LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 1

Introduction to Local Government - History

EVARDONE v. COMELEC
December 2, 1991 | J. Padilla

G.R. No. 94010

G.R. No. 95063

Doctrine: Pending the enactment of a new Local Government Code under the report of the Committee
on Amendments and Transitory Provisions, the former Local Government Code, which is Batas
Pambansa Blg. 337 shall continue to be effective until repealed by the Congress of the Philippines.

CASE SUMMARY
Trigger Word(s): Petition for recall against Mayor Evardone
FACTS: Apelado, et al. filed a petition for recall of Mayor Evardone of Sulat, Eastern Samar which was
approved by the COMELEC, pursuant to its Resolution No. 2272 which embodies the general rules and
regulation on the recall of elective provincial, city and municipal officials. Evardone filed a petition for
prohibition before the SC with urgent prayer for a restraining order against the holding of the sigining of
the petition for recall on July 14, 1990. The SC issued such TRO and while COMELEC received the
notice of TRO on July 12, 1990, COMELEC's field agent did not receive the same until after the holding of
the signing of the petition for recall (which Evardone lost). Evardone argues that the COMELEC
committed grave abuse of discretion when it pomulgated Resolution No. 2272 on May 22, 1990 and
approved a petition for recall pursuant to it. Evardone posits that the 1987 Constitution repealed BP 337
(the old Loval Government Code), the law which was supposedly the basis of promulgating Resolution
No. 2272. COMELEC on the other hand argues that BP 337 remains effective pending the enactment of
the amendatory law so long as it is not irreconcilable with the provisions of the Constitution.

HELD: The Court agreed with the COMELEC that BP 337 remained effective pending the enactment of a
new Local Government Code. The 1987 Constitution specifically states that all existing laws not
inconsisted with the 1987 Constitution shall remain operative until amended, repealed or revoked.
Further, the 1986 Constitutional Commission expressly recognized the effectiveness of BP 337 prior to
the enactment of the new LGC. Thus, Resolution No. 2272 was valid as it stil had basis in law when
promulgated and the COMELEC had authority to approve the petition for recall. However, the Court
found that the recall is no longer possible given the limitation in Sec. 55(2) of BP 337, barring
recall of an official one year immediately preceding a regular election.

FACTS
● Evardone is the mayor of the the Municipality of Sulat, Eastern Samar (elected during the 1988
local elections and assumed office immediately after proclamation).
● On February 14, 1990, Apelado, Aclan and Nival (Apelado, et al.) filed a petition for recall of
Evardone with the Office of the Local Registrar (of Sulat).
● On June 20, 1990, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 90-0557 approving the recommendation of
Sumbilla (Election Registrar of Sulat) to hold on July 14, 1990 the signing of the petition for recall
against Mayor Evardone.
● July 10 – Evardone filed before the SC a petition for prohibition (+ urgent prayer for TRO and/or
preliminary injunction) against the Resolution [Evardone's petition]
● On July 12, the SC issued the TRO (effective immediately) ordering the respondents to cease
and desist from holding the signing of the petition for recall on July 14, pursuant to COMELEC's
Resolution No. 2272 dated May 22, 1990 (this resolution embodies the general rules and
regulations on the recall of elective provincial, city and municipal officials).

Orjalo | A2022
March 4, 2021
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 2
Introduction to Local Government - History

○ The notice of TRO was received by the Central Office of COMELEC on the same day but
it was only on July 15 that the field agent of respondent COMELEC received the
telegraphic notice of TRO – a day after the completion of the signing process sought to
be temporarily stopped by the TRO.
● In an en banc resolution (No. 90-0660), COMELEC nullified the signing process held in Sulat for
being violative of the TRO. Apelado, et al. filed a motion for reconsideration but COMELEC
denied the same. COMELEC said that the critical date is the date of recipt by COMELEC not of
its field agent.
● Apelado, et al. filed a petition for review on certiorari which seeks to set aside this en banc
resolution (90-0660) of COMELEC. [Apelado, et al.'s petition]

