Javier vs. Commission on Elections

All contests involving members of the Batasang Pambansa, including pre-proclamation controversies, must be heard and decided by the COMELEC en banc, not by a division; the term "contests" under Article XII-C, Sections 2 and 3 of the 1973 Constitution encompasses any matter involving title to an elective office, whether made before or after proclamation.

The case emerged during the Marcos dictatorship, a period characterized by election violence and fraud. The May 1984 elections for the Batasang Pambansa were marred by terrorism, including the Sibalom massacre where followers of Javier were killed on the eve of elections. The COMELEC was perceived as biased toward the ruling KBL party, creating a climate of fear and intimidation in Antique province.

• Filed with COMELEC: Javier filed complaints to question the canvass of election returns and prevent Pacificador's proclamation, alleging massive terrorism, fraud, and falsification of returns
• COMELEC Second Division:
  • May 18, 1984: Directed provincial board of canvassers to proceed but suspend proclamation
  • June 7, 1984: Ordered immediate proclamation without prejudice to case outcome
  • July 23, 1984: Promulgated decision proclaiming Pacificador winner (signed by Chairman Savellano and Commissioners Opinion and Bacungan)
  • Elevated to SC: Javier filed petition for certiorari on July 23, 1984, assailing the proclamation as unconstitutional
• Supervening Events:
  • February 11, 1986: Javier assassinated while case pending
  • February 1986: EDSA Revolution; Marcos regime fell; Batasang Pambansa abolished under Freedom Constitution
  • Motion to Dismiss: New Solicitor General moved to dismiss as moot and academic; SC denied the motion

• Nature: Special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 challenging COMELEC Second Division decision
• Parties: Evelio B. Javier (petitioner, opposition candidate) vs. COMELEC and Arturo F. Pacificador (private respondent, KBL nominee)
• Electoral Violence: May 13, 1984 (eve of elections) — Nine followers of Javier ambushed and killed in Sibalom, Antique; Pacificador implicated as principal perpetrator; seven suspects including Pacificador facing trial
• Alleged Anomalies: Terrorism, intimidation, vote-buying, tampering and falsification of election returns under duress in municipalities of Caluya, Cabate, Tibiao, Barbaza, Laua-an, and San Remigio (where returns allegedly wrapped in cement bags rather than placed in ballot boxes)
• Due Process Violation: Commissioner Jaime Opinion refused to inhibit himself despite being former law partner of Pacificador; denied motion for inhibition
• Current Status: Petitioner deceased; private respondent in hiding; Batasang Pambansa abolished; office in dispute ceased to exist

• The Second Division had no authority to proclaim Pacificador; Article XII-C, Section 3 of the 1973 Constitution mandates that contests involving Batasang Pambansa members must be heard and decided en banc
• The term "contests" should be interpreted broadly to include pre-proclamation controversies, not merely post-proclamation election protests
• The purpose of the en banc requirement is to ensure careful deliberation on important offices; allowing divisions to decide pre-proclamation matters defeats this purpose and enables the "grab-the-proclamation-and-delay-the-protest" strategy of unscrupulous candidates
• Commissioner Opinion's refusal to inhibit himself violated the cold neutrality of an impartial judge, divesting the Second Division of jurisdiction

• Only "contests" need be heard en banc; "cases" (including pre-proclamation controversies) can be decided by divisions under the general rule in Section 3
• A "contest" strictly defined requires a contention for the same office where the contestant seeks to oust the occupant and be inducted into office; since no proclamation had been made when the petition was filed, there was no "contest" yet, only an administrative "case"
• The COMELEC exercises administrative power over pre-proclamation matters and judicial power over post-proclamation contests; the en banc requirement applies only to the latter
• The case has become moot and academic due to Javier's death, Pacificador's disappearance, abolition of the Batasang Pambansa, and installation of the new government

• Procedural Issues: Whether the SC should dismiss the petition as moot and academic due to the death of the petitioner, abolition of the Batasang Pambansa, and change of government
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the COMELEC Second Division had authority to decide pre-proclamation controversies and proclaim the winner in a Batasang Pambansa election, or whether such matters must be decided by the COMELEC en banc
  • Whether Commissioner Opinion's refusal to inhibit himself violated due process

• Procedural: The petition should NOT be dismissed despite being moot and academic. The SC has the duty to resolve cases involving constitutional questions that are capable of repetition yet evading review and where there is a paramount public interest involved, to guide future conduct and prevent the condonation of wrongs.
• Substantive:
  • The Second Division had NO authority to decide the case. All contests involving members of the Batasang Pambansa, including pre-proclamation controversies, must be heard and decided by the COMELEC en banc under Article XII-C, Sections 2 and 3 of the 1973 Constitution.
  • The decision of July 23, 1984 is void for having been rendered by only three commissioners in division rather than the full commission en banc.
  • Commissioner Opinion's refusal to inhibit himself violated due process; his participation rendered the proceedings null and void.

