SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

CONCURRING and DISSENTING OPINION

PADILLA, J.:

I concur in the Tribunals Resolution dismissing the present protest and, as a consequence, the counter protest. My concurrence is anchored not on the merits of the protest and counter-protest - since they have not reached the period of appreciation or evaluation of the ballots - nor on the failure of protestant to comply with procedural requirements, but simply upon the protestants assumption and discharge of office as a Senator of the Republic after the 8 May 1995 elections.

Protestants candidacy for Senator in the 8 May 1995 elections, her election to said office and her actual assumption and discharge of the office, combined to constitute, in my view, a supervening fact that rendered moot and academic her present protest because, if she were to pursue her present protest (without such supervening fact) and, if she were to win the protest, her term of office as President of the Philippines would in any case expire on 30 June 1998 . When she, however, chose to run for Senator in the 8 May 1995 elections, which was after her filing of the present protest, she knew that, if elected, her term of office as Senator would expire only on 30 June 2001. Therefore, as a successful protestant in this case, she could be President only up to 30 June 1998. What happens then to the last three (3) years of her term as Senator, i.e., 30 June 1998 to 30 June 2001? There would be a void, a hiatus or vacuum because after serving as President up to 30 June 1998, she can no longer assume the office of Senator from 30 June 1998 to 30 June 2001. There would likewise be a void, a hiatus or vacuum in her term of office as Senator from the time she assumes the presidency to 30 June 1998 (assuming she were to win the present protest). Thus, by continuing this protest, there could result an ensuing vacuum in the office of Senator, to which position protestant has been duly elected subsequent to the filing of her present protest. And yet, natura vacuum abhorret. (Nature abhors a vacuum).

Public policy-wise, it is also not fair to the people to elect a Senator for six (6) years and yet, he or she will serve for less than that period. In other words, by voluntarily opting to become a Senator of the land with a term of office expiring on 30 June 2001, protestant must be deemed to have abandoned this protest which, if successfully pursued, would at most bring her only up to 30 June 1998 in the office of the President, with the last three (3) years of her term as Senator going to waste, in terms of loss of peoples representation in the Senate.

I repeat that in this protest, protestant seeks to be declared as the truly elected President up to 30 June 1998. In the 8 May 1995 elections, however, she was elected Senator for a term ending on 30 June 2001. As Senator, she has become a member of the legislative department of government impressed with the duty, among others, to fiscalize the executive. She cannot, in my view, opt to fiscalize the executive until she herself becomes the executive, at which point, she will abandon the fiscalizing duty entrusted to her by the people. She must choose only one of the two (2) positions involved; she cannot have both within overlapping periods of time. And she, in fact, made the choice - becoming and qualifying as a Senator of the Republic from 30 June 1995 to 30 June 2001.

It appears clear that the people (electorate) expect her to perform dutifully, creditably and successfully in the position of her last and most recent choice.

She should, in my considered view, be deemed to have abandoned or waived her claim to the Presidency of the Republic, at least until 30 June 1998, when she can run for the said office without relinquishing or forfeiting her seat as Senator (See Sec. 67, Art. IX, BP 881).