Marquez v. Commission on Elections

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 238274. November 9, 2021.]

MAYOR CELESTINO T. MARQUEZ, petitioner, vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, EDNA S. GENER, ELECTION OFFICER IV OF PANDI, BULACAN, ATTY. BARTOLOME J. SINOCRUZ, JR., DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS, COMELEC, and ARNOLD P. LAGDAMEO, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedNOVEMBER 9, 2021, which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 238274 (Mayor Celestino T. Marquez vs. Commission on Elections, Edna S. Geller, Election Officer IV of Pandi, Bulacan, Atty. Bartolome J. Sinocruz, Jr., Deputy Executive Director for Operations, COMELEC, and Arnold P. Lagdameo). — Petitioner challenges on certiorari, under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the Resolution 1 dated March 28, 2018 in EM No. 18-001 (RCL) entitled 'In the Matter of the Petition for Recall of Mayor Celestino T. Marquez, Pandi, Bulacan' and Minute Resolution No. 17-0718 2 dated November 28, 2017 of public respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the issuance thereof, and praying for the issuance of a temporary restraining order/status quo ante order and/or writ of preliminary injunction.

Antecedents

Private respondent Arnold P. Lagdameo (Lagdameo) led the initiation and filing of a Petition for Recall 3 against Mayor Celestino T. Marquez (petitioner) for loss of confidence. The petition was supported by the following documents: (1) The Voter's Certification of Lagdameo; (2) Certification of Voting Age Population of Pandi, Bulacan issued on September 30, 2017 by the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA); (3) Letter dated July 24, 2017 issued by Darwin D. David, OIC-Provincial Director of Department of the Interior and Local Government, certifying that petitioner assumed office at noon of June 30, 2016; (4) EastWest Manager's Check in the amount of Php15,000 addressed to the COMELEC; and (5) Folder per volume/barangay containing the alleged names and signatures of the supporting petitioners.

Acting on said petition for recall, Election Officer Emelyn Mendoza (EO Mendoza) evaluated the petition and its attachments and found it sufficient. Although she found that the position for which petitioner was being recalled was not indicated in the signature sheets, as required under Section 8 of COMELEC Resolution (CR) No. 7505, 4 she concluded that said petition was sufficient in form and that the petitioner satisfactorily complied with the required percentage of the voting population based on the certification issued by the PSA and that the necessary requirements set forth in Section 10 of CR No. 7505 were complied with. 5

On review, the Office of the Deputy Executive Director for Operations (ODEDO) headed by Bartolome Sinocruz, Jr. (Director Sinocruz) affirmed EO Mendoza's findings, stating that the indication in the signature sheets of the name of the local elective official sought to be recalled was substantial compliance considering that the position was already indicated in the petition itself, and there was no other official sought to be recalled in the petition. He also found that the discrepancy between EO Mendoza's count and the ODEDO's count as regards the number of supporting petitioners was not material, as either count was sufficient to support the petition. Accordingly, he recommended to certify the sufficiency of the petition. 6

On November 28, 2017, the COMELEC approved the ODEDO's recommendation in Minute Resolution No. 17-0718 to certify the sufficiency of the petition for recall.

Aggrieved, petitioner moved for reconsideration of said minute resolution, which was denied by the COMELEC in its Resolution dated March 28, 2018. The COMELEC ratiocinated that petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of EO Mendoza and Director Sinocruz's duties. It also ruled that the issue on forgeries of the signatures of the supporting petitioners was premature because the same should be raised during the verification process and not during the determination of sufficiency of a petition for recall.

Issues

Petitioner now comes before this Court alleging that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and acted contrary to law and existing jurisprudence when it certified the petition for recall as sufficient in form, notwithstanding the fact that it did not comply with the following requirements of CR No. 7505:

a) Failure to indicate the position of the official sought to be recalled on the signature sheets as required by Section 8 thereof;

b) Failure to state a brief narration of the reasons and justifications for the filing of the petition on the signature sheets as required by Section 8 thereof; and

c) Failure to attach the original documents as required by Section 10 thereof.

In addition, petitioner assails the COMELEC's failure to conduct a rehearing in EM No. 18-001 (RCL) after failing to reach a majority in its decision.

The Court's Ruling

Considering that the petition for recall subject of the present petition sought to remove petitioner during the remainder of his term which ended in 2019, We note that the petition is dismissible on the ground of mootness. In Gunsi, Sr. v. Commission on Elections, 7 We held that the expiration of the term of a mayor in an electoral disqualification case is a supervening event that renders the same moot and academic.

A case or issue is considered moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that an adjudication of the case or a declaration on the issue would be of no practical value or use. In such instance, there is no actual substantial relief which a petitioner would be entitled to, and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. Courts generally decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on the ground of mootness. This is because the judgment will not serve any useful purpose or have any practical legal effect because, in the nature of things, it cannot be enforced. 8

As applied to the case at bench, any declaration on the issue of whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it certified the petition for recall as sufficient in form would serve no practical purpose since petitioner's term had ended and he has, in fact, been unseated following the 2019 midterm election. The clear will of the electorate as expressed in the ballots had rendered inutile the progress of the petition for recall, much less the conduct of a recall election.

