Enrile vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal

A petition becomes moot and academic, and must be dismissed, when the tenure of the contested public office has expired, leaving no actual controversy or practical relief. The expiration of the contested senatorial term on June 30, 1998 rendered Enrile’s challenge to the SET resolutions moot and academic.

The Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) was the public respondent, while Senator Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. was the private respondent and protestant in SET Case No. 001-95. Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was the petitioner and protestee in that election protest. The dispute concerned the SET’s conduct of revision and appreciation of ballots in a senatorial election protest.

On January 20, 1995, Senator Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. filed with the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) an election protest against Senator Juan Ponce Enrile and other senatorial candidates who won in the May 1995 senatorial elections, docketed as SET Case No. 001-95. On June 30, 1995, Enrile filed his answer with counter-protest.

After issues were joined, the SET required the parties to submit a list of pilot precincts numbering not more than 25% of the total precincts involved in Pimentel’s protest. The SET then conducted revision of ballots in the pilot precincts, namely: Paoay, Ilocos Norte; Tarlac, Tarlac; Tawi-Tawi; Maguindanao; Sulu; Bulacan; Lanao del Sur; Lanao del Norte; Pasig City; Biñan, Laguna; Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija; Pangasinan; Agusan del Sur and Agusan del Norte. Thereafter, the SET directed the parties to submit their evidence and memoranda.

On August 21, 1997, the SET, without resolving the election protest, held a press conference at the Supreme Court Session Hall announcing the partial and tentative results of the revision of ballots in the pilot precincts. A press release entitled “Partial Results in Pimentel’s Protest” was issued accompanied by a tabulation of votes for the parties. In that tabulation, Enrile’s name dropped from number 11 to number 15.

On September 24, 1997, Enrile filed a “Motion to Set Aside Partial Results in Pimentel’s Protest and to Conduct Another Appreciation of Ballots in the Presence of All Parties,” alleging that the partial results were manifestly erroneous. The SET issued Resolution No. 97-20 requiring all parties to file their respective comments. Only respondent and Senator Nikki Coseteng filed separate comments, alleging among others that Enrile’s motion was premature because the SET had not yet resolved Pimentel’s election protest.

In Resolution No. 97-22, the SET admitted there was an “oversight” and stated that the tally of votes for Paoay, Ilocos Norte should be made; consequently, the 30,000 votes deducted from Enrile were “given back to him.” Nevertheless, the SET denied Enrile’s motion, holding that there was no sufficient basis to discard its partial tabulation. Enrile filed a motion for reconsideration, which the SET denied in Resolution No. 98-02.

In its explanation, the SET described the process in determining the parties’ votes in the pilot municipalities: recount and revision of ballots where the parties were represented; examination of the different election documents including verification of the accuracy of the addition of figures appearing on Statement of Votes by Precincts (SOV/M or SOV/C); and comparison of the figures appearing on the SOV/P, the Municipal or City Certificate of Canvass (MCOC or CCOPC), the SOV/M or SOV/C and the Provincial Certificate of Canvass (PCOC). The SET stated that Enrile’s arguments appeared to consider only the revision of ballots and the SOV/P and speculated on rulings made in the appreciation of ballots. It further explained that errors in revision reports and in the addition of figures on election documents were rectified, resulting in additions to or deductions from the parties’ votes. The tenure of the contested senatorial position expired on June 30, 1998.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Partial Tabulation: Petitioner contended that the SET committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that no sufficient basis exists to annul the manifestly erroneous tabulation of the results of revision and appreciation of ballots.
• Rectification Using Other Election Documents: Petitioner contended that the SET committed patent and gross error in rectifying the results of the physical count, as reflected in the revision reports, by using other election documents.
• Release of Partial and Tentative Results: Petitioner contended that the SET committed grave abuse of discretion when it released “partial and tentative” results which caused grave prejudice to him.
• Right to Be Heard in Appreciation: Petitioner contended that the SET committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that he is not entitled to be heard in the appreciation proceedings.
• Erroneous Partial Results: Petitioner alleged that the partial results released by the SET were manifestly erroneous because they were improbable and not supported by evidence.

