Sarmiento v. Commission on Elections
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
1. The Antecedents: These cases involve multiple petitioners challenging election results and canvassing procedures in various municipalities and cities across the Philippines during the 1992 elections. The core disputes revolve around the exclusion or inclusion of specific election returns, the composition of municipal and provincial boards of canvassers, and alleged irregularities in the canvassing process. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners initially filed appeals or petitions with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) challenging rulings made by municipal and provincial boards of canvassers. The COMELEC, sitting en banc, issued resolutions in these cases, which are now being challenged by the petitioners before the Supreme Court via special civil actions for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. 3. The Petition: The petitioners contend that the COMELEC, by taking cognizance of and deciding these appeals en banc without first referring them to any of its Divisions, acted with grave abuse of discretion and without jurisdiction. They argue that Article IX-C, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution mandates that all election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, must be heard and decided by a Division of the COMELEC, with motions for reconsideration being the only exception for en banc review.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), sitting en banc, acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of and deciding appeals in pre-proclamation controversies without first referring them to any of its Divisions. Whether the cases have become moot and academic due to the commencement of the term of office of the officials involved.
Ruling
The Court GRANTED the petitions, SET ASIDE the resolutions of the COMELEC en banc, and DISMISSED the petitions, holding that the COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in resolving the appeals without prior referral to its Divisions. However, the cases were rendered moot and academic by the commencement of the term of office of the officials involved, as provided by Section 16 of R.A. No. 7166. The dismissal was without prejudice to the filing of regular election protests.
Ratio Decidendi
On the COMELEC's jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion: The Court held that Article IX-C, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution clearly mandates that all election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, must first be heard and decided by a Division of the Commission on Elections. The COMELEC en banc does not possess the authority to hear and decide these cases at the first instance. The COMELEC Rules of Procedure further support this, classifying pre-proclamation cases as Special Cases and vesting the authority to hear and decide them in the two Divisions of the Commission. Rule 27, Section 9 of the COMELEC Rules explicitly states that appeals from rulings of the Board of Canvassers are cognizable by the Division to which the case is assigned, not by the Commission en banc. Therefore, the COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion when it resolved the appeals without first referring them to a Division. Such resolutions are deemed null and void and must be set aside. On the mootness of the cases: The Court noted that Section 16 of R.A. No. 7166 provides that all pre-proclamation cases pending before the COMELEC shall be deemed terminated at the beginning of the term of the office involved, and the rulings of the boards of canvassers shall be deemed affirmed. The terms of the offices involved in these cases commenced at noon of June 30, 1992. Consequently, these cases have become moot and academic. A resolution directing the COMELEC to assign these cases to its Divisions would be an exercise in futility. Therefore, the petitions were dismissed on the ground of mootness, without prejudice to the filing of regular election protests by the aggrieved parties.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC), sitting en banc, acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion when it resolved appeals in pre-proclamation controversies without first referring them to any of its Divisions, as mandated by Article IX-C, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution. However, such cases may be rendered moot and academic if the term of the office involved has already commenced.