Ebarle v. Cerilles
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners Bienvenido A. Ebarle and Javier Ariosa, residents and qualified voters of Zamboanga del Sur, filed a petition against respondents Vicente M. Cerilles and Jose L. Tecson. Respondent Cerilles was the elected Congressman for Zamboanga del Sur in 1969 and subsequently filed a certificate of candidacy for Provincial Governor in the November 8, 1971 elections. Following these elections, Cerilles and Tecson were proclaimed Governor-elect and Vice-Governor-elect, respectively. Cerilles, however, refused to take his oath as Governor, intending to retain his Congressional seat under Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6388. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners initiated this case on September 13, 1971, with a petition for quo warranto and mandamus, later amended on January 13, 1972, to include Jose L. Tecson as a respondent. The respondents, in their amended answer, raised several defenses, including lack of cause of action, insufficiency of the petition, premature filing, and that Cerilles, as a national official, was not covered by the prohibition in Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6388. They also argued that Cerilles forfeited his right to the governorship by not taking the oath and that the case was rendered moot by subsequent constitutional changes, including the abolition of the bicameral legislature and the creation of the Batasang Pambansa, as well as the expiration of Cerilles' term as Congressman and the Governor's term. 3. The Petition: The petitioners sought a quo warranto and mandamus action, arguing that Cerilles' refusal to assume the governorship constituted an illegal forfeiture of the electoral mandate and violated public policy, rendering Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6388 unconstitutional as class legislation. They contended that by running for and being proclaimed Governor, Cerilles irrevocably accepted the mandate and forfeited his Congressional seat. They prayed for Cerilles to be compelled to assume the governorship, for Section 24 to be declared unconstitutional, for Cerilles' forfeiture of the governorship to be declared void, and for Tecson to vacate the position. The petition also included a request for an injunction to prevent Cerilles from continuing his Congressional duties.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for quo warranto and mandamus, raising issues of electoral mandate, constitutionality of Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6388, and forfeiture of office, has become moot and academic due to supervening events. Whether Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6388 is constitutional.
Ruling
The petition for quo warranto and mandamus is hereby DISMISSED. No costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of mootness due to supervening events: The Court found that subsequent to the filing of the petition, significant changes occurred in the political landscape of the Philippines. The 1935 Constitution was superseded by the New Constitution, which introduced a parliamentary system and an interim National Assembly, later replaced by the Batasang Pambansa. Furthermore, the term of office of respondent Cerilles as a member of the defunct Congress expired, and the four-year term for the position of Governor also terminated. These developments fundamentally altered the context of the case and rendered the original issues raised by the petitioners moot and academic. Consequently, there was no longer any practical relief that the Court could grant. On the constitutionality of Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6388: While the petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6388, arguing it was class legislation and violated public policy, the Court did not directly rule on this issue. The resolution of the case was based on the supervening events that rendered the entire petition moot. Therefore, the constitutionality of the said provision was not passed upon by the Court in this resolution.
Main Doctrine
The issues raised in a petition for quo warranto and mandamus became moot and academic due to subsequent supervening events, specifically changes in the political institutions and the expiration of terms of office.