As Herman has explained it is stating that the "Metropolitan" has jurisdiction over the selection of lesser bishops in his territory. It says nothing about the Bishop of Rome and his primacy.
(A "Metropolitan" is a sort of uber-bishop who has authority over a certain region, involving other bishops in dioceses in his territory. For example, here in PA, the Archbishop of Philadephia is metropolitan over all of the other dioceses in Pennsylvania.)
And this "sort of uber-bishop" has the authority of naming each and every bishop in his territory.
NOT!
The Bishop of Rome had no effective authority over the Eastern Churches though he was recognized with a primacy of honor. He could not manage, control, or appoint bishops for the Eastern Churches.
The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome (Pope) is a latter day invention. As a matter of fact this council was called by Emperor Constantine IV, not the Bishop of Rome. Why? Because the Bishop of Rome didn't have the recognized authority to do so.
The Bishop of Rome had no effective authority over the Eastern Churches though he was recognized with a primacy of honor. He could not manage, control, or appoint bishops for the Eastern Churches. And that is not the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. his primacy is his imemdiate jurisdictional authority over each and every Church and eache and every Christian. It does not mean he has to appoint every Bishop or manage each Church. It does mean he is the final arbiter of all problems and disputes and sets the course of the Church.