Moreover, on January 31, 2020, the COMELEC promulgated CR No. 10649 which expressly repealed CR No. 7505. 9 Under CR No. 10649, a petition which lacks a supporting document such as the signature sheet, one of which must be an original, shall not be accepted, thus:

Section 11. Supporting documents to a petition for recall. — The petition shall be supported by the following documents which shall be prepared in one (1) original and eight (8) duplicate copies.

The signature sheets shall be in the form prescribed by the Commission which shall contain the names, addresses and signatures of the supporting petitioners. x x x

xxx xxx xxx

A petition which lacks any of the supporting documents mentioned above shall not be accepted. For this purpose, the EO or PES concerned shall issue to the initiating petitioner a Certificate of Non-Acceptance of the petition, and the reason for its non-acceptance.

Further, Section 30 10 of CR No. 10649 has dismissed all pending petitions for recall initiated pursuant to CR No. 7505, such as the petition subject of this case.

Nonetheless, such supervening event does not ipso facto deprive this Court of the opportunity to pass upon the merits of a case which is already before it should the circumstances warrant the application of exceptions to the mootness doctrine.

Jurisprudence provides the following exceptions to the mootness doctrine: (1) there is a grave violation of the Constitution; (2) the case involves a situation of exceptional character and is of paramount public interest; (3) the constitutional issue raised requires the formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar and the public; and (4) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. 11

In Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, 12 We used the 'capable of repetition yet evading review' exception in order '[t]o prevent similar questions from re-emerging.' However, in International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), 13 We refrained from considering said case as one capable of repetition yet evading review because of the issuance of a new regulatory framework which was substantially different from that which was previously applied. Similarly, were it not for the promulgation of CR No. 10649, We would have applied said exception in resolving the case on its merits. Considering, however, that the question on whether failure to attach the original signature sheets would warrant the non-acceptance of the petition for being insufficient in form has been squarely addressed by said resolution, there is no longer a need to prevent similar questions from re-emerging.

Nevertheless, even in cases where supervening events had made the cases moot, the Court did not hesitate to resolve the legal or constitutional issues raised to formulate controlling principles to guide the bench, bar and public. 14 Indeed, the exercise of recall is a sovereign and constitutive function of the electorate and guidance by the court is essential.

Recall is an incident of sovereign power granted by no less than the 1987 Philippine Constitution. 15 It is a mechanism of democratic government whereby constituents are given the power to remove an elected official from office before the end of his or her term. 16 Pursuant to the constitutional policy of ensuring accountability of local government units, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7160, or the Local Government Code of 1991, provided the specifications and limitations in the exercise of the power of recall. Further, under the Constitution, the COMELEC is mandated to 'enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall' 17 and is empowered to 'promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it.' 18Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, or the Omnibus Election Code, likewise empowers the Commission to '[p]romulgate rules and regulations implementing the provisions of this Code or other laws which the Commission is required to enforce and administer x x x.' Hence, it promulgated CR No. 7505 entitled 'Rules and Regulations for the Recall of Elective Local Government Officials as Provided for under the Local Government Code, as Amended,' which laid down the procedure upon which the electorate may exercise its power to initiate a recall. Section 8 thereof enumerates the details which must be contained in the petition for recall as well as in the signature sheets of the supporting petitioners, to wit:

Section 8. Format of the petition for recall. — The petition for recall shall be in writing and under oath, prepared in twelve (12) copies, and contain the following:

a. The name, address and signature of the main petitioner;

b. The name, address and signature of the main petitioner's representative, if any;

c. The name of the official sought to be recalled, including his position;

d. A brief narration of the reasons and justifications for the filing of the petition;

e. The names, addresses and signatures of the supporting petitioners; and

f. The barangay, municipality, city, and signatures of the supporting petitioners;

The names, addresses and signatures of the supporting petitioners shall be indicated on signature sheets, in the form prescribed by the Commission. Each page of the signature sheet shall also indicate the name of the official sought to be recalled, including his position, a briefnarration of the reasons and justifications for the filing of the petition, and the barangay, municipality, city, local legislative district and province to which each of the petitioners belong. (emphases supplied)

The above provision clearly directs the indication of the position of the official sought to be recalled and a brief narration of the reasons and justifications for the filing of the petition not only in the body of the petition itself but also on each page of the signature sheet. It bears stressing that this requirement was retained in CR No. 10649. 19 The reason therefor is not difficult to discern. Considering the number of supporting petitioners in a petition for recall, which could be in the tens of thousands as in the case at bench, the requirement ensures that each supporting petitioner is aware of the pertinent details which will allow him/her to make an informed judgment before affixing his/her signature on the signature sheet. Dispensing with this requirement will only increase the chances of fraud as when petitioners are made to sign a signature sheet without reading the contents of the petition and by merely relying, for instance, on the verbal communication of the main petitioner or his/her representative for the sake of expediency. It is, therefore, not an empty requirement but one that serves an important practical purpose.

