Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > May 2010 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 191850 : May 04, 2010] ROBERTO M. PAGDANGANAN, PETITIONER V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT. :

Sirs/Mesdames: Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated May 4, 2010 "G.R. No. 191850 - ROBERTO M. PAGDANGANAN, petitioner v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent. R E S O L U T I O N Petitioner Roberto M. Pagdanganan filed this petition for certiorari with prohibition, seeking the nullification of Resolution No. 8771 dated February 15, 2010 and Minute Resolution No. 10-0421 dated March 30, 2010 issued by respondent Commission on Elections. From the allegations of and attachments to the petition, it appears that, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9591 which constituted Malolos City as a legislative district separate from the First Legislative District of Bulacan, respondent issued, among others, Resolution No. 8670, dated September 16, 2009, allocating one congressional seat for said city. Following this resolution, respondent proceeded with the configuration into the automated election system of the data relative to the elective positions for the city, including its lone congressional district. On January 25, 2010, however, this Court rendered a decision in G.R. No. 188078, entitled Victorino Aldaba, et al. v. COMELEC, declaring Republic Act No. 9591 unconstitutional, for being violative of Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended thereto. With the data relative to the elective positions for the city already configured into the system and revision rendered problematic by time constraints, the COMELEC issued the first assailed Resolution No. 8771, informing the public of the following scenarios:

1. a.�If the Decision is reversed, there will be no problem since the current system configuration is in line with the reconsidered Decision, meaning that Malolos City and the First Legislative District of Bulacan remain as separate legislative districts;
2. b.�If the decision becomes final and executory before the election, Malolos City will revert to its previous status as part of the First Legislative District of Bulacan. But because of the current system configuration, the ballots for Malolos City will, for the position of Member, House of Representatives, bear only the names of the candidates for said position. Conversely, the ballots for the municipalities comprising the First Legislative District of Bulacan, will, for the position of the Member, House of Representatives, First Legislative District, Bulacan, show only the candidates for the said position. Consequently, the voters of Malolos City will not be able to vote for candidates for Member, House of Representatives, First Legislative District, Bulacan. Meanwhile, voters of the first Legislative District of Bulacan will not be able to vote for candidates for Member, House of Representatives, Malolos City. Given this situation, the Commission will postpone the election for Member, House of Representatives, First Legislative District, Bulacan, because the election will result in failure to elect since, in actuality, there are no candidates for the First Legislative District (with Malolos City) of Bulacan. x x x x
3. c.�If the Decision becomes final and executory after the election, Malolos City will revert to its previous status as part of the First Legislative District of Bulacan. The result of the election will have to be nullified for the same reason given in Item "b" above. A special election for Member, House of Representatives, First Legislative District (with Malolos City) will have to be conducted. As one of the candidates to the city's lone congressional seat, petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the foregoing resolution, on the ground that the same effectively cancelled the certificates of candidacy filed for the lone congressional district of Malolos City, without the notice and hearing required under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. The postponement of congressional elections in Malolos City and the First District of Bulacan is also supposedly violative of Section 45 of the same Code which provides that any postponement or failure of election shall be determined only after due notice and hearing, at which the interested parties are given equal opportunity to be heard. On March 15, 2010, the motion for reconsideration filed in the Aldaba case was denied with finality by this Court. As a consequence of said development, respondent issued the second assailed Minute Resolution No. 10-0421, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration and maintaining Resolution No. 8771. Petitioner filed the petition at bench, imputing grave abuse against respondent for issuing the assailed resolution and minute resolution insofar as it concerned: (a) the postponement of the congressional election for Malolos City and the First District of Bulacan; and (b) the resultant cancellation of the certificate of candidacy he filed. Not being a party in the Aldaba case which resulted in the foregoing consequences, petitioner insists that his right to due process was violated. On April 27, 2010, We required the respondent to file its Comment within five days from notice. Considering the finality of our decision in the Aldaba case and the factual antecedents of the present petition, both indicating the necessity of at once resolving the issue raised by petitioner, the Court has dispensed with respondent's filing of its comment to the petition. The petition is bereft of merit. Irrespective of whether or not he was a party in the Aldaba case, petitioner, as a congressional candidate for the erstwhile legislative district of Malolos City, is necessarily bound by this Court's January 25, 2010 decision in said case which declared Republic Act No. 9591 unconstitutional. With the resultant inexistence of Malolos City as a separate legislative district and its return to its previous status as part of the First Legislative District of Bulacan, We find that no grave abuse of discretion can be imputed against respondent for directing the postponement of the congressional election for the First Legislative District of Bulacan, for lack of candidates for said newly restored legislative district encompassing Malolos City. Because the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the assailed action or ruling (Quintos v. COMELEC, 440 Phil. 1045, 1063 (2002), petitioner's filing of his motion for reconsideration of Resolution No. 8771 effectively cured the lack of notice and hearing complained against. The denial with finality of the motion for reconsideration filed in the Aldaba case on March 15, 2010 has also clearly rendered the petition moot and academic. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED, both for lack of merit and for being moot and academic." Very truly yours, (Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA Clerk of Couri
   
   
   

   Back to Home | Back to Main