GR No. 94010
● In Evardone's petition, he argues that: COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it
1) approved the recommendation to hold the signing of petition for recall and 2) in promulgating
Resolution No. 2272.
○ Evardone says that Resolution No. 2272 was promulgated by COMELEC by virtue of its
powers under the Constitution and BP 337 (the former Local Government Code) 1. He
argues that Art. X, Sec. 32 of the 1987 Constitution has repealed BP 337 in favor of one
to be enacted by Congress. Since there was no new local government code yet
enacted by the Congress when the Resolution No. 2272 was promulgated by
COMELEC, nor any law on the subject of recall of elected officials, COMELEC had
no basis for promulgating such Resolution.  recall proceedings against Evardone is
premature
● COMELEC argues that the constitutional provision cited did not automatically repeal BP 337 but it
merely serves as a guide for the Congress to consider in amending the present LGC. Thus,
pending the enactment of the amendatory law, BP 337 is operative so long as its provisions are
not irreconcilable with the 1987 Constitution.

ISSUES + HELD
[MAIN] ISSUE #1: W/N Resolution No. 2272 is unconstitutional for being promulgated by the
COMELEC without basis in law – NO (W/N the 1987 Constitution repealed BP 337 (old LGC) - NO).
The Court sided with COMELEC.
● Article XVIII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution express provides that all existing laws not
inconsistent with the 1987 Constitution shall remain operative, until amended, repealed or
revoked.
● RA 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) which specifically repeals BP 337 was approved by
the President only on October 10, 1991 and would only take effect on January 1, 1992. 
Therefore, the old LGC is still the law applicable in the case at bar.
● Prior to the enactment of the new LGC, the effectiveness of BP 337 (old LGC) was expressly
recognized in the proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional Commission:
○ MR. NOLLEDO. Besides, pending the enactment of a new Local Government Code
under the report of the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions, the
former Local Government Code, which is Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 shall continue
to be effective until repealed by the Congress of the Philippines.
● The Court therefore ruled that Resolution No. 2272 is valid and constitutional. COMELEC had the
authority to approve the petition for recall and set the date for the signing of said petition.

1
Chapter 3 (Sections 54 to 59) of B.P. Blg. 337 provides for the mechanism for recall of local elective officials. Section 59 expressly
authorizes the respondent COMELEC to conduct and supervise the process of and election on recall and in the exercise of such
powers, promulgate the necessary rules and regulations.

2
Sec. 3. The Congress shall enact a local government code 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, allocate
among the different local government units their powers, responsibilities and resources, and provide for the qualifications, election,
appointment and removal, term, salaries, powers and functions and duties local officials, and all other matters relating to the
organization operation of the local units.

Orjalo | A2022
March 4, 2021
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 3
Introduction to Local Government - History

ISSUE #2: W/N the TRO issued by this Court rendered nugatory the signing process of the petition
for recall – NO
 While this Court issued a TRO on 12 July 1990, the signing of the petition for recall took place
just the same on the scheduled date through no fault of the respondent COMELEC and Apelado,
et al. The signing process was undertaken by the constituents of the Municipality of Sulat and its
Election Registrar in good faith and without knowledge of the TRO earlier issued by this Court.
o About 2,050 of the 6,090 registered voters of Sulat, Eastern Samar or about 34% signed
the petition for recall. As held in Parades vs. Executive Secretary there is no turning back
the clock.
 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.
 The constituents have made a judgment and their will to recall the incumbent mayor (Evardone)
has already been ascertained and must be afforded the highest respect. Thus, the signing
process held last 14 July 1990 in Sulat, Eastern Samar, for the recall of Mayor Felipe P.
Evardone of said municipality is valid and has legal effect.
 However, the Court found that the recall is no longer possible given the limitation in Sec.
55(2) of BP 337, barring recall of an official one year immediately preceding a regular
election.
o The Constitution has mandated a synchronized national and local elections on the
second Monday of May, 1992  July 1990 is 7 months beforesuch regular election.

RULING: Resolution No. 2272 valid. Both petitions dismissed for being moot and academic.

Orjalo | A2022
March 4, 2021