Dumarpa v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Salic Dumarpa, a congressional candidate, challenged COMELEC Resolution No. 8965, specifically Sections 4 and 12, which provided guidelines for special elections due to a failure of elections in seven municipalities in Lanao del Sur, including three in Dumarpa's district. The special elections were initially scheduled for May 29, 2010, then reset to June 3, 2010, by COMELEC Resolution No. 8946 due to various reasons including missing ballots, BEI unreliability, pulled-out PCOS machines, and the need for training. COMELEC Resolution No. 8965, issued on May 28, 2010, contained provisions on the constitution of Special Boards of Election Inspectors (SBEIs) and clustering of precincts. Dumarpa filed a motion for reconsideration on Sections 4 and 12 concerning the Municipality of Masiu, which was not acted upon. Dumarpa then filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus with the Supreme Court on June 2, 2010, alleging grave abuse of discretion and seeking to restrain the implementation of the assailed sections, claiming they would lead to his defeat. At the time of filing, Dumarpa was leading in the canvassed votes in areas without a failure of elections. Procedural History: The Supreme Court did not issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, and the special elections proceeded as scheduled on June 3, 2010. Hussin Pangandaman, Dumarpa's opponent, was proclaimed the winner. The Office of the Solicitor General argued that the issues were mooted by the conduct of the special elections and that COMELEC Resolution No. 8965 was not tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The Petition: Dumarpa sought to annul or declare illegal Sections 4 and 12 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8965 for allegedly being contrary to law, issued without notice and hearing, and constituting grave abuse of discretion. He specifically argued that the re-clustering of precincts in Masiu was done without notice and hearing, less than thirty days before the special elections, and reduced polling centers in a manner that favored his opponent. He also argued that public school teachers serving as BEIs should not be relieved or disqualified without cause and due hearing.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition has been mooted by the conduct of the special elections. Whether COMELEC Resolution No. 8965, particularly Sections 4 and 12 thereof, was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Whether the re-clustering of precincts and the designation of Special Boards of Election Inspectors (SBEIs) in COMELEC Resolution No. 8965 were validly issued.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The issues raised have been mooted by the conduct of the special elections on June 3, 2010, and the subsequent proclamation of the winning candidate. The issues are resolvable in an election protest.
Ratio Decidendi
On the mootness of the petition: The Supreme Court held that the special elections conducted on June 3, 2010, rendered the issues raised by petitioner Salic Dumarpa moot and academic. This is because a supervening event, the holding of the elections and the proclamation of the winner, occurred during the pendency of the petition. A moot and academic case ceases to present a justiciable controversy, and courts generally decline jurisdiction or dismiss such cases as a declaration would be of no practical value. The Court noted that the opponent of Dumarpa, Hussin Pangandaman, was proclaimed the winner, further solidifying the mootness of the petition, with the issues being better ventilated in an election protest. On the COMELEC's plenary powers and the validity of Resolution No. 8965: The Court affirmed that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) possesses broad plenary powers to enforce and administer election laws, which include all necessary and incidental powers to achieve the objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections. This broad authority allows the COMELEC considerable latitude in adopting means and methods to ensure the accomplishment of its mandate. The Court cited Sumulong v. COMELEC and Cauton v. COMELEC to emphasize that the COMELEC is in a peculiarly advantageous position to decide complex political questions and that its choice of means, unless clearly illegal or constituting grave abuse of discretion, should not be interfered with. The Court found that COMELEC Resolution No. 8965 was issued in the exercise of these plenary powers, precisely to address the failure of elections and prevent its recurrence. On the objections to Sections 4 and 12 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8965: The Court found Dumarpa's objections to the re-clustering of precincts and the designation of SBEIs to be unmeritorious. The Court pointed out that the COMELEC issued the resolution precisely because of the total failure of elections in several municipalities, including Masiu. The COMELEC, through its deputized officials, is best positioned to assess prevailing conditions and make judgment calls. The Court acknowledged that COMELEC actions might not be impeccable or may be debatable, especially under difficult circumstances, but it cannot engage in academic criticism of such actions. The COMELEC closely followed Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code by scheduling the special election within thirty days and sought to prevent another failure of election by addressing potential issues with the Board of Election Inspectors. The Court reiterated that its ruling was confined to the issues raised relative to COMELEC Resolution No. 8965 and did not preempt decisions in election protests.
Main Doctrine
A petition challenging COMELEC resolutions on the conduct of special elections becomes moot and academic when the special elections have already been conducted as scheduled, and the results thereof have been proclaimed, especially when the issues raised can be ventilated in an election protest.