Dumarpa vs. COMELEC

The COMELEC's exercise of its plenary powers in the conduct of special elections—including the re-clustering of precincts and the constitution of Special Boards of Election Inspectors—will not be interfered with by the courts absent a showing of clear illegality or grave abuse of discretion, as the COMELEC is in a peculiarly advantageous position to assess actual conditions in the field and make judgment calls to secure free, orderly, and honest elections.

Salic Dumarpa was a congressional candidate for the 1st District of Lanao del Sur in the 10 May 2010 national elections. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) declared a total failure of elections in seven municipalities in Lanao del Sur, three of which—Masiu, Lumba Bayabao, and Kapai—were situated in the 1st Congressional District. The conduct of special elections in those municipalities was originally scheduled for 29 May 2010. At the time of the filing of the petition, Dumarpa was leading by a slim margin over his opponent, Hussin Pangandaman, in the canvassed votes from areas where no failure of elections had been declared.

Salic Dumarpa was a congressional candidate for the 1st District of Lanao del Sur in the 10 May 2010 national elections. The COMELEC declared a total failure of elections in seven municipalities in Lanao del Sur, three of which—Masiu, Lumba Bayabao, and Kapai—were located within the 1st Congressional District. In the Municipality of Masiu specifically, the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) did not report to the polling place, contributing to the failure of elections. The special elections were originally scheduled for 29 May 2010.

On 25 May 2010, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8946 resetting the special elections to 3 June 2010. The resolution cited several reasons: failure of elections had also occurred in precincts in eight other municipalities; the results would affect elections at both the provincial and municipal levels; there were missing ballots in certain precincts; some BEIs were unwilling to serve or were disqualified due to relationship; the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machines assigned to the municipalities had already been pulled out by Smartmatic; newly constituted BEIs needed training and certification under R.A. 9369; and there was a need to review the manning of COMELEC personnel at the municipal level.

Subsequently, on 28 May 2010, the COMELEC issued the assailed Resolution No. 8965, entitled "Guidelines and Procedures in the Conduct of Special Elections in Some Areas Where There are Failure of Elections during the Conduct of the 10 May 2010 National Elections." Section 4 of the resolution provided for the constitution of Special Boards of Election Inspectors (SBEIs), authorizing the Senior Election Assistant to constitute and appoint SBEIs where the constituted BEIs were unwilling to serve or were disqualified, giving preference to public school teachers from other municipalities, and suspending the residency requirement for BEI members. Section 12 provided for the re-clustering of precincts in Lanao del Sur for purposes of orderly conduct and security, reducing the polling places in the Municipality of Masiu from 21 to only 3 voting centers.

On the same date that Resolution No. 8965 was issued, Dumarpa filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the COMELEC, challenging only Sections 4 and 12 as they applied to the Municipality of Masiu. The COMELEC did not act on the motion. A day before the scheduled special elections, on 2 June 2010, Dumarpa filed the instant petition with the Supreme Court, alleging that the re-clustering of precincts and the constitution of SBEIs would doom him to certain defeat. At the time of filing, Dumarpa was leading by a slim margin over his opponent, Hussin Pangandaman, in the canvassed votes from areas where no failure of elections had been declared. The Supreme Court did not issue a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction, and the special elections proceeded as scheduled on 3 June 2010. Pangandaman was subsequently proclaimed winner in the 1st Congressional District of Lanao del Sur, and Dumarpa filed an election protest before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.

• Validity of Section 12 (Re-clustering of Precincts): Petitioner argued that Section 12 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8965 is illegal or void for being contrary to law, and was issued without notice to candidates and stakeholders and without hearing. He objected to the re-clustering of precincts in the Municipality of Masiu specifically because it was undertaken without notice and hearing, in less than thirty days before the conduct of the special elections, and because the polling places were reduced from 21 to only 3 voting centers which his opponent, Hussin Pangandaman, controlled.
• Validity of Section 4 (Constitution of SBEIs): Petitioner argued that Section 4 is illegal or void for being contrary to law, and was issued without notice to candidates and stakeholders and without hearing. He pointed out that under Section 170 of the Omnibus Election Code, public school teachers who are members of the board of election inspectors shall not be relieved nor disqualified from acting as such members, except for cause and after due hearing.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner maintained that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in incorporating, providing, or issuing Sections 4 and 12 in Resolution No. 8965.

• Mootness: Respondent, through the Office of the Solicitor General, countered that the issues had been mooted by the holding of the special elections as scheduled on 3 June 2010.
• No Grave Abuse of Discretion: Respondent maintained as a catch-all refutation that COMELEC Resolution No. 8965 is not tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

• Mootness: Whether the petition has been rendered moot and academic by the holding of the special elections on 3 June 2010 and the proclamation of petitioner's opponent as winner.
• Validity of Sections 4 and 12 / Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing Sections 4 and 12 of Resolution No. 8965, particularly as applied to the Municipality of Masiu, Lanao del Sur.

• Mootness: Yes. The petition was rendered moot by the holding of the special elections as scheduled and the proclamation of Hussin Pangandaman as winner, the issues being resolvable in the election protest before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.
• Validity of Sections 4 and 12 / Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. The COMELEC did not act with grave abuse of discretion; Resolution No. 8965 was issued in the valid exercise of the COMELEC's plenary powers under the Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code to prevent a recurrence of failure of elections.

• Mootness: A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical value. Courts decline jurisdiction over such cases or dismiss them on ground of mootness. The special elections held on 3 June 2010 mooted the issues posed by Dumarpa. The proclamation of his opponent, Hussin Pangandaman, as winner constituted an additional supervening event that further mooted the petition, as the issues raised are resolvable in the election protest filed before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.

• Validity of Sections 4 and 12 / Grave Abuse of Discretion: The COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8965 in the exercise of its plenary powers in the conduct of elections enshrined in Article IX(C), Section 2(1) of the Constitution and Section 52 of the Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC's broad power to "enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall" carries with it all necessary and incidental powers to achieve the objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections. The assailed provisions on re-clustering of precincts and designation of SBEIs were issued precisely because of the total failure of elections in fifteen municipalities in Lanao del Sur. Notably, Dumarpa did not question the COMELEC's declaration of a failure of elections; he confined his objections to the re-clustering of precincts and only as regards the Municipality of Masiu. The COMELEC, through its deputized field officials, is in the best position to assess actual conditions and make judgment calls based thereon. The COMELEC closely followed Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code by scheduling the special election not later than thirty days after the cessation of the cause of the failure to elect. Moreover, the COMELEC sought to foreclose the possibility that the BEIs might not report to the polling place, as had occurred in the Municipality of Masiu, resulting in another failure of election. While the COMELEC's actions may not be impeccable or even debatable, the Court declined to engage in academic criticism of actions taken under very difficult circumstances. The choice of means adopted by the COMELEC, unless clearly illegal or constituting grave abuse of discretion, should not be interfered with.

• Moot and Academic Case Doctrine — A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical value. As a rule, courts decline jurisdiction over such cases or dismiss them on ground of mootness. In this case, the holding of the special elections as scheduled and the proclamation of the opponent as winner constituted supervening events that mooted the petition.

• COMELEC Plenary Powers Doctrine — The COMELEC's broad constitutional power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections carries with it all necessary and incidental powers to achieve the objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections. The COMELEC is in a peculiarly advantageous position to decide complex political questions by virtue of its fact-finding facilities, contacts with political strategists, and knowledge derived from actual experience. The choice of means taken by the COMELEC, unless clearly illegal or constituting grave abuse of discretion, should not be interfered with. The Court applied this doctrine to uphold the COMELEC's re-clustering of precincts and constitution of SBEIs under Resolution No. 8965, finding these measures were issued precisely to prevent a recurrence of failure of elections in Lanao del Sur.

• "Politics is a practical matter, and political questions must be dealt with realistically - not from the standpoint of pure theory. The Commission on Elections, because of its fact-finding facilities, its contacts with political strategists, and its knowledge derived from actual experience in dealing with political controversies, is in a peculiarly advantageous position to decide complex political questions." — This passage, quoted from Sumulong vs. COMELEC, articulates the doctrinal basis for judicial deference to the COMELEC's exercise of its plenary powers and is frequently cited in subsequent election law jurisprudence.

• "The choice of means taken by the Commission on Elections, unless they are clearly illegal or constitute grave abuse of discretion, should not be interfered with." — This passage, quoted from Cauton vs. COMELEC, states the controlling standard for judicial review of COMELEC actions: courts will not interfere absent clear illegality or grave abuse of discretion, thus defining the limits of the Court's willingness to second-guess the COMELEC's operational decisions.

• "We cannot, however, engage in an academic criticism of these actions often taken under very difficult circumstances." — This passage captures the Court's rationale for declining to scrutinize the COMELEC's field-level judgment calls, emphasizing the practical constraints under which election administration operates and the judicial restraint appropriate to such contexts.

• Sumulong vs. COMELEC, 73 Phil. 288 (1941) — Followed. Cited for the proposition that the COMELEC is in a peculiarly advantageous position to decide complex political questions and that courts must not take away from the COMELEC the initiative that properly belongs to it by constitutional and legal mandate.

• Cauton vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-25467, 27 April 1967, 19 SCRA 911 — Followed. Cited for the principle that the COMELEC must be given considerable latitude in adopting means and methods to insure free, orderly, and honest elections, and that its choice of means should not be interfered with absent clear illegality or grave abuse of discretion.

• Loong vs. COMELEC, 365 Phil. 386 (1999) — Followed. Cited for the proposition that the Court cannot engage in academic criticism of COMELEC actions taken under very difficult circumstances.

• Mendoza vs. Familara, G.R. No. 191017, 15 November 2011, 660 SCRA 70 — Followed. Cited for the definition of a moot and academic case as one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events.

• Pangandaman vs. COMELEC, 377 Phil. 297 (1999) — Referenced. Cited in connection with the observation that the issues raised in the petition are resolvable in the election protest.

• Article IX(C), Section 2(1), 1987 Constitution — Grants the COMELEC the power to "enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall." The Court relied on this provision as the constitutional source of the COMELEC's plenary powers, from which all necessary and incidental powers flow to achieve the objective of free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.

• Article IX(A), Section 6, 1987 Constitution — Provides that each Commission en banc may promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or before any of its offices, provided such rules shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Cited as part of the constitutional framework governing the COMELEC's rule-making authority.

• Section 52, Omnibus Election Code — Confers upon the COMELEC exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections, including the power to exercise direct and immediate supervision over national and local officials, promulgate rules and regulations, and prescribe forms. The Court relied on this statutory provision as supplementary authority for the COMELEC's plenary powers.

• Section 6, Omnibus Election Code — Requires that special elections be scheduled not later than thirty days after the cessation of the cause of the failure to elect. The Court found that the COMELEC closely followed this provision in scheduling the special elections.

• Section 170, Omnibus Election Code — Provides that public school teachers who are members of the board of election inspectors shall not be relieved nor disqualified from acting as such members, except for cause and after due hearing. Petitioner invoked this provision to object to the constitution of SBEIs under Section 4 of Resolution No. 8965; the Court did not directly rule on this objection, finding the petition moot and, in any event, unmeritorious given the COMELEC's plenary powers.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion, Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad, Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza, Associate Justice Bienvenido Reyes, Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe (on leave), and Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen.