Case Digest (G.R. No. 264661)
Facts:
CLARYLYN A. LEGASPI, et al., PETITIONERS filed an original petition for certiorari and mandamus before the Court (En Banc) challenging respondent COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT for allegedly denying a signature campaign called the "APELA" and refusing to order a manual recount of provincial results in Pangasinan for the May 9, 2022 elections. COMELEC's Law Department replied by letters dated May 31 and July 7, 2022 advising the petitioners on electoral-protest and People's Initiative procedures and pointing to COMELEC's FOI rules; petitioners sought reconsideration and filed supplemental letters but did not present the APELA signature pages or a specific FOI request before filing here. The Court dismissed the petition.
Issues:
- Are the verifications in the petition defective under Rule 7, Section 4?
- Do petitioners have locus standi to sue?
- Can the action be maintained as a class suit?
- Is there an actual case or controversy justiciable by the Court?
- Did petitioners exhaust administrative remedies, including COMELEC's FOI procedures?
- Do certiorari or mandamus lie to compel a provincial manual recount or disclosure here?
Ruling:
The Court dismissed the petition. The Court held the verifications were substantively defective because petitioners lacked personal knowledge and failed to attach authentic supporting documents. Petitioners lacked standing and failed to show a concrete injury or transcendental urgency. The petition could not be treated as a class suit because the signature pages were not presented and representativeness was unproven. There was no justiciable controversy as COMELEC did not plainly deny a cognizable FOI request or commit grave abuse. Petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies under COMELEC's FOI Manual. Consequently, neither certiorari nor mandamus could be granted to order the recount or the broad disclosure sought.
Ratio:
The Court applied Rule 7, Section 4 and Rule 65 verification requirements and held that allegations must rest on personal knowledge or authentic records; mere information and belief drawn from unauthenticated social media and news is insufficient. FOI jurisprudence (e.g., Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission and related precedents) recognizes a self‑executing right of access but places the burden on the custody agency to justify non‑disclosure and requires a proper administrative request; COMELEC promulgated COMELEC Resolution No. 10685 and an internal appeals process which petitioners did not use. Finally, writs of mandamus and certiorari require, respectively, a clear legal right and ministerial duty, and proof of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction—requirements unmet here, and precedents cited by petitioners (e.g., Loong v. Commission on Elections) were inapposite.
Doctrine:
- Verification under Rule 7, Section 4 must be based on personal knowledge or authentic records; allegations grounded on information and belief are insufficient.
- (Get Pro to unlock 5 more doctrines)