CASE FACTS ISSUES RULING

The petitioner and the private respondent were candidates in

Antique for the Batasang Pambansa in the May 1984
elections. On May 13, 1984, the eve of the elections, the bitter Held:
contest between the two came to a head when several
followers of the petitioner were ambushed and killed, allegedly 1. No.The abolition of the Batasang Pambansa and the disappearance of the office in dispute between the petitioner and the private respondent-both of whom
Topic: Judicial by the latter’s men. Seven suspects, including respondent have gone their separate ways-could be a convenient justification for dismissing this case. But there are larger issues involved that must be resolved now,
Elaboration of Pacificador, are now facing trial for these murders. once and for all, not only to dispel the legal ambiguities here raised. The more important purpose is to manifest in the clearest possible terms that this Court
the will not disregard and in effect condone wrong on the simplistic and tolerant pretext that the case has become moot and academic.
Constitution It was in this atmosphere that the voting was held, and the
(Functions of post-election developments were to run true to form. Owing to 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
Judicial what he claimed were attempts to railroad the private 1. Whether it we must also give him justice. The two are not always the same. There are times when we cannot grant the latter because the issue has been settled and
Review) respondent’s proclamation, the petitioner went to the is correct for decision is no longer possible according to the law. But there are also times when although the dispute has disappeared, as in this case, it nevertheless cries
Commission on Elections to question the canvass of the the court to out to be resolved. 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
EVELIO B. election returns. His complaints were dismissed and the dismiss the restraint upon the future.
JAVIER, private respondent was proclaimed winner by the Second petition due to
petitioner, Division of the said body. The petitioner thereupon came to the petitioner
this Court, arguing that the proclamation was void because 2. No.The applicable provisions are found in Article XII-C, Sections 2 and 3, of the 1973 Constitution.
being dead
made only by a division and not by the Commission on and the
vs. Elections en banc as required by the Constitution. Section 2 confers on the Commission on Elections the power to:
respondent
missing.
THE On May 18, 1984, the Second Division of the Commission on 2. Whether (2) Be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of all member of the Batasang Pambansa and elective provincial and city
COMMISSION Elections directed the provincial board of canvassers of the Second officials.
ON Antique to proceed with the canvass but to suspend the Division of the
ELECTIONS, proclamation of the winning candidate until further orders. On Commission
and ARTURO Section 3 provides:
June 7, 1984, the same Second Division ordered the board to on Elections
F. immediately convene and to proclaim the winner without was
PACIFICADOR prejudice to the outcome of the case before the Commission. authorized to The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in three divisions. All election cases may be heard and decided by divisions except contests involving
On certiorari before this Court, the proclamation made by the promulgate its members of the Batasang Pambansa, which shall be heard and decided en banc. Unless otherwise provided by law, all election cases shall be decided within
board of canvassers was set aside as premature, having been decision of ninety days from the date of their submission for decision.
made before the lapse of the 5-day period of appeal, which the July 23, 1984,
G.R. Nos. L- petitioner had seasonably made. Finally, on July 23, 1984, the proclaiming We believe that in making the Commission on Elections the sole judge of all contests involving the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the
68379-81 Second Division promulgated the decision now subject of this the private Batasang Pambansa and elective provincial and city officials, the Constitution intended to give it full authority to hear and decide these cases from beginning
petition which inter alia proclaimed Arturo F. Pacificador the respondent to end and on all matters related thereto, including those arising before the proclamation of the winners.
elected assemblyman of the province of Antique. The the winner in
September 22, petitioner then came to this Court, asking to annul the said the election?
1986 As correctly observed by the petitioner, the purpose of Section 3 in requiring that cases involving members of the Batasang Pambansa be heard and decided
decision on the basis that it should have been decided by by the Commission en banc was to insure the most careful consideration of such cases. Obviously, that objective could not be achieved if the Commission
COMELEC en banc. could act en banc only after the proclamation had been made, for it might then be too late already. We are all-too-familiar with the grab-the-proclamation-and-
CRUZ, J. delay-the-protest strategy of many unscrupulous candidates, which has resulted in the frustration of the popular will and the virtual defeat of the real winners
The case was still being considered when on February 11, in the election. The respondent’s theory would make this gambit possible for the pre- proclamation proceedings, being summary in nature, could be hastily
1986, the petitioner was gunned down in cold blood and in decided by only three members in division, without the care and deliberation that would have otherwise been observed by the Commission en banc.
broad daylight. And a year later, Batasang Pambansa was
abolished with the advent of the 1987 Constitution. WHEREFORE, let it be spread in the records of this case that were it not for the supervening events that have legally rendered it moot and academic, this
petition would have been granted and the decision of the Commission on Elections dated July 23, 1984, set aside as violative of the Constitution.
Respondents moved to dismiss the petition, contending it to be
moot and academic.