EN BANC
[G.R. No. 223300. May 31, 2016.]
JORGE ANTONIO GENARO J. EJERCITO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated MAY 31, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 223300 (Jorge Antonio Genaro J. Ejercito v. Commission on Elections). — The certiorari jurisdiction of this Court encompasses any act that amounts to grave abuse of discretion of any branch or instrumentality of government. However, this Court should only review petitions that present actual cases or controversies. Relief cannot be granted in cases that have been rendered moot by supervening events.
This is a Special Civil Action for Certiorari1 filed under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner Jorge Antonio Genaro J. Ejercito seeks the annulment of the Commission on Elections' Minute Resolution No. 16-0115 dated March 1, 2016 insofar as it denied his request for the deletion of his name from the official ballots for the May 9, 2016 Elections. 2
On February 1, 2016, petitioner personally filed his Withdrawal of Candidacy for Governor of Laguna. 3
On February 18, 2016, petitioner's counsel, Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal (Atty. Macalintal), wrote a letter addressed to Commission on Elections Chairperson Andres D. Bautista. 4 Atty. Macalintal stated that upon verification with the Commission on Elections' Law Department on February 17, 2016, petitioner's name was still included in the official ballots for the May 9, 2016 Elections. 5 Atty. Macalintal prayed that the matter be directed to the Commission on Elections and that his client's name be deleted from the ballots. 6 He pointed out that there were reports that the printing of ballots had been postponed in view of the non-inclusion of presidential candidate Miriam Defensor-Santiago's political party. 7 This accommodation should likewise be extended to petitioner. 8 Atty. Macalintal claimed that the voters would be confused since petitioner's father, Emilio Ramon "E.R." Ejercito, was also running for Governor of Laguna. 9
On February 29, 2016, Acting Director IV Atty. Maria Norina S. Tangaro-Casingal (Atty. Tangaro-Casingal) of the Commission on Elections' Law Department issued a Memorandum pertaining to petitioner's request for the withdrawal of his Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Governor of Laguna. 10 The Memorandum of Atty. Tangaro-Casingal reads:
This pertains to the letter of Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal dated February 18, 2016 addressed to the Honorable Chairman J. Andres D. Bautista, which was endorsed to and received by this Department on February 24, 2016. In the said letter, Atty. Macalintal is requesting for the deletion of the name of Jorge Antonio Genaro J. Ejercito (Ejercito) who withdrew his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for the position of Governor of the Province of Laguna on February 1, 2016 before the Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor (OPES).
Based on our records, Ejercito filed a COC for the said position on October 16, 2015. On November 23, 2015, he filed a Statement of Cancellation/Withdrawal of his candidacy before the OPES of Laguna. However, it was filed by an authorized representative named Rofel D. Yulatic by virtue of an Authority to Submit Statement of Cancellation/Withdrawal dated November 23, 2015.
Section 18, Rule II of Resolution No. 9984 governs withdrawals of COCs, viz. —
Section 18. Withdrawal of Certificate of Candidacy. — Any candidate may personally file, at any time before Election Day and subject to Section 19, Rule II hereof, a sworn Statement of Cancellation/Withdrawal, in five original copies, with the Office where the COC was filed.
No statement of Cancellation/Withdrawal filed by a person other than the candidate or if filed by mail, electronic mail, or facsimile shall be accepted.
xxx xxx xxx
Thus, as per our rules on withdrawals of candidacy, Ejercito's withdrawal, which was not personally filed, was not given due course. His name remained in the official ballots. He was notified of this Department's action on his withdrawal in our letter, dated December 3, 2016, addressed to Ejercito. CHTAIc
On February 2, 2016, this Department received a letter from OPES of Laguna forwarding Ejercito's Statement of Cancellation/Withdrawal dated February 1, 2016, this time with a Certification that the withdrawal was filed by Ejercito himself, thus, personally filed.
However, due to the timelines that the Commission is under, this Department did not delete the names of those who filed their withdrawals of candidacy after January 29, 2016, including Ejercito's.
Thus, in consideration of the letter request of Atty. Macalintal, we would like to refer the matter to the sound discretion of the Commission En Banc. 11 (Emphasis in the original)
Based on the Minutes of the Meeting of the Commission on Elections En Banc, the Commission on Elections decided to deny Atty. Macalintal's request for the deletion of petitioner's name on March 1, 2016. 12 Thus:
Considering that the herein request of Atty. Romulo Macalintal is no longer feasible at the moment considering the tight timelines in the preparation for the May 9, 2016 National and Local Elections, the Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to deny the request of Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal for the deletion of the name of Jorge Antonio Genaro J. Ejercito. 13 (Emphasis in the original)
Petitioner filed before this Court a Petition for Certiorari14 assailing the Commission on Elections' denial of the request for the deletion of petitioner's name from the ballots.
