September 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > September 2007 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 175026 : September 11, 2007] MARIA ZENAIDA "MRS. HARRY"ANGPING V. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND MILES ANDREW MARI ROCES:
[G.R. No. 175026 : September 11, 2007]
MARIA ZENAIDA "MRS. HARRY"ANGPING V. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND MILES ANDREW MARI ROCES
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated September 11, 2007
G.R. No. 175026 (Maria Zenaida "Mrs. Harry"Angping v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Miles Andrew Mari Roces) - This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court assailing the Decision dated September 7, 2006[1] of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) dismissing petitioner Maria Zenaida "Mrs. Harry" Angping's election protest, and the Resolution dated October 5, 2006[2] denying her motion for reconsideration in HRET Case No. 04-004.
Private respondent Miles Andrew Mari Roces and then Representative Harry Angping filed their respective Certificates of Candidacy (COC) for Representative of the Third Legislative District of Manila in the May 10, 2004 Elections.
On January 5, 2004, Alejandro Gomez, a registered voter of Manila, lodged with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) a petition to deny due course to or cancel the COC of Harry Angping: due to material representation on citizenship. The petition was docketed as SPA No. 04-244.
On April 30, 2004, the COMELEC First Division issued an order setting the promulgation of resolution in said case on May 5, 2004.
On May 3, 2004, Harry Angping filed with the COMELEC his sworn declaration of withdrawal of COC and motion to cancel promulgation of resolution and to dismiss SPA No. 04-224 for being moot and academic. The next day, May 4, 2004, the General Counsel of the Nationalist People's Coalition (NPC) sent a letter to the COMELEC officially nominating petitioner Maria Zenaida B. Angping as substitute of her husband Harry Angping for the same position.
On May 5, 2004, Commissioner Resurrecion Z. Borra ordered the deferment of the promulgation of resolution in SPA No. 04-224 for lack of quorum. Meanwhile, a resolution was issued by the COMELEC First Division on the same day denying Harry Angping's motion to cancel promulgation of resolution and to dismiss petition. It ruled that the motion to dismiss was filed after the promulgation on April 30, 2004 of the COMELEC resolution granting the petition to deny due course to Harry Angping's COC. The resolution also ordered the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) of the City of Manila not to count any vote cast in favor of Harry Angping. Said resolution, originally scheduled for promulgation on May 5, 2004, was deemed promulgated by the COMELEC on April 30, 2004 when a copy of the same was delivered to its Clerk. Harry Angping's counsel received a copy of the April 30, 2004 Resolution belatedly on May 8, 2004. Mr. Angping moved for reconsideration and an order was issued elevating his motion, together with the entire records of the case, to the COMELEC En Banc.
On May 8, 2004, while the records of the case had not yet been forwarded to the COMELEC En Banc, it issued Resolution No. 6823 allegedly in the exercise of its administrative function approving in toto the recommendations of the COMELEC Law Department as follows: 1) declare moot Harry Angping's sworn affidavit of withdrawal; 2) deny due course to petitioner's substitute COC and certificate of nomination and acceptance; and 3) direct the Regional Director to delete the name of Harry Angping from the certified list of candidates for congressman.
On May 11, 2004, Harry Angping and petitioner wife filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari docketed as G.R. No. 163259 assailing COMELEC Resolution No. 6823.
The woes of Mr. and Mrs. Harry Angping were compounded on May 12, 2004 when the City Board of Canvassers (CBC) of Manila resolved not to count the votes for either of them pursuant to COMELEC Resolution 6823.
On May 15, 2004, the CBC proclaimed private respondent Roces as the winning candidate on the basis of 6,397 votes. According to the CBC, the canvass of the remaining election returns (ERs) will not affect the result of the congressional elections, as private respondent was the sole candidate for congressman of the Third District of Manila.
Petitioner and Harry Angping sought the annulment of private respondent's proclamation before the COMELEC in a petition which was docketed as SPC No. 084. The case was dismissed by the COMELEC in its Resolution No. 7257 dated June 24, 2004 and the COMELEC (First Division) Omnibus Order dated July 6, 2004.
As a precautionary remedy, on May 24, 2004, petitioner Zenaida Angping filed an election protest ad cautelam against private respondent before the HRET. On June 14, 2004, private respondent filed his answer with motion to dismiss raising various legal issues. The HRET denied the motion to dismiss in its Resolution dated March 3, 2005. On March 17, 2005, the HRET denied with finality private respondent's motion for reconsideration of said resolution. Thus, private respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court to nullify the HRET Resolution dated March 3, 2005 which was docketed as G.R. No. 167149.
On the other hand, on August 10, 2004, the Supreme Court dismissed G.R. No. 16259 after petitioner and Harry Angping, in compliance with the show cause order on why the case should not be dismissed in view of the filing and pendency of the HRET case, explained that the issue on the legality of the issuance of COMELEC Resolution No. 6823 could be ventilated in the HRET case. Petitioner moved to convert her ad cautelam protest to a regular protest, which was granted by the HRET on September 9, 2004.
Meanwhile, on September 15, 2005, the Supreme Court promulgated a decision dismissing the petition in G.R. No. 167499. Then, on February 7, 2006, the Supreme Court En Banc denied with finality petitioner's (private respondent herein) motion for reconsideration of said decision.
On September 7, 2006, public respondent HRET, after conducting hearings, promulgated its questioned resolution disposing as follows:
Given these supervening events, the resolution of the issue of whether or not public respondent gravely abused its discretion in issuing the questioned decision and resolution is no longer necessary. No useful purpose may be served by resolving the petition. Any ruling in this case could hardly be of any practical or useful purpose in the premises. Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest, however intellectually challenging.[5] As a condition precedent to the exercise of judicial power, an actual controversy between litigants must first exist.[6] In a litany of cases, the Court dismissed petitions filed before it for being rendered moot and academic.[7]
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED for being moot and academic.
G.R. No. 175026 (Maria Zenaida "Mrs. Harry"Angping v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Miles Andrew Mari Roces) - This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court assailing the Decision dated September 7, 2006[1] of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) dismissing petitioner Maria Zenaida "Mrs. Harry" Angping's election protest, and the Resolution dated October 5, 2006[2] denying her motion for reconsideration in HRET Case No. 04-004.
Private respondent Miles Andrew Mari Roces and then Representative Harry Angping filed their respective Certificates of Candidacy (COC) for Representative of the Third Legislative District of Manila in the May 10, 2004 Elections.
On January 5, 2004, Alejandro Gomez, a registered voter of Manila, lodged with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) a petition to deny due course to or cancel the COC of Harry Angping: due to material representation on citizenship. The petition was docketed as SPA No. 04-244.
On April 30, 2004, the COMELEC First Division issued an order setting the promulgation of resolution in said case on May 5, 2004.
On May 3, 2004, Harry Angping filed with the COMELEC his sworn declaration of withdrawal of COC and motion to cancel promulgation of resolution and to dismiss SPA No. 04-224 for being moot and academic. The next day, May 4, 2004, the General Counsel of the Nationalist People's Coalition (NPC) sent a letter to the COMELEC officially nominating petitioner Maria Zenaida B. Angping as substitute of her husband Harry Angping for the same position.
On May 5, 2004, Commissioner Resurrecion Z. Borra ordered the deferment of the promulgation of resolution in SPA No. 04-224 for lack of quorum. Meanwhile, a resolution was issued by the COMELEC First Division on the same day denying Harry Angping's motion to cancel promulgation of resolution and to dismiss petition. It ruled that the motion to dismiss was filed after the promulgation on April 30, 2004 of the COMELEC resolution granting the petition to deny due course to Harry Angping's COC. The resolution also ordered the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) of the City of Manila not to count any vote cast in favor of Harry Angping. Said resolution, originally scheduled for promulgation on May 5, 2004, was deemed promulgated by the COMELEC on April 30, 2004 when a copy of the same was delivered to its Clerk. Harry Angping's counsel received a copy of the April 30, 2004 Resolution belatedly on May 8, 2004. Mr. Angping moved for reconsideration and an order was issued elevating his motion, together with the entire records of the case, to the COMELEC En Banc.
On May 8, 2004, while the records of the case had not yet been forwarded to the COMELEC En Banc, it issued Resolution No. 6823 allegedly in the exercise of its administrative function approving in toto the recommendations of the COMELEC Law Department as follows: 1) declare moot Harry Angping's sworn affidavit of withdrawal; 2) deny due course to petitioner's substitute COC and certificate of nomination and acceptance; and 3) direct the Regional Director to delete the name of Harry Angping from the certified list of candidates for congressman.
On May 11, 2004, Harry Angping and petitioner wife filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari docketed as G.R. No. 163259 assailing COMELEC Resolution No. 6823.
The woes of Mr. and Mrs. Harry Angping were compounded on May 12, 2004 when the City Board of Canvassers (CBC) of Manila resolved not to count the votes for either of them pursuant to COMELEC Resolution 6823.
On May 15, 2004, the CBC proclaimed private respondent Roces as the winning candidate on the basis of 6,397 votes. According to the CBC, the canvass of the remaining election returns (ERs) will not affect the result of the congressional elections, as private respondent was the sole candidate for congressman of the Third District of Manila.
Petitioner and Harry Angping sought the annulment of private respondent's proclamation before the COMELEC in a petition which was docketed as SPC No. 084. The case was dismissed by the COMELEC in its Resolution No. 7257 dated June 24, 2004 and the COMELEC (First Division) Omnibus Order dated July 6, 2004.
As a precautionary remedy, on May 24, 2004, petitioner Zenaida Angping filed an election protest ad cautelam against private respondent before the HRET. On June 14, 2004, private respondent filed his answer with motion to dismiss raising various legal issues. The HRET denied the motion to dismiss in its Resolution dated March 3, 2005. On March 17, 2005, the HRET denied with finality private respondent's motion for reconsideration of said resolution. Thus, private respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court to nullify the HRET Resolution dated March 3, 2005 which was docketed as G.R. No. 167149.
On the other hand, on August 10, 2004, the Supreme Court dismissed G.R. No. 16259 after petitioner and Harry Angping, in compliance with the show cause order on why the case should not be dismissed in view of the filing and pendency of the HRET case, explained that the issue on the legality of the issuance of COMELEC Resolution No. 6823 could be ventilated in the HRET case. Petitioner moved to convert her ad cautelam protest to a regular protest, which was granted by the HRET on September 9, 2004.
Meanwhile, on September 15, 2005, the Supreme Court promulgated a decision dismissing the petition in G.R. No. 167499. Then, on February 7, 2006, the Supreme Court En Banc denied with finality petitioner's (private respondent herein) motion for reconsideration of said decision.
On September 7, 2006, public respondent HRET, after conducting hearings, promulgated its questioned resolution disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Tribunal DISMISSES the instant protest and AFFIRMS the proclamation of protestee Miles Andrew Mari Roces as the duly elected Representative of the Third Legislative District of Manila, having obtained Thirty-Five Thousand One Hundred Eighty-Seven (35,187) votes over that of protestant Maria Zenaida Angping, who obtained Thirty-Four Thousand Three Hundred Seventy-Three (34,373) votes, of the valid votes cast in the May 10, 2004 elections, or a margin of Eight Hundred Fourteen (814) votes.It bears stressing that whatever may be the merits of the arguments advanced for or against the challenged decision of the HRET have been rendered moot and academic by the holding of the May 2007 elections of local and national elective officials. Verily, the three-year term of office of the Representative for the Third District of Manila involved in the May 2004 elections is over. Moreover, at the recent 2007 Congressional elections, petitioner Mrs. Angping was elected for the same seat; she has taken her oath and assumed office.
Pursuant to Rule 96 of the 2004 HRET Rules, as soon as this Decision becomes final and executory, let notice hereof be sent to the President of the Philippines, the House of Representatives, through the Speaker, and the Commission on Audit, through its Chairman.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.[3]
Hence, this instant petition raising the following issues:
5.1. The FIRST Issue:
WHETHER or not respondent HRET committed grave abuse of discretion when it ruled that there were votes found in the 734 Election Returns (ERs) totaling 1,901, where both the names of legitimate candidate Zenaida Angping and non-candidate Harry Angping were written under the classification "Harry Angping/Zenaida Angping" which 1,901 votes were not counted for protestant/petitioner Zenaida/Mrs. Harry - which exclusion of 1,901 votes paved the way for a mere 1,634-vote "victory" of Miles ROCES.
5.2. The SECOND Issue:
WHETHER or not respondent HRET had similarly committed grave abuse of its discretion when it first ordered the REVISION OF
BALLOTS and then ordered the revision stopped after 100 protested precincts were revised, but later refused to consider the results of the revised ballots, and instead insisted in relying solely and exclusively on the ELECTION RETURN retabulation RESULTS - likewise tilting a 1,634-vote "victory" in favor of Miles ROCES.[4]
Given these supervening events, the resolution of the issue of whether or not public respondent gravely abused its discretion in issuing the questioned decision and resolution is no longer necessary. No useful purpose may be served by resolving the petition. Any ruling in this case could hardly be of any practical or useful purpose in the premises. Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest, however intellectually challenging.[5] As a condition precedent to the exercise of judicial power, an actual controversy between litigants must first exist.[6] In a litany of cases, the Court dismissed petitions filed before it for being rendered moot and academic.[7]
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED for being moot and academic.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 62-106.
[2] Id. at 135-143.
[3] Id. at 106.
[4] Id. at 16-17.
[5] PACU v. Secretary of Education, 97 Phil. 806, 610 (1955).
[6] Guingona, Jr., et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 125532, July 10, 1998, 292 SCRA 402, 413.
[7] Malaluan v. Commission on Elections, et. al., G.R. No. 120193, March 6, 1996, 254 SCRA 397; Atienza v. Commission on Elections, et. al., G.R. No. 108533, December 20, 1994, 239 SCRA 298; Gumawa v. Espino, et al., G.R. Nos. L-36188-37586, February 29, 1980, 96 SCRA 402; Toribio v. Bidin, et al., G.R. No. L-37960, February 28, 1980, 96 SCRA 361; Nakpil, et. al. v. Aragon, et al., G.R. No. L-24087, January 22, 1980, 95 SCRA 85.
