CASIANO IGNACIO, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

Casiano Ignacio versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a petition for review by writ of certiorari filed by Casiano Ignacio and five other candidates against the Commission on Elections. The petitioners had filed a joint certificate of candidacy for municipal councilor of Ipil, Zamboanga del Sur, and the Commission refused to give it due course because it was subscribed under oath only by the party president and not by the party secretary as well. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court treats a petition that events have overtaken, and it teaches the rule on mootness in election cases decided after the balloting has already taken place.

Procedural History

The petitioners first filed their joint certificate of candidacy with the Commission on Elections. The Commission refused to give it due course. The petitioners then filed a letter-request for reconsideration, submitting a corrected certificate sworn to by both the chairman and the secretary of the local directorate. The Commission refused to reconsider its previous resolution. The petitioners then came to the Supreme Court on a petition for review by writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court issued a preliminary injunction restraining the Commission from enforcing its resolution and ordering the distribution of the petitioners' certificate of candidacy to the polling places at Ipil before the November 10, 1959 elections. The writ was served and complied with. Later, the petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the issue had become academic.

Facts

On September 11, 1959, Casiano Ignacio, Saturnino Baybayan, Saturnino Gallego, Urbano Zamora, Jose Villafuerte and Alfredo Ramos filed with the Commission on Elections a joint certificate of candidacy for municipal councilor of Ipil, Zamboanga del Sur. The certificate was filed through Joaquin Funda, Chairman of the Nacionalista Party local directorate, who verified it before a notary public.

On October 6, 1959, the Commission refused to give the certificate due course, on the ground that it was subscribed under oath only by the party president and not by the secretary also of the party, as required by Section 35 of the Election Code. Two days later, after receiving notice, the petitioners filed a letter-request for reconsideration, explaining the failure of the party secretary to verify the certificate and submitting a corrected certificate sworn to by both the chairman and the secretary of the local directorate. The Commission still refused to reconsider.

The petitioners then filed this petition for review by writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court issued a preliminary injunction, which the Commission complied with, and the certificate was distributed to the polling places before the November 10, 1959 elections. On March 3, 1961, the petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the issue had become academic, the elections having been held and some of them having been elected. The Commission made of record that Casiano Ignacio, Saturnino Baybayan, Jose Villafuerte and Alfredo Ramos were elected councilors of Ipil, while Saturnino Gallego and Urbano Zamora were not.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for review has become moot and academic because the elections have already been held and some of the petitioners were elected to office.
• Whether or not the motion to dismiss filed by the petitioners should be granted.

Applicable Provisions

Section 35 of the Election Code, as invoked by the Commission on Elections, provides the requirement on the subscription of the certificate of candidacy:

The certificate of candidacy shall be subscribed under oath by the candidate and by the president and the secretary of the political party to which the candidate belongs.

This provision is the basis on which the Commission refused to give due course to the petitioners' certificate, and it frames the controversy that the Court later found overtaken by events.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition had become moot and academic. The elections had already been held, and the Commission itself made of record that four of the petitioners were elected councilors of Ipil while the other two were not. There was no longer any live controversy for the Court to resolve.

On the second issue, the Court found the motion to dismiss well founded. It granted the motion and dismissed the action, without costs. The Court did not reach the merits of the Commission's ruling on the certificate of candidacy, because the supervening fact of the elections had removed the controversy from the realm of justiciable dispute.

Doctrine

A petition becomes moot and academic when the events it seeks to affect have already taken place, leaving no live controversy for the Court to resolve. Where the elections have been held and candidates have been elected or defeated, a petition challenging the Commission's refusal to give due course to a certificate of candidacy no longer presents a justiciable issue, and the Court will dismiss it. The requirement of Section 35 of the Election Code, that the certificate be subscribed under oath by the candidate and by the president and the secretary of the party, is the provision the Commission applied, but the Court's disposition rests on mootness rather than on the merits of that requirement.

Disposition

The Court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the petition, without costs, the issue having become academic after the elections were held.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a petition becomes moot and academic when the elections it concerns have already been held and the controversy no longer presents a live issue. Examiners use this case to test the rule on mootness in election contests and the effect of supervening events on a pending petition for certiorari.