Petitioner argues that despite his timely withdrawal of his Certificate of Candidacy on February 1, 2016, the Commission on Elections denied his request to delete his name from the ballots without legal ground. 15 He argues that the Commission on Elections' failure to delete his name from the ballots would cause confusion among the voters because of the similarity of his name to his father's. 16
Petitioner points out that on February 17, 2016, the Commission on Elections was able to stop ballot-printing because the name of presidential candidate Miriam Defensor-Santiago's political party was not included in the ballots. 17 This showed that the Commission on Elections still had time after petitioner filed his Withdrawal of Candidacy to correct the ballots. 18 cHDAIS
Petitioner argues that the Commission on Elections' refusal to delete his name was discriminatory against him, a provincial candidate, given the accommodation given to Miriam Defensor-Santiago, a national candidate. 19
Petitioner prays that the official ballots for Laguna be scheduled last to be printed so the Commission on Elections can use the opportunity to delete petitioner's name:
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that:
1. Upon the filing hereof, a special raffle of this Petition be immediately conducted so that petitioner's urgent application for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary mandatory injunction may be immediately acted upon.
2. Thereafter, and pending hearing of this Petition, a temporary restraining order be issued DIRECTING respondent Comelec to CEASE and DESIST from printing the official ballots of the Province of Laguna if the same has not yet been started by the Comelec and/or a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction be issued DIRECTING respondent to immediately delete/remove the name of petitioner as a candidate for Governor in the official ballots for the province of Laguna relative to the 09 May 2016 elections, until further orders of this Honorable Court.
3. If the official ballots intended for the Province of Laguna have not yet been printed, it is, [sic] respectfully prayed [that] a resolution be likewise issued DIRECTING Comelec to schedule the printing of the ballots for the aforesaid province as the last batch of ballots to be printed in order to afford respondent Comelec with an opportunity to delete the name of petitioner from said official ballots for the province of Laguna, considering that the printing of ballots will be until 25 April 2016.
4. Thereafter, after due notice and hearing, a decision be rendered ANNULING[sic] and SETTING ASIDE respondent Comelec's Assailed Minute Resolution No. 16-0115, dated 01 March 2016, and making the issued writ of preliminary mandatory injunction PERMANENT and GRANTING the instant Petition by DIRECTING respondent Comelec to delete the name of petitioner as candidate for Governor of the Province of Laguna from the official ballots to be printed for said province for the May 9, 2016 elections.
Petitioner prays for such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises. 20 (Emphasis in the original)
On the other hand, the Commission on Elections argues that this Court should dismiss the Petition because petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the Commission on Elections' March 1, 2016 Resolution. 21
The Commission on Elections also argues that the Petition is essentially a petition for mandamus. It cannot be granted because the decision to delete petitioner's name from the ballots is discretionary upon the Commission on Elections. 22 In any case, the Commission on Elections did not gravely abuse its discretion when it denied petitioner's request for deletion of his name given the tight timeline for the preparation for the May 9, 2016 Elections. 23
On May 9, 2016, the National and Local Elections were held.
The sole issue for resolution is whether the Commission on Elections gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioner's request for the deletion of his name from the ballots on the ground of "tight timelines."
We dismiss the Petition.
Petitioner invokes this Court's certiorari jurisdiction under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
The Commission on Elections points out that this Court cannot take cognizance of the Petition because petitioner failed to move for the reconsideration of the Commission on Elections' Resolution. A motion for reconsideration is a requisite for filing a Rule 65 petition.
The applicability of this Court's certiorari jurisdiction under Rule 65 is limited to judicial and quasi-judicial acts of tribunals, boards, and officers, which constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Rule 65, Section 1 states:
Section 1. Petition for certiorari. — When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require[.]
The Commission on Elections' exercise of its power to delete names of candidates who have withdrawn their certificates of candidacy is administrative and neither judicial nor quasi-judicial in nature.
