June 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > June 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 178678 : June 22, 2010] DR. HANS CHRISTIAN M. SEÑERES V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND MELQUIADES A. ROBLES:
[G.R. No. 178678 : June 22, 2010]
DR. HANS CHRISTIAN M. SEÑERES V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND MELQUIADES A. ROBLES
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated JUNE 22, 2010, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 178678 (Dr. Hans Christian M. Se�eres v. Commission on Elections and Melquiades A. Robles)
By Decision[1] dated April 16, 2009, the Court dismissed the petition of Hans Christian Se�eres for certiorari with a prayer for injunctive relief to nullify and enjoin the implementation of the Resolution of public respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) dated July 19, 2007 in E.M. No. 07-043 and to declare petitioner's party list nominees to be the correct set of nominees of Buhay Hayaan Yumabong (BUHAY) for the House of Representatives. The assailed resolution recognized and declared private respondent Melquiades A. Robles as President of BUHAY, a duly COMELEC registered party-list group, and as such was the one duly authorized, during the period material to this case, to sign documents in behalf of the party, particularly the manifestation of intent to participate in the party-list system of representation and the certification of nomination of its nominees.
Petitioner Se�eres is again with the Court on a motion for reconsideration, again asking, as his main relief, the nullification of the aforementioned COMELEC resolution and the setting aside of all acts performed or committed in the implementation thereof.
To the motion, both public respondent COMELEC and Robles have submitted their respective comments.
As may be recalled, Robles was elected president and chairman of BUHAY in October 1999. BUHAY's constitution provided a three-year term for its party officers without reelection.[2] For the 2001 and 2004 synchronized national and local elections in which BUHAY participated, Robles signed, for the party, the corresponding manifestations of intent to participate in the elections and the certificates of nomination of BUHAY's representatives. For the May 2007 national and local elections, Robles again signed, as purported BUHAY president, and filed on January 27, 2007 BUHAY's manifestation to participate. A little over two months later, or on March 29, 2007, he again signed/filed, in the same capacity, the nominating document, containing a list of five (5) nominees.[3] Evidently unbeknownst to Robles, Se�eres, holding himself as "secretary-general" of BUHAY, had also filed two days earlier a certificate of nomination containing the names of a different set of five (5) nominees.[4] Se�eres' action was also done without the knowledge, let alone the imprimatur of BUHAY's National Council, as the latter would, on May 10, 2007, pass a resolution[5] expelling Seneres as BUHAY party member for filing, without authority, his certificate of nomination containing names of persons who were not even members of BUHAY.
On July 9, 2007, the COMELEC en banc, sitting as the National Board of Canvassers (NBC), issued a resolution to partially proclaim BUHAY as among the parties, organizations or coalitions which won in the May 14, 2007 elections. This was followed by the issuance, on July 18, 2007, of NBC Resolution No. 07-72 proclaiming BUHAY, among other party list groups, as entitled to additional seats,[6] but holding in abeyance the proclamation of the nominees of said groups with pending disputes until the final resolution of their respective cases. COMELEC issued two resolutions proclaiming BUHAY as a winning party-list organization for the May 2007 elections entitled to three (3) House seats in the 14th Congress.
Meanwhile, Robles filed on May 21, 2007 a petition praying that one Jose Villanueva be recognized as BUHAY's new representative in the Lower House for the remaining term until June 30, 2007, docketed as E.M. No. 07-043. Earlier, Robles had interposed a motion to nullify the certificate of nomination Se�eres filed.[7] Following a legal skirmish between Robles and Se�eres before the COMELEC featuring an exchange of clashing pleadings, the poll body issued the assailed Resolution, subject of Se�eres' underlying petition for certiorari.
On the main issue of whether or not COMELEC acted in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, along with the question of whether or not Se�eres had no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law save the petition for certiorari, the Court dismissed the petition per its Decision of April 16, 2009, now subject of reconsideration.
