurred from June 30, 2001 to September 24, 2002
which broke the continuity or consecutive character of Hagedorn's service as mayor.

[SOCRATES v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 154512 (November 12, 2002) EN BANC After three consecutive terms, an elective
local official cannot seek immediate reelection for a fourth term. The prohibited election refers to the 139 next
regular election for the same office following the end of the third consecutive term. Any subsequent election, like a
recall election, is no longer covered by the prohibition for two reasons. First, a subsequent election like a recall
election is no longer an immediate reelection after three consecutive terms. Second, the intervening period
constitutes an involuntary interruption in the continuity of service. Clearly, what the Constitution prohibits is an
immediate reelection for a fourth term following three consecutive terms. The Constitution, however, does not
prohibit a subsequent reelection for a fourth term as long as the reelection is not immediately after the end of the
third consecutive term. A recall election mid-way in the term following the third consecutive term is a subsequent
election but not an immediate reelection after the third term. The period of time prior to the recall term, when
another elective official holds office, constitutes an interruption in continuity of service. Clearly, the winner in the
recall election cannot be charged or credited with the full term of three years for purposes of counting the
consecutiveness of an elective official's terms in office.[