In Chavez v. Commission on Elections, 24 Francisco Chavez filed a Rule 65 Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus against the Commission on Elections for its alleged grave abuse of discretion in not implementing its Resolution to delete the name of one Melchor Chavez from the list of senatorial candidates and count votes for him in Francisco Chavez's favor. 25
In Chavez, this Court classified as administrative in nature the Commission on Elections' decision to delete Melchor Chavez's name from the ballots and count votes for him in Francisco Chavez's favor. For this reason, this Court ruled that Francisco Chavez's Petition must fail, thus: ISHCcT
The alleged inaction of respondent Comelec in ordering the deletion of Melchor Chavez's name in the list of qualified candidates does not call for the exercise of the Court's function of judicial review. This Court can review the decisions or orders of the Comelec only in cases of grave abuse of discretion committed by it in the discharge of its quasi-judicial powers and not those arising from the exercise of its administrative functions. Respondent Commission's alleged failure to implement its own resolution is undoubtedly administrative in nature, hence, beyond judicial interference. 26
As in Chavez, the Commission on Elections in this case failed to delete a candidate's name from the ballots. This is an administrative matter that is not cognizable by this Court in a Rule 65 petition.
This is not to say, however, that this Court may no longer exercise its power of judicial review over non-judicial or non-quasi-judicial acts of government departments and agencies. The limitations under the Rules of Court do not bind this Court from exercising its constitutional duties under Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution, which provides:
SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution imposes upon this Court the duty to determine whether there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction 27 on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government. It is an expansion of this Court's jurisdiction to include, unreservedly, acts exercised with grave abuse of discretion by any branch or instrumentality of government, including the executive and legislative branches and the constitutional commissions. It contains no qualification as to the type of action that may be determined by this Court.
This Court's jurisdiction covers all acts committed by any government branch or instrumentality, regardless of the nature of those acts. As long as there is a case or controversy involving demandable rights and an exercise of power allegedly committed in grave abuse of discretion, this Court is duty-bound to determine whether that power was exercised capriciously, arbitrarily, whimsically, and without basis under the law or the Constitution. 28
This Court's exercise of its judicial power under Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution is not an abandonment of the principle of judicial deference. Indeed, the power — as well as the duty — to administer election laws is vested in the Commission on Elections, 29 and courts should limit interference with that power. However, when the Commission on Elections deviates from its mandate, it is this Court's duty to redirect the Commission's course along constitutional channels. 30
In Sumulong v. Commission on Elections: 31
The Commission on Elections is a constitutional body. It is intended to play a distinct and important part in our scheme of government. In the discharge of its functions, it should not be hampered with restrictions that would be fully warranted in the case of a less responsible organization. The Commission may err, so may this court also. It should be allowed considerable latitude in devising means and methods that will insure the accomplishment of the great objective for which it was created — free, orderly and honest elections. We may not agree fully with its choice of means, but unless these are clearly illegal or constitute gross abuse of discretion, this, courtshould not interfere.
xxx xxx xxx
There are no ready-made formulas for solving public problems. Time and experience are necessary to evolve patterns that will serve the ends of good government. In the matter of the administration of the laws relative to the conduct of elections, as well as in the appointment of election inspectors, we must not by any excessive zeal take away from the Commission on Elections the initiative which by constitutional and legal mandates properly belongs to it. Due regard to the independent character of the Commission, as ordained in the Constitution, requires that the power of this court to review the acts of that body should, as a general proposition, be used sparingly, but firmly in appropriate cases. 32 (Emphasis supplied)
The act in question is the Commission on Elections' refusal, for lack of time, to delete petitioner's name from the ballots after he voluntarily withdrew his candidacy in November 2015, through a representative, and on February 1, 2016, in person.
Petitioner seeks relief from the effects of such refusal.
At this point, however, this Court may no longer grant any relief to petitioner, regardless of the merits of his argument. This case has been rendered moot and academic by the conclusion of the May 9, 2016 National and Local Elections.
Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution limits this Court's power to review actions of government instrumentalities to actual cases and controversies. "Actual case or controversy" is defined in David v. Macapagal-Arroyo: 33 CAacTH
An actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal right, an opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution. It is "definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interest"; a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief. 34
Moot and academic cases present no actual case or controversy.
