Alunan III vs. Mirasol

The DILG Secretary may validly determine which barangays are exempt from holding SK elections under Section 532(d) of the Local Government Code of 1991, because SK elections are not among the elections the COMELEC is constitutionally mandated to enforce and administer, and the Secretary's role constitutes mere ascertainment of fact rather than an exercise of legislative power.

The Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160), which took effect on January 1, 1992, established the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) in every barangay, replacing the Kabataang Barangay (KB) created under Presidential Decree No. 684. Section 532(a) of the Code provided that the first SK elections would be held thirty days after the next local elections, which were conducted on May 11, 1992. Section 532(d) contained an exception clause recognizing KB elections conducted under Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 between January 1, 1988 and January 1, 1992 as the first elections under the Code, with corresponding extension of the terms of officials so elected. The COMELEC, through Resolution No. 2499, placed the SK elections under the direct control and supervision of the DILG, with technical assistance from the COMELEC. The City of Manila had held KB elections on May 26, 1990, called by then Mayor Gemiliano Lopez, Jr. through Executive Order No. 21.

The Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160), which took effect on January 1, 1992, established the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) in every barangay, replacing the Kabataang Barangay (KB) created under Presidential Decree No. 684. Section 532(a) of the Code provided that the first SK elections would be held thirty days after the next local elections. The first local elections under the Code were held on May 11, 1992. On August 27, 1992, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 2499, providing guidelines for SK elections initially scheduled for September 30, 1992, later postponed twice and finally set for December 4, 1992. Resolution No. 2499 placed the SK elections under the direct control and supervision of the DILG, with technical assistance from the COMELEC.

Registration was conducted in the six districts of Manila, with a total of 152,363 youngsters aged 15 to 21 registering, 15,749 of them filing certificates of candidacies. The City Council passed the necessary appropriations for the elections. However, the City of Manila had previously held KB elections on May 26, 1990, called by then Mayor Gemiliano Lopez, Jr. through Executive Order No. 21, which cited the dormancy of the KB organization, the need to involve the youth in government, the expiration of terms of the last KB officers elected in November 1985, and the fact that most incumbent KB officers were past the age limit. The elections were held in all 897 barangays of Manila, followed by KB City Federation elections on June 30, 1990.

On September 18, 1992, DILG Secretary Rafael M. Alunan III issued a letter-resolution exempting the City of Manila from holding SK elections on December 4, 1992, acting on a letter from Joshue R. Santiago, acting president of the KB City Federation of Manila. The DILG resolution stated that the legislature intended to exempt from the forthcoming SK elections those KB chapters which had conducted elections between January 1, 1988 and January 1, 1992 under BP 337, and that the terms of those elected KB officials were correspondingly extended to coincide with the terms of those elected under R.A. No. 7160. Private respondents, claiming to represent the 24,000 members of the Katipunan ng Kabataan, filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus in the RTC of Manila on November 27, 1992 to set aside the DILG resolution. The trial court initially issued an injunction through Executive Judge Bernardo P. Pardo, and the case was subsequently reraffled to Branch 36. On January 19, 1993, Judge Wilfredo D. Reyes rendered a decision nullifying the DILG order on three grounds: the DILG had no power to exempt Manila from SK elections because election administration is vested solely in the COMELEC under the Constitution; the COMELEC had in effect determined that no prior KB elections had been held by calling for general SK elections in every barangay without exception; and the exemption violated equal protection because, according to DILG records, 5,000 barangays had held KB elections between January 1, 1988 and January 1, 1992, yet only Manila's 897 barangays were not required to hold SK elections on December 4, 1992.

• Authority to Exempt: Petitioners maintained that the City of Manila, having already conducted KB elections on May 26, 1990, was exempted from holding SK elections on December 4, 1992 under Section 532(d) of the Local Government Code, which provides that KB elections conducted between January 1, 1988 and January 1, 1992 shall be considered the first elections under the Code.
• DILG Authority to Determine Exemption: Petitioners argued that the DILG Secretary had authority to determine whether the City of Manila came within the exception clause of Section 532(d), as this involved mere ascertainment of a fact rather than the exercise of legislative power.

• COMELEC Exclusive Authority: Respondents argued that the power to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections is vested solely in the COMELEC under Article IX, C, Section 2(1) of the Constitution, and that the DILG Secretary had no power to amend COMELEC resolutions calling for general SK elections.
• COMELEC's Determination of No Prior Elections: Respondents contended that by mandating SK elections on December 4, 1992 "in every barangay," the COMELEC had in effect determined that no prior KB elections had been held in the City of Manila.
• Equal Protection Violation: Respondents claimed that the exemption of Manila's barangays denied youth voters equal protection of the laws, because according to DILG records, 5,000 barangays had held KB elections between January 1, 1988 and January 1, 1992, yet only Manila's 897 barangays were not permitted to hold SK elections on December 4, 1992.
• Invalidity of 1990 KB Elections: Respondents claimed the May 26, 1990 KB elections in Manila were void because they were called by Mayor Lopez without authority and were not held under COMELEC supervision.

• Mootness: Whether the holding of the second SK elections on May 13, 1996 rendered the case moot and academic.
• DILG Authority Over SK Elections: Whether the DILG Secretary had authority to determine which barangays were exempt from holding SK elections under Section 532(d) of the Local Government Code.
• COMELEC Delegation to DILG: Whether the COMELEC could validly vest in the DILG direct control and supervision over SK elections.
• Equal Protection: Whether the exemption of Manila's barangays from the December 4, 1992 SK elections violated the equal protection clause.

• Mootness: No. The case is not moot because it falls within the exception of issues "capable of repetition, yet evading review," as the question of COMELEC's authority over SK elections is likely to arise in every SK election cycle yet may not be adjudicated before the election date.
• DILG Authority Over SK Elections: Yes. The DILG Secretary had authority to determine which barangays were exempt, as this involved mere ascertainment of fact — whether KB elections had been held between January 1, 1988 and January 1, 1992 — constituting permissible delegation of executive discretion rather than legislative power.
• COMELEC Delegation to DILG: Yes. SK elections are not among the elections the COMELEC is constitutionally mandated to enforce and administer, as SK officials are not elective barangay officials within the meaning of the Constitution's COMELEC provisions.
• Equal Protection: No. The exemption did not violate equal protection because the fact that other barangays may have improperly held elections despite prior KB elections did not entitle Manila youth voters to a second election; one wrong does not make another wrong right.

• Mootness: Although the second SK elections were held on May 13, 1996 pursuant to R.A. No. 7808, the case was not rendered moot. Doubt could be cast on the validity of the acts of those elected in the May 26, 1990 KB elections in Manila because the Court had enjoined the enforcement of the trial court's decision, and these officers continued in office until May 13, 1996. More importantly, the case fell within the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" doctrine, first articulated in Southern Pacific Terminal Co. vs. ICC and applied in Roe vs. Wade. The question whether the COMELEC can validly vest control and supervision of SK elections in the DILG is likely to arise in connection with every SK election, yet the question may not be decided before the date of such elections.

• DILG Authority Over SK Elections: The authority granted to the DILG Secretary was nothing more than the ascertainment of a fact: whether between January 1, 1988 and January 1, 1992 elections had been held in a given kabataang barangay. If elections had been conducted, no new elections were required on December 4, 1992 because under Section 532(d) the terms of the KB officials so elected were extended to coincide with those elected under the Code. The Secretary was acting merely as the agent of the legislative department, determining and declaring the event upon which the legislature's expressed will was to take effect. This constituted no undue delegation of legislative power but only delegation of discretion as to the execution of a law, which is constitutionally permissible. Section 532(d) was deemed a curative law, enacted to validate KB elections held in the aftermath of the EDSA revolution, including the May 26, 1990 Manila elections called by Mayor Lopez. The Bicameral Conference Committee proceedings confirmed that the exception clause was inserted precisely to foreclose questions regarding the validity of such elections, as approximately 5,000 barangays had already conducted KB elections.

• COMELEC Delegation to DILG: Article IX, C, Section 2(1) of the Constitution vests in the COMELEC the power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections, plebiscites, initiatives, referenda, and recall. However, SK elections are not subject to COMELEC supervision in the same way that contests involving SK officials do not fall within COMELEC jurisdiction, as held in Mercado vs. Board of Election Supervisors. The elective barangay officials referred to in the Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code are the punong barangay and the sangguniang barangay members elected by registered voters; the SK chairman is not among them. The choice of the DILG for the task was appropriate and consistent with legislative policy evident in P.D. No. 684, Proclamation No. 2421, and a 1988 Memorandum Circular from President Aquino. The COMELEC's role was not inconsequential: DILG supervision was exercised within the framework of detailed rules embodied in COMELEC Resolution No. 2499, with the DILG performing only enforcement functions.

• Equal Protection: Whether 5,000 barangays that held KB elections between 1988 and 1992 were also permitted to hold SK elections on December 4, 1992 could not be ascertained from the records. A Manila Bulletin report indicated that 568 barangays in Bulacan did not hold SK elections on December 4, 1992 for the same reason. Even assuming that only Manila's barangays were not permitted to hold elections while the other 5,000 barangays were allowed despite prior KB elections, this did not give Manila youth voters ground for complaint because what the other barangays did was contrary to law. Unlike People vs. Vera, where the Probation Law was struck down for permitting unequal application based on provincial funding decisions, the situation here involved no denial of a right: if other barangays were not entitled to SK elections but held them anyway, that fact did not mean Manila should similarly have been allowed to conduct elections when it already had its own two years prior. One wrong does not make another wrong right.

• Capable of Repetition, Yet Evading Review — A case otherwise moot and academic may still be decided where the issue is likely to recur but will consistently evade judicial review because the challenged action is of short duration. Applied here because the question of COMELEC's authority over SK elections is likely to arise with every SK election cycle yet may not be adjudicated before the election date.

• Curative Laws — Laws retrospective in effect, enacted to validate acts done which otherwise would be invalid under existing laws by considering them as having complied with those laws. Section 532(d) of the Local Government Code was deemed a curative law, inserted to validate KB elections held between 1988 and 1992, including the May 26, 1990 Manila elections called by Mayor Lopez without COMELEC supervision.

• Permissible Delegation of Executive Discretion — There is no undue delegation of legislative power when an executive official is tasked merely with ascertaining a fact upon which the legislature's expressed will is to take effect. The DILG Secretary's determination of whether KB elections had been held in a given barangay constituted mere ascertainment of fact, not exercise of legislative power.

• SK Officials Not Elective Barangay Officials Under the Constitution — Sangguniang Kabataan officials are not elective barangay officials within the meaning of the constitutional and statutory provisions vesting election administration and contest jurisdiction in the COMELEC. The elective barangay officials referred to are the punong barangay and the regular sangguniang barangay members elected by registered voters. SK elections therefore are not subject to COMELEC's constitutional mandate.

• "The authority granted was nothing more than the ascertainment of a fact, namely, whether between January 1, 1988 and January 1, 1992 elections had been held in a given kabataang barangay." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on the delegation issue, distinguishing permissible executive fact-finding from impermissible delegation of legislative power.

• "Section §532(d) may thus be deemed to be a curative law. Curative laws, which in essence are retrospective in effect, are enacted to validate acts done which otherwise would be invalid under existing laws, by considering them as having complied with the existing laws." — This defines the Court's treatment of Section 532(d) as a curative statute validating the May 26, 1990 Manila KB elections called by Mayor Lopez.

• "Respondents' equal protection argument violates the dictum that one wrong does not make another wrong right." — This encapsulates the Court's rejection of the equal protection challenge, holding that unlawful conduct by other barangays does not create an entitlement to duplicate elections.

• Mercado vs. Board of Election Supervisors, 243 SCRA 422 (1995) — Controlling precedent holding that contests involving elections of SK (formerly KB) officials do not fall within Section 252 of the Omnibus Election Code and paragraph 2, Section 2, Article IX-C of the Constitution, and that the SK chairman is not an elective barangay official. The Court relied on this to conclude that SK elections are not subject to COMELEC's constitutional mandate.

• People vs. Vera, 65 Phil. 56 (1937) — Distinguished. The Probation Law was struck down for permitting unequal application of benefits based on provincial funding decisions. The Court distinguished this case on the ground that what other barangays might have been allowed was not a right denied to Manila youth voters, but rather unlawful conduct that did not create an entitlement.

• Municipality of San Narciso, Quezon vs. Mendez, Sr., 239 SCRA 11 (1994) — Cited as authority for the recognition of curative laws in Philippine jurisdiction.

• Cruz vs. Youngberg, 56 Phil. 234 (1931) and Edu vs. Ericta, 146 Phil. 469 (1970) — Cited as authority for the proposition that delegation of discretion as to the execution of a law is constitutionally permissible.

• Southern Pacific Terminal Co. vs. ICC, 219 U.S. 498 (1911) and Roe vs. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) — U.S. Supreme Court cases cited as the origin and application of the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" doctrine, used to justify deciding the case despite its arguably moot status.

• Section 532(d), Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) — Provided that KB elections conducted under BP 337 between January 1, 1988 and January 1, 1992 shall be considered the first elections under the Code, with corresponding extension of terms. The Court construed this as a curative law validating the May 26, 1990 Manila KB elections and as the statutory basis for the DILG Secretary's authority to exempt barangays from the December 4, 1992 SK elections.

• Section 532(a), Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) — Provided that the first SK elections shall be held thirty days after the next local elections. The first local elections under the Code were held on May 11, 1992.

• Article IX, C, Section 2(1), 1987 Constitution — Vests in the COMELEC the power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections, plebiscites, initiatives, referenda, and recall. The Court held that this provision does not encompass SK elections, as SK officials are not elective barangay officials within its meaning.

• Section 252, Omnibus Election Code — Refers to elective barangay officials subject to COMELEC's exclusive appellate jurisdiction over election contests. The Court held this provision does not include SK officials.

• Section 6, Presidential Decree No. 684 — Authorized the Secretary of Local Government and Community Development to promulgate rules and regulations to implement the decree creating Kabataang Barangays. Cited as evidence of legislative policy entrusting KB-related matters to the DILG.

Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr., and Panganiban, JJ., concurred. Narvasa, C.J. and Torres, Jr., J., were on leave.