Case Digest (G.R. No. 168792)
Facts:
On January 9, 2004, Datu Israel Sinsuat filed with the Commission on Elections a petition to deny due course to or cancel the certificate of candidacy of Antonio B. Gunsi, Sr. for Mayor of South Upi, Maguindanao, alleging that Gunsi was not a registered voter because his application for registration was unsigned and was irregularly inserted in the voters' list. After an Investigating Officer's recommendation of disqualification, the COMELEC Second Division issued an August 2, 2004 resolution finding irregularities but dismissing the petition as moot; it then issued an October 11, 2004 Order declaring Gunsi disqualified, and the COMELEC En Banc denied reconsideration on June 9, 2005, whereupon Gunsi filed this petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Issues:
- Whether the Commission on Elections has jurisdiction over cases involving the right to vote?
- Whether the COMELEC Second Division could clarify its resolution sixty-nine days after promulgation or after it became final and executory?
- Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in resolving the disqualification petition?
- Whether the COMELEC correctly disqualified Gunsi for being a non-registered resident due to his failure to sign his application for registration?
Ruling:
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that the matter was moot and academic because the term of the contested office had expired and none of the exceptions to mootness applied. On the merits, the Court affirmed the COMELEC Second Division Order dated October 11, 2004 and the COMELEC En Banc Resolution dated June 9, 2005, finding no grave abuse of discretion.
Ratio:
The Court applied Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8189, which mandates personal accomplishment of the registration form with specimen signatures, thumbprints, and photographs. The evidence showed only a photocopy of an unsigned application, absence of the administering officer's signature, testimony that the application was not encountered by board members, and that the name was irregularly inserted in the voters' list; thus Gunsi did not meet the statutory requirements and was not a registered voter. The Court also relied on the mootness doctrine as articulated in David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, finding none of its exceptions (grave constitutional violation, paramount public interest, need to formulate controlling principles, or capability of repetition yet evading review) present.
Doctrine:
- Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8189 requires strict compliance with the prescribed voter registration formalities, including specimen signatures and oath, for registration to be valid.
- A candidate who is not a registered voter under the statutory scheme may be disqualified and have his COC cancelled.
- A case becomes moot and academic upon supervening events that render judicial relief ineffectual, and courts will not decide such cases unless one of the established exceptions applies as in David v. Macapagal-Arroyo.