A case is rendered moot and academic when this Court is left with no issue or justiciable controversy to resolve by virtue of supervening events. 35 When courts decide cases that present no justiciable controversy, those decisions become nothing but advisory opinions that are of no use or practical value. 36 Courts cannot render advisory opinions. Thus, cases that have been rendered moot and academic are dismissed by this Court, 37 except for the following instances:
(1) Grave constitutional violations; 38
(2) Exceptional character of the case; 39
(3) Paramount public interest; 40
(4) The case presents an opportunity to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; 41 or
(5) The case is capable of repetition yet evading review. 42
With the conclusion of the National and Local Elections, this Court can no longer order the Commission on Elections to delete petitioner's name from the ballots. Any ruling on the Commission's alleged grave abuse of discretion will be nothing but an advisory opinion. It will no longer change the results of the elections. Therefore, this Court is left with no choice but to dismiss the Petition. Furthermore, we find nothing in this case that merits the application of the exceptions to the rule on moot and academic cases.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED. The Comment filed by the Office of the Solicitor General is NOTED.
In view thereof, the Urgent Manifestation/Motion in View of Recent Developments filed by counsel for petitioner is NOTED WITHOUT ACTION." Leonardo-de Castro and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., on official business. Jardeleza, J., on official leave. (adv115)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) FELIPA B. ANAMAClerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-20.
2. Id. at 19.
3. Id. at 24, Statement of Cancellation/Withdrawal, and 26, Certification.
4. Id. at 27.
5. Id.
6. Id.
7. Id.
8. Id.
9. Id.
10. Id. at 21, Excerpt from the Minutes of the Regular En Banc Meeting of the Commission on Elections held on March 1, 2016.
11. Id. at 21-22.
12. Id. at 22.
13. Id.
14. Id. at 3-20.
15. Id. at 4.
16. Id. at 3.
17. Id. at 4.
18. Id.
19. Id. at 4-5.
20. Id. at 18-19.
21. Id. at 46-48, Commission on Elections' Comment.
22. Id. at 48-50.
23. Id. at 50-55.
24. G.R. No. 105323, July 3, 1992, 211 SCRA 315 [Per J. Bidin, En Banc].
25. Id. at 317-318.
26. Id. at 320, citing Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop v. Ferrer, 219 Phil. 536, 544-545 (1985) [Per J. Cuevas, Second Division]; Aratuc v. Commission on Elections, 177 Phil. 205, 223-224 (1979) [Per J. Barredo, En Banc]; Puñgutan v. Abubakar, 150 Phil. 1, 11-13 (1972) [Per J. Fernando, En Banc].
27. Taguiam v. Commission on Elections, 611 Phil. 856, 863-864 (2009) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, En Banc], citing Fernandez v. Commission on Elections, 535 Phil. 122 (2006) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, En Banc]: "Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as would amount to lack of jurisdiction; it contemplates a situation where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by, or to act at all in contemplation of law."
28. See also Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936) [Per J. Laurel, En Banc].
29. CONST., art. IX (C), sec. 2.
30. Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139, 157 (1936) [Per J. Laurel, En Banc].
31. 73 Phil. 288 (1941) [Per J. Abad Santos, En Banc].
32. Id. at 294-296.
33. 522 Phil. 705 (2006) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, En Banc].
34. Id. at 753.
35. Id. at 754. See also Province of Batangas v. Romulo, 473 Phil. 806, 826-827 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., En Banc]; and Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, 466 Phil. 482, 505-506 (2004) [Per J. Tinga, En Banc].
36. Lu v. Lu Ym, 585 Phil. 251, 269 (2008) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
37. David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 522 Phil. 705, 754 (2006) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, En Banc].
38. Gov. Mandanas v. Romulo, 473 Phil. 806, 826-827 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., En Banc]; Lu v. Lu Ym, 585 Phil. 251, 271 (2008) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
39. David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 522 Phil. 705, 754 (2006) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, En Banc]; Lu v. Lu Ym, 585 Phil. 251, 271 (2008) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
40. David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 522 Phil. 705, 754 (2006) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, En Banc]; Lu v. Lu Ym, 585 Phil. 251, 271 (2008) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
41. Gov. Mandanas v. Romulo, 473 Phil. 806, 826-827 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., En Banc]; Lu v. Lu Ym, 585 Phil. 251, 271 (2008) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
42. David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 522 Phil. 705, 754 (2006) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, En Banc]; Gov. Mandanas v. Romulo, 473 Phil. 806, 826-827 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., En Banc]; Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, 466 Phil. 482, 505-506 (2004) [Per J. Tinga, En Banc]; and Alunan v. Mirasol, 342 Phil. 467, 476 (1997) [Per J. Mendoza, En Banc].