• No Grave Abuse of Discretion: Respondent and the Solicitor General maintained that the SET did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the challenged Resolutions.
• Prematurity: Respondent and Senator Nikki Coseteng alleged that Enrile’s motion was premature considering that the SET had not yet resolved Pimentel’s election protest.
• Moot and Academic: The Solicitor General asserted that the petition had become moot and academic because the tenure of the contested senatorial position subject of the protest expired on June 30, 1998.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the SET committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s Motion to Set Aside Partial Results in Pimentel’s Protest and to Conduct Another Appreciation of Ballots in the Presence of All Parties.
• Moot and Academic: Whether the petition became moot and academic because the tenure of the contested senatorial position expired on June 30, 1998.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Dismissed as moot and academic. The Court did not resolve the merits because the tenure of the contested senatorial position expired on June 30, 1998; it also noted that the SET’s process explained why petitioner’s figures did not tally with the SET’s figures.
• Moot and Academic: Yes. A case becomes moot and academic when there is no more actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits; the expiration of the contested term removed any practical relief.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The SET denied petitioner’s motion in Resolution No. 97-22, admitting an oversight in Paoay and restoring 30,000 votes to Enrile but finding no sufficient basis to discard the partial tabulation. Petitioner alleged manifest errors and grave abuse. The SET explained its process: recount and revision of ballots with party representation; examination of election documents including verification of the accuracy of addition of figures on the SOV/P; and comparison of figures on the SOV/P, MCOC/CCOC, SOV/M or SOV/C, and PCOC. Petitioner’s arguments appeared to consider only the revision of ballots and the SOV/P and speculated on appreciation rulings. The Court stated that the process clearly showed why petitioner’s figures did not tally with the SET’s figures. However, the Court ultimately agreed with the Solicitor General that the petition had become moot and academic because the contested senatorial tenure expired on June 30, 1998, leaving no actual controversy.
• Moot and Academic: A case becomes moot and academic when there is no more actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits. The tenure of the contested senatorial position expired as early as June 30, 1998. There is no actual substantial relief to which petitioner would be entitled and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. The Court cited Garcia vs. COMELEC and Gancho-on vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment in support. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

• Moot and Academic — A case becomes moot and academic when there is no more actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits; courts decline jurisdiction over moot cases because any declaration would be of no practical use or value. The doctrine was applied because the tenure of the contested senatorial position expired on June 30, 1998, leaving no actual substantial relief to which petitioner would be entitled and which would be negated by dismissal.

• “A case becomes moot and academic when there is no more actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits.” — This is the Court’s canonical formulation of the mootness doctrine and the basis for dismissing the petition.
• “At any rate, we agree with the Solicitor General that the petition has become moot and academic. The tenure of the contested senatorial position subject of this petition expired as early as June 30, 1998.” — This passage states the Court’s decisive ground for dismissal.
• “The above process clearly shows why the figures presented by petitioner in his motion do not tally with the figures released by the SET.” — This passage explains the Court’s observation on the SET’s process of determining the parties’ votes in the pilot municipalities.
• “WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.” — This is the dispositive portion of the decision.

• Garcia vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 121139, July 12, 1996, 258 SCRA 754, 757 — Cited for the rule that where issues have become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, rendering resolution of the same of no practical use or value.
• Gancho-on vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 108033, April 14, 1997, 271 SCRA 204, 207-208 — Cited for the rule that courts will not consider questions in which no actual interests are involved and decline jurisdiction of moot cases.
• Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121251, June 26, 1998, 291 SCRA 271, 278 — Cited for the definition of a moot and academic case, citing Ozaeta vs. Oil Industry Commission, 98 SCRA 417 (1980) and Philsugin vs. Aspem, 115 SCRA 835 (1982).

• Rule 65, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended — The petition for certiorari was filed under this Rule, assailing SET Resolutions 97-22 and 98-02 for grave abuse of discretion. The Court dismissed the petition as moot and academic.

Davide, Jr. (on official leave), Puno, Vitug (Acting Chief Justice), Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ.