Quizon v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Florante S. Quizon and private respondent Roberto V. Puno were candidates for Congress in the May 14, 2007 elections. On April 17, 2007, Quizon filed a Petition for Disqualification and Cancellation of Certificate of Candidacy against Puno, alleging that Puno lacked the residency requirement for Antipolo City and misrepresented his residency in his Certificate of Candidacy (COC). On April 24, 2007, Quizon filed a Supplement, claiming Puno indicated he was running in the First District of Rizal, not the First District of Antipolo City, which are different legislative districts. Concerned residents also wrote to COMELEC seeking clarification. Procedural History: On June 5, 2007, Quizon filed a Petition for Mandamus, alleging COMELEC's unreasonable delay in resolving the disqualification petitions. On July 31, 2007, the COMELEC Second Division dismissed Quizon's petition, finding Puno to be a resident of the 1st District of Antipolo City and thus qualified. Quizon filed a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc, which remained unresolved. The Petition: Quizon filed a Petition for Mandamus with the Supreme Court, seeking to compel the COMELEC Second Division to resolve his petitions for disqualification and cancellation of certificate of candidacy. He argued that the delay deprived him of his right to be declared the winner.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for mandamus is moot and academic. Whether the writ of mandamus may compel the COMELEC to resolve a petition for disqualification and cancellation of certificate of candidacy. Whether the votes cast for Roberto V. Puno should be considered stray, considering the timing of any disqualification judgment and the nature of irregularities in the Certificate of Candidacy. Whether the second placer can be proclaimed winner if the winning candidate is found ineligible.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the mootness of the petition for mandamus: The principal function of the writ of mandamus is to command and expedite, not to inquire and adjudicate. Since the COMELEC Second Division had already issued a Resolution on the petition for disqualification pending the resolution of the mandamus petition, the instant case became moot and academic. A moot case ceases to present a justiciable controversy due to supervening events, rendering a declaration of no practical use or value. While courts may decide moot cases under exceptional circumstances (grave constitutional violation, paramount public interest, need for controlling principles, or capable of repetition yet evading review), none of these were present in this case. Therefore, as the COMELEC had already acted on the matter, there was nothing left for the Court to order it to perform. On the requisites for mandamus: The writ of mandamus generally lies to compel the performance of a ministerial duty. When the act sought to be performed involves the exercise of discretion, the respondent may only be directed to act, but not to act in a specific manner. The denial of due course or cancellation of a certificate of candidacy falls under the quasi-judicial functions of the COMELEC, which involves the exercise of discretion. Thus, the Court could only compel COMELEC to exercise its discretion and resolve the matter, but not control the manner of its exercise. However, as the COMELEC had already issued a decision, a writ commanding it to resolve the petition would no longer serve any purpose. On the petitioner's right to be declared winner, stray votes, and the effect of irregularities in the COC: Petitioner failed to adequately show a well-defined, clear, and certain legal right to warrant the granting of the petition. He asserted that the delay deprived him of his right to be proclaimed winner, claiming votes for Puno were stray due to invalid candidacy. Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code requires petitions to deny due course or cancel a COC to be resolved not later than fifteen days before the election, but this period has been declared merely directory by the Court in Salcedo II v. COMELEC. Crucially, for votes cast for a disqualified candidate to be considered stray, a final judgment of disqualification must be rendered before the election, as per Codilla Sr. v. De Venecia. In the absence of such a final judgment against Puno before the election, the votes cast in his favor could not be considered stray. While provisions on COCs are generally mandatory before elections, they are considered merely directory thereafter to give effect to the will of the people. In this case, Puno won by an overwhelming number of votes, and technicalities should not defeat the voter's intention, especially when discoverable from the ballot. The Court has repeatedly held that the will of the electorate should be given primacy over technical defects in the COC, particularly when the defect does not cast doubt on the candidate's intention to run for the specific office. On the proclamation of the second placer: Following Ocampo v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, a subsequent disqualification of the winning candidate does not entitle the second placer to be declared the winner. It is settled jurisprudence that the candidate who lost in an election, even if they garnered the second highest number of votes, cannot be proclaimed the winner if the winning candidate is found ineligible. The second placer is simply a loser who was repudiated by the majority or plurality of voters and does not automatically inherit the position.
Main Doctrine
A petition for mandamus to compel the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to resolve a petition for disqualification becomes moot when the COMELEC subsequently resolves the petition, rendering the mandamus moot and academic. Furthermore, the writ of mandamus generally lies to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, not to control the exercise of discretion. The votes cast for a candidate found to be disqualified are considered stray only if a final judgment of disqualification is rendered before the election; otherwise, technicalities in the certificate of candidacy should not defeat the will of the voter, especially when the candidate wins by an overwhelming number of votes. A candidate who lost in an election cannot be proclaimed the winner even if the winning candidate is subsequently found ineligible.