In the case at bench, the signature sheets show the following details at the top of each page:

 

Petition for recall of	CELESTINO T. MARQUEZ
	Name and position of official sought to be recalled
	PANDI, BULACAN
	Local government unit
Reason/s for recall	LOSS OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE
	Brief narration of the reasons and justifications for filing of the petition20

 

While there was failure to indicate petitioner's position in the signature sheets as required by CR No. 7505, We agree with the COMELEC that the indication of his position in the petition itself is substantial compliance with the Rule. In fact, Section 70 (2) (c) of R.A. No. 7160 merely requires his name and not his position. The mention of an official's position would, however, be indispensable in a situation where two officials of the same local government unit bear the same or similar name and hold different government positions. In the case at bench, there is only one Mayor Celestino Marquez in Pandi, Bulacan. While petitioner claims that a certain Henry Marquez is a member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Pandi, his name is too different to cause confusion among the petitioners. Further, if indeed he is more known among his constituents by his nickname "Tinoy" rather than by his real name, the petitioners would certainly not have affixed their signatures to the petition had they not known who "Celestino Marquez" was.

As regards the failure to indicate a brief narration of the reasons and justifications for the filing of the petition, We likewise agree with the COMELEC that while it may be ideal to reproduce the same verbatim in the signature sheets, the brief statement "loss of trust and confidence" could encapsulate said grounds and may be considered substantial compliance as long as the narration and discussion of the reasons and justifications for the filing of the petition are present in the body thereof.

On the alleged failure to attach the original documents to the petition for recall, however, We previously explained that CR No. 10649 already warns that a petition which lacks an original signature sheet shall not be accepted. This requirement applied even during the effectivity of CR No. 7505 for important reasons.

Section 70 (b) (2) of R.A. No. 7160 and Section 8 of CR No. 7505 enumerate the required contents of the petition while Section 10 of CR No. 7505 lists the required attachments thereto. The fact that the signatures of the supporting petitioners form part of the enumeration in Section 8 of CR No. 7505 is a clear indication that the signature sheets are not mere attachments to the petition for recall but are an integral part thereof and are as indispensable as the page that contains the signature of the main petitioner himself. The aforementioned provisions do not treat the signature of the main petitioner and those of the supporting petitioners differently. The term "supporting" does not render the signatures of the supporting petitioners any less important than that of the main petitioner. On the contrary, all petitioners are on equal footing in a petition for recall because it is the required number of signatures which determines the sufficiency of the petition. Lacking such, the petition necessarily fails. The clear and unequivocal wording of Section 70 (b) (3) of R.A. No. 7160, as amended by R.A. No. 9244, provides that '[t]he COMELEC shall, within fifteen (15) days from the filing of the petition, certify to the sufficiency of the required number of signatures. Failure to obtain the required number of signatures automatically nullifies the petition.'

Accordingly, failure to attach the original signature sheets to the petition renders the same fatally defective, and the COMELEC's certification as to its sufficiency, a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on its part.

We take this opportunity to remind the COMELEC, as We have done in Tolentino v. COMELEC, 21 that it must strictly comply with all requirements under applicable laws relative to the conduct of elections as well as the exercise of the electorate of their power to recall, if only to uphold the sovereign will of the people and safeguard the rule of the majority. aScITE

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for having become moot and academic." (12)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MARIFE M. LOMIBAO-CUEVASClerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 68-78.

2.Id. at 95-108.

3.Id. at 109-118.

4. Rules and Regulations for the Recall of Elective Local Government Officials as Provided for under the Local Government Code, as Amended.

5.Rollo, pp. 119-123.

6.Id. at 69-71.

7. 599 Phil. 223 (2009).

8.ABS-CBN Corp. v. National Telecommunications Commission, G.R. No. 252119, August 25, 2020, citing Peñafrancia Sugar Mill, Inc. v. Sugar Regulatory Administration, 728 Phil. 535, 541 (2014).

9. CR No. 10649, Section 31. Repealing clause. — COMELEC Resolution No. 7505 dated 06 June 2005 and all other resolutions issued by the Commission which are inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

10. CR No. 10649, Section 30. Pending petition for recall. — Any pending petition for recall initiated pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 7505 dated 06 June 2005 is hereby dismissed without prejudice to its refiling in accordance with this Resolution.

11.Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr., 721 Phil. 416, 522 (2013), citing David v. Arroyo, 522 Phil. 705, 754 (2006).

12. 466 Phil. 482-548 (2004).

13. G.R. No. 209271, July 26, 2016 (Resolution).

14.Salonga v. Paño, 219 Phil. 402-432 (1985).

15. Constitution (1987), Art. X, Sec. 3. The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization with effective mechanisms of recall, initiative, and referendum x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)

16.Garcia v. Commission on Elections, 297 Phil. 1034 (1993).

17. Constitution (1987), Art. IX-C, Sec. 2 (1).

18. Constitution (1987), Art. IX-A, Sec. 6.

19. CR No. 10649, Sec. 11.

20.Rollo, pp. 163-166.

21. 465 Phil. 385, 416 (2004).