Case Digest (G.R. No. 148334)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 148334)
Facts:
Arturo M. Tolentino and Arturo C. Mojica v. Commission on Elections, Senator Ralph G. Recto and Senator Gregorio B. Honasan, G.R. No. 148334, January 21, 2004, the Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio, J., writing for the Court. This is a petition for prohibition seeking to set aside COMELEC Resolutions No. NBC 01-005 (5 June 2001) and No. NBC 01-006 (20 July 2001), which proclaimed and then made final the ranking of thirteen (13) candidates elected to the Senate in the 14 May 2001 elections, with the thirteenth-placer declared to serve the unexpired three-year term of Senator Teofisto Guingona, Jr.Shortly after President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo succeeded to the Presidency in January 2001, she nominated then-Senator Teofisto Guingona, Jr. as Vice-President; Congress confirmed him and he took his oath on 9 February 2001. On 8 February 2001 the Senate adopted Senate Resolution No. 84, certifying the vacancy and calling on COMELEC to fill it by special election to be held simultaneously with the regular elections on 14 May 2001, and stating that the senatorial candidate garnering the 13th highest number of votes would serve only the unexpired term (ending 30 June 2004).
On 5 June 2001 COMELEC, after canvassing all but one provincial returns, issued Resolution No. 01-005 provisionally proclaiming thirteen (13) winners and stating that the first twelve would serve six-year terms while the thirteenth would serve Guingona’s unexpired three-year term; Recto and Honasan ranked 12th and 13th, respectively. Petitioners, as voters and taxpayers, filed on 20 June 2001 a petition for prohibition impleading only COMELEC, seeking to enjoin proclamation of any winner of the supposed special election and to annul Resolution No. 01-005 insofar as it proclaimed the 13th-placer winner of the special three-year seat.
Petitioners alleged COMELEC acted without jurisdiction because it (1) failed to give the notice required by R.A. No. 6645 (as amended), (2) failed to require candidates to indicate in their certificates of candidacy whether they ran for the special or regular seats (citing B.P. Blg. 881, Sec. 73), and (3) failed to distinguish candidates/votes for the special election in Voters Information Sheets or election returns (citing R.A. No. 6646). After COMELEC completed canvass and on 20 July 2001 issued Resolution No. 01-006 declaring official and final the ranking, the Court ordered petitioners to amend and implead Recto and Honasan; petitioners did so and sought annulment of both resolutions.
In their Comments, COMELEC, Honasan, and Recto defended the validity of the special election, and raised preliminary arguments that the petition was moot, that petitioners lacked standing, and that the relief sought was in substance a quo warranto action within the exclusive cognizance of the Senate Electoral Tribunal. The Court required COMELEC to comment and set the matter for resolution; no TRO was issued. The Court ultimately resolved the petition by decision dated 21 January 2004.
Issues:
- Procedural:
- Is the petition in substance a quo warranto over which the Senate Electoral Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction?
- Is the petition moot given COMELEC’s proclamations and the senators’ assumption of office?
- Do petitioners (voters and taxpayers) have standing to bring the petition?
- Substantive:
- Was a special election to fill the vacant three-year Senate term validly held simultaneously with the 14 May 2001 regular elections?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)