Case Digest (G.R. No. L-68379-81)
Facts:
Evelio B. Javier v. The Commission on Elections, and Arturo F. Pacificador, G.R. Nos. L-68379-81, September 22, 1986, Supreme Court En Banc, Cruz, J., writing for the Court.
The petitioner, Evelio B. Javier, and the private respondent, Arturo F. Pacificador, were rivals for a seat in the Batasang Pambansa representing the Province of Antique in the May 1984 elections. On the eve of the election (May 13, 1984) several followers of Javier were ambushed and killed; seven suspects, including Pacificador, were later charged in connection with those murders. Javier alleged that the atmosphere of violence and intimidation affected the polls and the canvass of returns.
After the elections, the petitioner filed complaints with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) challenging the canvass and seeking to prevent Pacificador’s proclamation, alleging "massive terrorism, intimidation, duress, vote-buying, fraud, tampering and falsification of election returns." The Second Division of COMELEC initially directed the provincial board of canvassers to suspend proclamation, then ordered proclamation without prejudice to pending proceedings, and finally on July 23, 1984 the Second Division promulgated a decision proclaiming Pacificador as the elected assemblyman. Commissioner Jaime Opinion, despite a motion to inhibit because of a prior law partnership with Pacificador, refused to do so and participated in the decision.
Javier petitioned the Supreme Court for review of the COMELEC decision, contending that under Article XII-C, Sections 2 and 3 of the 1973 Constitution all contests involving members of the Batasang Pambansa must be heard and decided by the COMELEC en banc, not by a three-member division. The case was pending before this Court when Javier was assassinated on February 11, 1986; the Batasang Pambansa was later abolished by the post‑February 1986 government. The Solicitor General moved to dismiss the petition as moot and academic because of these supervening events.
The Court entertained the motion to dismiss and the merits. It denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that despite the supervening events the controversy presented issues of grave public importance warranting resolution. On the jurisdictional question, the Court considered whether the Second Division was authorized to promulgate the July 23, 1984 decision. The Court examined Article XII‑C, Sections 2 and 3 (1973 Constitution), the 1978 Election Code (P.D. No. 1296) Section 175, the prior Election Code (1971) Section 219, and relevant precedents and administrative rules. Although the Batasang Pambansa no longer existed and the petition was thus moot in a strict remedial sense, the Court concluded that the COMELEC division lacked jurisdiction to ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the petition moot and academic such that it must be dismissed?
- Was the Second Division of the Commission on Elections authorized to promulgate its July 23, 1984 decision proclaiming Arturo F. Pacificador the winner — i.e., must contests involving members of the Batasang Pambansa (including pre-proclamation controversies) be heard and dec...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)