We reiterate our dismissal action. As we held thereat, Robles, vis-a-vis the May 2007 elections and BUHAY's participation thereto, was authorized to sign the manifestation to participate and certificate of nomination in behalf of the party. And there can be no serious challenge as to the validity and efficacy of the two documents and the authority behind them. Let alone the fact that Robles acted with the knowledge and approval of the National Council of BUHAY, he was, at that time, the bona fide hold-over president of BUHAY. Although his regular three-year term as BUHAY president, following his election to that position in October 1999, expired in October 2002, no election was held to replace him and the original set of officers. And as we stressed in our Decision, the constitution and by-laws of BUHAY do not prohibit a hold-over situation. As such, since no successor was ever elected and qualified before the May 2007 national and local elections, Robles remained the president of BUHAY, albeit as "hold over" president. In that capacity, his official acts are commonly regarded as that of a de facto officer, valid and effective for all intents and purposes.[8]
Se�eres would suggest that Robles' acts after his regular term ended effectively in October 2002 are without legal consequence. And pushing the point, he states: "The incongruous situation here is that the 'hold-over term' of respondent Robles declared to have commenced after the end of his term in October 2002 now EXCEEDS EVEN HIS ORIGINAL TERM OF THREE YEARS OR MORE when counted even up to 2007."[9]
The suggestion is specious.
The hold-over stretch may indeed have been longer than the original term. However, this fact alone is not an argument to invalidate the official acts of the hold-over incumbent. And to be sure, immediately prior to the 2007 elections, no one had ever questioned Robles' incumbency as president of BUHAY or his authority to sign party documents or otherwise act for the party. As a matter of fact, consequent to BUHAY being proclaimed as a winning party-list group in the 2004 elections, Se�eres became the party's party-list representative owing in part to the acts of Robles as hold-over president. Then, too, Se�eres, in a glaring slip of himself, rode on BUHAY's Manifestation of Intent to Participate in the 2007 elections signed by Robles, as the former's group failed to submit such a manifestation, but nonetheless proceeded to nominate their own set of representatives. The petition for certiorari all but tags the said manifestation as having been signed by an impostor; yet, the petitioner found it convenient to utilize the same manifestation as a stepping-stone to gain membership in the House of Representatives. The irony is not lost on the Court.
Given the foregoing perspective, Court does not find any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Comelec in issuing its Resolution in E.M. No. 07-043.
We close with the following determinative observations:
The assailed resolution of the COMELEC finds its context only in relation to BUHAY's participation in the May 2007 elections, for it only actually recognized the authority of Robles to sign documents nominating representatives of BUHAY who would sit in the 14th Congress should it prevail in that year's elections. As things turned out, BUHAY emerged as a winning party-list group in that year's elections, and its first three (3) listed nominees, as per the certificate of nomination submitted by Robles, have taken their oath of office as BUHAY party-list representative in the 14th Congress. The life of the 14th Congress, and necessarily the term of regular district and party-list representatives in the House effectively, ends on June 30,2010.
In the meantime, the 2010 national and local elections have come and gone. New members of the House of Representatives, be they elected by district or under the party list system, will begin their term on June 30. And the Court can take judicial notice that BUHAY took part in the 2010 elections.
Given the foregoing factual realities on the ground, petitioner Se�eres' plea in his certiorari petition, as veritably reiterated in this recourse, that the Court set aside all acts performed or committed in implementation of the COMELEC's assailed resolution and declare his three (3) nominees as the correct and legal set for the House of Representatives, 14th Congress of the Philippines, has become moot and academic. A moot and academic issue or case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy owing to supervening events, so that a determination thereof would be of no practical value. In such a case there is no actual substantial relief to which petitioner would be entitled and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.[10]
Not to be ignored of course is the fact that the assailed COMELEC resolution had been an operative fact.[11] Under the operative fact doctrine, what was done while the legislative or executive act was in operation should be recognized and presumed to be valid in all respects.[12]
WHEREFORE, the instant motion for reconsideration is DENIED."
"G.R. No. 178678 (Dr. Hans Christian M. Se�eres v. Commission on Elections and Melquiades A. Robles)
RESOLUTION
By Decision[1] dated April 16, 2009, the Court dismissed the petition of Hans Christian Se�eres for certiorari with a prayer for injunctive relief to nullify and enjoin the implementation of the Resolution of public respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) dated July 19, 2007 in E.M. No. 07-043 and to declare petitioner's party list nominees to be the correct set of nominees of Buhay Hayaan Yumabong (BUHAY) for the House of Representatives. The assailed resolution recognized and declared private respondent Melquiades A. Robles as President of BUHAY, a duly COMELEC registered party-list group, and as such was the one duly authorized, during the period material to this case, to sign documents in behalf of the party, particularly the manifestation of intent to participate in the party-list system of representation and the certification of nomination of its nominees.
Petitioner Se�eres is again with the Court on a motion for reconsideration, again asking, as his main relief, the nullification of the aforementioned COMELEC resolution and the setting aside of all acts performed or committed in the implementation thereof.
To the motion, both public respondent COMELEC and Robles have submitted their respective comments.
As may be recalled, Robles was elected president and chairman of BUHAY in October 1999. BUHAY's constitution provided a three-year term for its party officers without reelection.[2] For the 2001 and 2004 synchronized national and local elections in which BUHAY participated, Robles signed, for the party, the corresponding manifestations of intent to participate in the elections and the certificates of nomination of BUHAY's representatives. For the May 2007 national and local elections, Robles again signed, as purported BUHAY president, and filed on January 27, 2007 BUHAY's manifestation to participate. A little over two months later, or on March 29, 2007, he again signed/filed, in the same capacity, the nominating document, containing a list of five (5) nominees.[3] Evidently unbeknownst to Robles, Se�eres, holding himself as "secretary-general" of BUHAY, had also filed two days earlier a certificate of nomination containing the names of a different set of five (5) nominees.[4] Se�eres' action was also done without the knowledge, let alone the imprimatur of BUHAY's National Council, as the latter would, on May 10, 2007, pass a resolution[5] expelling Seneres as BUHAY party member for filing, without authority, his certificate of nomination containing names of persons who were not even members of BUHAY.
On July 9, 2007, the COMELEC en banc, sitting as the National Board of Canvassers (NBC), issued a resolution to partially proclaim BUHAY as among the parties, organizations or coalitions which won in the May 14, 2007 elections. This was followed by the issuance, on July 18, 2007, of NBC Resolution No. 07-72 proclaiming BUHAY, among other party list groups, as entitled to additional seats,[6] but holding in abeyance the proclamation of the nominees of said groups with pending disputes until the final resolution of their respective cases. COMELEC issued two resolutions proclaiming BUHAY as a winning party-list organization for the May 2007 elections entitled to three (3) House seats in the 14th Congress.
Meanwhile, Robles filed on May 21, 2007 a petition praying that one Jose Villanueva be recognized as BUHAY's new representative in the Lower House for the remaining term until June 30, 2007, docketed as E.M. No. 07-043. Earlier, Robles had interposed a motion to nullify the certificate of nomination Se�eres filed.[7] Following a legal skirmish between Robles and Se�eres before the COMELEC featuring an exchange of clashing pleadings, the poll body issued the assailed Resolution, subject of Se�eres' underlying petition for certiorari.
On the main issue of whether or not COMELEC acted in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, along with the question of whether or not Se�eres had no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law save the petition for certiorari, the Court dismissed the petition per its Decision of April 16, 2009, now subject of reconsideration.
We reiterate our dismissal action. As we held thereat, Robles, vis-a-vis the May 2007 elections and BUHAY's participation thereto, was authorized to sign the manifestation to participate and certificate of nomination in behalf of the party. And there can be no serious challenge as to the validity and efficacy of the two documents and the authority behind them. Let alone the fact that Robles acted with the knowledge and approval of the National Council of BUHAY, he was, at that time, the bona fide hold-over president of BUHAY. Although his regular three-year term as BUHAY president, following his election to that position in October 1999, expired in October 2002, no election was held to replace him and the original set of officers. And as we stressed in our Decision, the constitution and by-laws of BUHAY do not prohibit a hold-over situation. As such, since no successor was ever elected and qualified before the May 2007 national and local elections, Robles remained the president of BUHAY, albeit as "hold over" president. In that capacity, his official acts are commonly regarded as that of a de facto officer, valid and effective for all intents and purposes.[8]
Se�eres would suggest that Robles' acts after his regular term ended effectively in October 2002 are without legal consequence. And pushing the point, he states: "The incongruous situation here is that the 'hold-over term' of respondent Robles declared to have commenced after the end of his term in October 2002 now EXCEEDS EVEN HIS ORIGINAL TERM OF THREE YEARS OR MORE when counted even up to 2007."[9]
The suggestion is specious.
The hold-over stretch may indeed have been longer than the original term. However, this fact alone is not an argument to invalidate the official acts of the hold-over incumbent. And to be sure, immediately prior to the 2007 elections, no one had ever questioned Robles' incumbency as president of BUHAY or his authority to sign party documents or otherwise act for the party. As a matter of fact, consequent to BUHAY being proclaimed as a winning party-list group in the 2004 elections, Se�eres became the party's party-list representative owing in part to the acts of Robles as hold-over president. Then, too, Se�eres, in a glaring slip of himself, rode on BUHAY's Manifestation of Intent to Participate in the 2007 elections signed by Robles, as the former's group failed to submit such a manifestation, but nonetheless proceeded to nominate their own set of representatives. The petition for certiorari all but tags the said manifestation as having been signed by an impostor; yet, the petitioner found it convenient to utilize the same manifestation as a stepping-stone to gain membership in the House of Representatives. The irony is not lost on the Court.
Given the foregoing perspective, Court does not find any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Comelec in issuing its Resolution in E.M. No. 07-043.
We close with the following determinative observations:
The assailed resolution of the COMELEC finds its context only in relation to BUHAY's participation in the May 2007 elections, for it only actually recognized the authority of Robles to sign documents nominating representatives of BUHAY who would sit in the 14th Congress should it prevail in that year's elections. As things turned out, BUHAY emerged as a winning party-list group in that year's elections, and its first three (3) listed nominees, as per the certificate of nomination submitted by Robles, have taken their oath of office as BUHAY party-list representative in the 14th Congress. The life of the 14th Congress, and necessarily the term of regular district and party-list representatives in the House effectively, ends on June 30,2010.
In the meantime, the 2010 national and local elections have come and gone. New members of the House of Representatives, be they elected by district or under the party list system, will begin their term on June 30. And the Court can take judicial notice that BUHAY took part in the 2010 elections.
Given the foregoing factual realities on the ground, petitioner Se�eres' plea in his certiorari petition, as veritably reiterated in this recourse, that the Court set aside all acts performed or committed in implementation of the COMELEC's assailed resolution and declare his three (3) nominees as the correct and legal set for the House of Representatives, 14th Congress of the Philippines, has become moot and academic. A moot and academic issue or case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy owing to supervening events, so that a determination thereof would be of no practical value. In such a case there is no actual substantial relief to which petitioner would be entitled and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.[10]
Not to be ignored of course is the fact that the assailed COMELEC resolution had been an operative fact.[11] Under the operative fact doctrine, what was done while the legislative or executive act was in operation should be recognized and presumed to be valid in all respects.[12]
WHEREFORE, the instant motion for reconsideration is DENIED."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 279-292.
[2] Id. at 172.
[3] Rene Velarde, Ma. Carissa Coscoluela, William Tieng, Melchor Monsod and Teresita B. Viliarama.
[4] Hans Seneres, Hermenegildo C. Dumlao, Antonio R. Bautista, Victor Pablo Trinidad and Eduardo Solangon, Jr.; rollo, p. 6.
[5] Id. at 36.
[6] Two additional seats in case of BUHAY.
[7] Earlier, Se�eres filed a petition to deny due course to the certificates of nomination filed by Robles; Annex "D" of Se�eres' petition; rollo, pp. 27-31.
[8] Topacio v. Ong, G.R. No. 179895, December 18, 2008,574 SCRA 817.
[9] Motion for Reconsideration, p. 15; rollo, p. 309.
[10] Chuidian v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 156383 & 160723, July 31, 2006, 497 SCRA 327.
[11] The operative fact doctrine holds that prior to the nullification of a legislative enactment or executive act, there is an imperative necessity of taking into account its actual existence as an operative fact negating the acceptance of the principle of absolute retroactive invalidity.
[12] Rieta v. People, G.R. No. 147817, August 12, 2004, 436 SCRA 273.
