March 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 191684 : March 20, 2012]
ANG KAPATIRAN PARTY v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
"G.R. No. 191684 (Ang Kapatiran Party v. The Commission on Elections)
RESOLUTION
For resolution is the petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by petitioner Ang Kapatiran Party seeking to compel respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to enforce Sections 16 and 17 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8758 dated February 4, 2010 or the rules and regulations implementing the Fair Elections Practices Act. The pertinent sections relate to the mandate given to the COMELEC to procure: (a) print space from national newspapers of general circulation; and (b) air time from national television and radio networks, to enable electoral candidates to announce their candidacies and also for the purpose of public information dissemination on election-related concerns.
Petitioner, a duly registered national political party, fielded nine national candidates during the May 2010 elections. In a letter dated March 16, 2010,[1] reiterated in another letter dated March 23, 2010,[2] it informed COMELEC of its intention to avail of the free print space and television and radio air time for its candidates under the aforementioned rules.
The COMELEC noted the subject request in its Special En Banc Session held on March 22, 2010[3] while approving, on even date, the procurement of print space and publication of the list of national candidates as recommended in the Memorandum of its Education and Information Department dated March 15, 2010.[4]
On March 30, 2010, petitioner sought clarification of COMELEC's action noting its request.[5] But pending reply, it withdrew its letter and instead, filed on April 13, 2010 the instant petition for certiorari and mandamus alleging that the COMELEC unlawfully neglected the performance of its mandated duty. It prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued to compel COMELEC to implement Sections 16 and 17 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8758.
In response, respondent COMELEC averred that petitioner's direct recourse before the Court violated the principle of hierarchy of courts[6] and that the issue herein raised had become moot and academic with the termination of the campaign period and the conduct of the 2010 national and local elections.[7]
The Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition.
The procurement and allocation of free print space and air time to qualified candidates is ministerial on the part of COMELEC as mandated under COMELEC Resolution No. 8758, hence, its implementation may be secured by the extraordinary writ of mandamus.[8]
Records, however, show that even prior to the filing of petitioner's March 16, 2010 letter seeking its implementation, the COMELEC's Education and Information Department had already taken steps to comply with the requirements of Resolution No. 8758 per its Memorandum dated March 15, 2010.[9] In fact, COMELEC in its March 22, 2010 Special En Banc Session approved the procurement of print space and the publication of the list of national candidates in three national newspapers of general circulation[10] and thus, resolved to merely note petitioner's subject request. Thereafter, the "OFFICIAL LIST OF CANDIDATES FOR NATIONAL POSITIONS AND ACCREDITED PARTYLIST GROUPS ON MA Y 10, 2010 NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTIONS USING THE AUTOMATED ELECTION SYSTEM" was published in the April 12, 2010 issue of the "Business Mirror" and again, in the May 7, 2010 issues of the "Philippine Daily Inquirer" and "The Philippine Star."[11]
In fine, there was substantial compliance with the requirements of Resolution No. 8758 rendering the acts sought to be performed fait accompli. Consequently, petitioner's prayer for the issuance of the extraordinary writ of mandamus must necessarily fail.[12] Besides, the conduct of the May 10, 2010 national and local elections rendered the instant case moot and academic.cralaw
ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit and for having become moot and academic."
Del Castillo, J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
�
[1] Rollo, pp. 33-37.[2] Id., p. 38.
[3] Id., pp. 40-41.
[4] Id., pp. 148-149.
[5] Id., pp. 42-43.
[6] Id., pp. 63-68.
[7] Id., pp. 68-72.
[8] Froilan Dejuras v. Hon. Rene C. Villa, etc., et al., G.R. No. 173428, November 22, 2010, 635 SCRA 569, 578.
[9] Rollo, p. 145.
[10] See note 4, supra.
[11] Rollo, pp. 131, 132, 152, 152-A and 152-B.
[12] Dejuras v. Villa, supra note 8, pp. 579-580.