**Facts:**
On May 11, 1992, a presidential election was held in the Philippines. Fidel V. Ramos was proclaimed the winner with 5,342,571 votes while Miriam Defensor-Santiago received 4,465,173 votes and ranked second. Defensor-Santiago filed an election protest on July 20, 1992, alleging election frauds and irregularities. She claimed that Ramos, with assistance from government officials, used government funds and facilities to manipulate the election results in his favor.
After the initial pleadings, the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) ordered the identification of three pilot areas with alleged significant fraud. Defensor-Santiago identified Metro Manila, Pampanga, and Zamboanga, covering 17,527 precincts. The revision of ballots began but faced delays due to concurrent local election protests using the same ballots.
By August 16, 1995, the ballots from 13,510 precincts had been revised. Defensor-Santiago requested cessation of further revisions since she had won a Senate seat in the May 1995 elections. She assumed office on June 30, 1995. The PET required memoranda from Santiago and Ramos on whether her Senate election rendered the election protest moot.
**Procedural Posture:**
– July 20, 1992: Election protest filed by Santiago.
– September 22, 1992: PET identifies pilot areas for revision.
– August 16, 1995: Santiago requests cessation of revision.
– June 30, 1995: Santiago assumes Senate office.
– PET requires submissions on mootness issue.
**Issues:**
1. Whether the case had been rendered moot by Santiago’s election and assumption of office as a Senator.
2. Whether the waiver of the revision of remaining ballots affected the validity of the protest.
**Court’s Decision:**
1. **Mootness of Case Due to Senate Election**:
– PET ruled that Defensor-Santiago’s election to the Senate, a six-year term, indicated the abandonment of her claim to the presidency. Her new role as Senator was inconsistent with pursuing the presidential protest.
– Cited cases and public interest: The public interest in determining the true election outcome was noted. This interest, however, was outweighed by Santiago’s acceptance and fulfillment of Senate duties.
2. **Intent to Abandon Claim**:
– The court used Santiago’s series of actions: filing candidacy, campaigning, assuming office, and performing Senate duties as evidence of her intent to abandon the presidential protest. This alignment was in stark opposition to an intent to solely pursue the protest.
– The PET found no substantial new evidence or arguments convincing enough to continue the protest.
**Doctrine:**
The case reiterated the principle that the acceptance of a distinct, time-overlapping elective office implies the abandonment of any ongoing protest regarding a previously contested position. Public office as a public trust mandates that entrance into a new and substantial political contract with the electorate negates earlier unresolved claims to another office.
**Class Notes:**
1. **Mootness Principle**: An election protest can be rendered moot by subsequent actions taken by the protestant, such as assuming a different elective office.
2. **Public Interest in Election Protests**: While the pursuit of the true election results is crucial public interest, this interest can be forfeited by the protestant’s actions signifying abandonment.
3. **Rules of Abandonment**: Abandonment involves voluntary relinquishment demonstrated through consistent, unequivocal actions indicative of the intent to relinquish a claim to a previous office (e.g., candidacy for another office).
Relevant Statutory Provisions:
– **Omnibus Election Code, Sec. 67, Art. IX**: Any elective official running for another office, other than the one held in a permanent capacity, is considered ipso facto resigned upon filing for candidacy.
– **Rule 61 of the PET Rules**: Provision for dismissal of protest if the examination of ballots indicates likely failure of the protest.
**Historical Background:**
This case marked a significant moment in the post-EDSA revolution’s political landscape. It tested the electorate’s engagement and the government’s commitment to transparent elections. It reflected on the legal and procedural tools available to challenge electoral integrity, underlining the doctrine that ongoing responsibility and electoral commitment can impact judicial processes.
Leave a Reply