• Moot and Academic Exception — The SC will exercise jurisdiction over moot cases when: (1) there is a grave constitutional issue involved; (2) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review; and (3) there is a paramount public interest requiring resolution to guide lower courts and prevent future violations. The Court acts not only for the vindication of the outraged right, though gone, but also for the guidance of and as a restraint upon the future.
• COMELEC En Banc Jurisdiction — Under Article XII-C, Section 3 of the 1973 Constitution, all contests involving members of the Batasang Pambansa must be heard and decided en banc. The term "contests" is not restricted to post-proclamation election protests but includes pre-proclamation controversies involving the title to the office.
• Liberal Interpretation of "Contests" — The words "contests" and "election, returns and qualifications" should be interpreted liberally and given the widest possible scope. "Election" refers to conduct of polls; "returns" to canvass and proclamation; "qualifications" to eligibility requirements. The term refers to any matter involving title or claim of title to an elective office, made before or after proclamation, whether or not the contestant claims the office.
• Due Process and Judicial Impartiality — Due process requires the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. A judge must not only be impartial in fact but must also appear impartial to the parties. Like Caesar's wife, the judge must be above suspicion. Where a judge has a prior professional relationship with a party, he must inhibit himself; refusal to do so divests the tribunal of jurisdiction.
• Sole Judge Doctrine — As "sole judge" of contests involving Batasang Pambansa members, the COMELEC en banc has exclusive jurisdiction from beginning to end, excluding even its own divisions from acting on such matters.

• "The Supreme Court is not only the highest arbiter of legal questions but also the conscience of the government."
• "The citizen comes to us in quest of law but we must also give him justice. The two are not always the same."
• "Justice demands that we act then, not only for the vindication of the outraged right, though gone, but also for the guidance of and as a restraint upon the future."
• "The cold neutrality of an impartial judge [is] the indispensable imperative of due process."
• "Like Caesar's wife, [the judge] must be above suspicion."
• "The word 'contests' should not be given a restrictive meaning; on the contrary, it should receive the widest possible scope conformably to the rule that the words used in the Constitution should be interpreted liberally."
• "The grab-the-proclamation-and-delay-the-protest strategy of many unscrupulous candidates... [would be] possible [under the respondent's theory]."

• Vera vs. Avelino, 77 Phil. 191 — Cited by respondents for the strict definition of "contest" requiring a contender seeking to oust the occupant; distinguished by the SC as applying to the 1971 Election Code, not the 1973 Constitution.
• Aratuc vs. Commission on Elections, 88 SCRA 251 — Cited to show that pre-proclamation controversies were heard and decided by the COMELEC en banc, supporting the petitioner's position.
• Mateo vs. Villaluz, 50 SCRA 18 and Gutierrez vs. Santos, 2 SCRA 249 — Cited for the doctrine requiring the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.
• People vs. Opida, G.R. No. L-46272, July 13, 1986 — Cited for the principle that judges must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial.

• Article XII-C, Section 2(2), 1973 Constitution — Confers on COMELEC the power to be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of all members of the Batasang Pambansa.
• Article XII-C, Section 3, 1973 Constitution — Provides that COMELEC may sit en banc or in three divisions, but contests involving members of the Batasang Pambansa shall be heard and decided en banc.
• Presidential Decree No. 1296 (1978 Election Code), Section 175 — Made COMELEC the sole judge of all pre-proclamation controversies; interpreted by the SC as referring to the body sitting en banc.
• Election Code of 1971, Section 219 — Cited to show that "contests" historically included quo warranto petitions filed by voters not claiming the office.

• Feliciano, J. — Concurred in the result on the single ground that all election contests involving members of the Batasang Pambansa must be decided by the COMELEC en banc under Sections 2 and 3 of Article XII-C of the 1973 Constitution, noting these sections do not distinguish between "pre-proclamation" and "post-proclamation" contests nor between "cases" and "contests."
• Melencio-Herrera, J. — Concurred in the result, emphasizing that the questioned decision should be set aside because all election contests involving Batasang Pambansa members fall under the jurisdiction of the COMELEC en banc without any distinction as to "cases" or "contests."