EN BANC
[G.R. No. 194204. June 10, 2013.]
FRANCISCO S. AGUILAR, JR.,THEODORE B. M. AQUINO, HERMENILDO R. ESTRELLA, JR.,MA. SALOME A. MABLE, JOSE V. MANALAD AND GUILLERMO SANTOS, petitioners,vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, JOSE A. R. MELO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated June 10, 2013,which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 194204 (Francisco S. Aguilar, Jr.,Theodore B. M. Aquino, Hermenildo R. Estrella, Jr.,Ma. Salome A. Mable, Jose V. Manalad and Guillermo Santos vs. Commission on Elections, represented by its Chairman, Jose A. R. Melo).— This is a Petition for Mandamus 1 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking for this Court to compel the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to disclose and release to Francisco S. Aguilar, Jr., Theodore B. M. Aquino, Hermenildo R. Estrella, Jr., Ma. Salome A. Mable (Mable), Jose V. Manalad and Guillermo Santos (petitioners) the photo images of all the ballots cast per precinct, together with the proclaimed results similarly organized per precinct, in the May 2010 nationwide automated elections.
The petitioners are filing the instant petition as registered voters and taxpayers of the Republic of the Philippines. 2
Respondent COMELEC is the constitutional body tasked to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relating to the conduct of elections. 3
On May 10, 2010, the COMELEC conducted the first nationwide elections for national and local positions under the Automated Elections System (AES).In the course of the implementation of the AES, the COMELEC resolved to disable some of the security features designed to protect the integrity of the voting and counting process using the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machines, viz.:
a. dispensing of the requirement that the members of the Board of Election Inspectors affix their digital signatures to the election returns; 4
b. disabling the built-in Ultra Violet scanning capability of the PCOS machines and replacing them with hand-held scanners; 5
c. deviating from the prescribed schedule for the random manual audit (RMA) by conducting it one or more days after the transmission of election results outside of the precinct, the results of which were not immediately released after the audit. 6
On July 9, 2010, the petitioners, in their individual capacities and in representation of their respective organizations consisting of Global Filipino Nation, Global Filipinos Australia, Global Filipinos Canada, Our Barangay, Inc., Philippine American Press Club-Northern California, and We Citizen Advocates for Reform Movement, Inc., operating under the umbrella organization of the Protect Our Democracy Movement, filed a formal request 7 with the COMELEC for the disclosure and/or release of the following information:
(a) all election results (in text format) organized per precinct for all national and local positions in the May 2010 elections, and;
(b) all photo images of all the ballots cast (in JPEG format) similarly organized per precinct in the May 2010 elections[.]8
In support of their request, the petitioners invoked Section 7, Article III of the 1987 Constitution in relation to Section 7 (f) of Republic Act No. 9369. 9
On October 6, 2010, petitioners refiled their request for the disclosure of the above-stated information with the COMELEC. Even after several telephone follow-ups, however, the petitioners failed to get a reply. Thus, on October 12, 2010, petitioner Mable went to the Office of Chairman Jose A. R. Melo to personally follow up their request. She was then informed that their request for information is still pending review by Acting Executive Director Bartolome J. Sinocruz, Jr. 10
On November 11, 2010, petitioners filed the instant petition for mandamus with this Court, alleging that the unexplained failure of the COMELEC to act on their request is tantamount to a constructive denial of the same, in violation of their constitutional right to information on a matter of public concern. They anchor their claim on the ruling of this Court in Guingona, Jr. v. COMELEC, 11 where we held that the conduct of the national and local elections is without doubt a matter of public concern as it involves nothing less than the exercise by the registered voters of their sacred right of suffrage, hence, the disclosure of election-related information is a ministerial duty of the COMELEC. 12
In its Comment, 13 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) contends that the petitioners do not have legal standing to file the petition. They cannot invoke their status as taxpayers since the complained act does not involve illegal expenditure of taxpayers' money or misapplication of public funds. They cannot likewise draw their right to file the petition on the fact that they are registered voters since the act complained of is not demonstrative of any violation of the right of suffrage. 14 The petitioners cannot also invoke their Filipino citizenship to establish their legal standing since the same necessitates: (1) some actual or threatened injury as a result of an allegedly illegal conduct of the government; (2) injury fairly traceable to the challenged action; and (3) injury likely to be redressed by a favorable action. 15
Secondly, the OSG contends that the petition was premature since the same was filed pending the resolution of the petitioners' request. The petitioners should have waited for the resolution of the COMELEC and refrained from speculating that the COMELEC will deny their request. The petitioners' apprehensions was actually proved wrong when the COMELEC issued Minute Resolution No. 10-1218, a few days after the instant petition was filed. In the said resolution, the COMELEC granted the request for the release of the copies of election returns in the May 2010 elections but not the ballot images, which are soft copies of the manual ballots cast during the elections. 16
Finally, the OSG avers that there is no absolute necessity for the petitioners to conduct their own version of a people's audit as the same had already been conducted by the Technical Working Group (TWG) of the RMA. Granting the petition will only result to a waste of resources and unnecessary duplication of what was already achieved by the random manual audit of the TWG-RMA. 17
The petition must be dismissed for being moot and academic.
A case becomes moot when there is no more actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits. Courts will not determine a moot question in a case in which no practical relief can be granted. It is unnecessary to indulge in academic discussion of a case presenting a moot question, as a judgment thereon cannot have any practical legal effect or, in the nature of things, cannot be enforced. 18
In Gancho-on v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, 19 we ratiocinated:
It is a rule of universal application, almost, that courts of justice constituted to pass upon substantial rights will not consider questions in which no actual interests are involved; they decline jurisdiction of moot cases. And where the issue has become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. There is no actual substantial relief to which petitioners would be entitled and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. 20 (Citations omitted)
The writ of mandamusserves to compel a respondent who fails to perform a legal duty or unlawfully excludes another from the enjoyment of an entitled right or office to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner. 21 Specifically, in this case, the petitioners seek to compel the COMELEC to release copies of the election results in text format and the photo images of all the ballots cast in JPEG format, organized per precinct for all national and local positions in the May 2010 elections. As early as November 2, 2010, however, the COMELEC en banc had already resolved the petitioners' letter-request, thus:
The Commission RESOLVED,as it hereby RESOLVES,to approve the foregoing recommendation of Director Ester L. Villaflor-Roxas, Election Records and Statistics Department (ERSD),on the request of Protect Our Democracy Movement for disclosure of information of public concern on all election results (in text format) and photo images of ballots cast (in JPEG) for all positions, in connection with the May 10, 2010 National and Local Elections, as follows:
1. That the requested copies of election returns in hard copy can be issued by ERSD to the interested party, subject to existing policy;
2. That the requested copies of election returns in soft copy can be issued by the ERSD to the interested party, subject to approval of the Commission and payment of the necessary fees, which is Five Pesos (Php5.00) per precinct; Provided, that the soft copy to be released shall be hashed to trace if there are changes made after its issuance; and
3. To deny the request for ballot images, since said images are the soft copy of the manual ballots except when required by courts or when there is a recount of ballots.
Let the Election Records and Statistics Department implement this Resolution.
SO ORDERED. 22
Notably, the petitioners filed the instant petition for mandamus even before the COMELEC could act on their request. On this score alone, the petition is dismissible for being prematurely filed. It bears stressing that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that may be availed of only when there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It is thus premature if there are administrative remedies available to the petitioner. If superior administrative officers could grant the relief prayed for, special civil actions are generally not entertained. 23 Thus, in the instant case, the petitioners should have waited until their request was acted upon by the COMELEC, as in fact it did, and not simply relied on the speculation that the same had been constructively dismissed and forthwith file a petition for mandamus.
At any rate, the instant petition had been rendered moot and academic by the conclusion of the May 2013 elections. By virtue of this supervening event, an academic discussion of the merits of the instant petition would be an exercise in futility. It must be remembered that the petitioners, in requesting for the copies of the election results and photo images of all ballots casts in the May 2010 elections, aim to "enable the voters at large to audit the AES and verify the correctness of reported election results, put in doubt by the actual and virtual disablement of various security features." 24 With the conclusion of the May 2013 elections and the proclamation of the new sets of national and local officials, it is pointless to audit and validate the results of the May 2010 elections because it can no longer change or alter anything that has gone in the past elections.
WHEREFORE,the petition is DISMISSED for having become MOOT and ACADEMIC." Carpio, J.,on official leave. (adv53)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDALClerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo,pp. 3-16.
2.Id. at 3-4.
3.Id. at 4.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 6.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 17-22.
8.Id. at 17.
9.Id. at 8.
10.Id. at 8-9.
11.G.R. No. 191846, May 6, 2010, 620 SCRA 448.
12.Rollo,pp. 9-10.
13.Id. at 56-79.
14.Id. at 62-63.
15.Id. at 65.
16.Id. at 68.
17.Id. at 77-78.
18.Baldo, Jr. v. Commission on Elections,G.R. No. 176135, June 16, 2009, 589 SCRA 306, 310-311, citing Villarico v. Court of Appeals,424 Phil. 26, 33-34 (2002); Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor,371 Phil. 30, 43 (1999); Lanuza, Jr. v. Yuchengco,494 Phil. 125, 133 (2005).
19.337 Phil. 654 (1997).
20.Id. at 658.
21.Reliance Surety & Insurance Co.,Inc. v. Judge Amante, Jr.,501 Phil. 86, 102 (2005),citing Section 3, Rule 65, RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
22.Rollo,pp. 82-83.
23.Militante v. Court of Appeals,386 Phil. 522, 538 (2000),citing Perez v. The City Mayor of Cabanatuan, et al.,113 Phil. 418 (1961); Booc v. Osmeña, Jr.,et al.,112 Phil. 333 (1961); Peralta v. Salcedo,101 Phil. 452, 454 (1957).
24.Rollo,p. 23.