SALIC DUMARPA, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

Salic Dumarpa versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a petition for prohibition and mandamus, with a prayer for a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction, filed by Salic Dumarpa against the Commission on Elections. Dumarpa, a congressional candidate in the first district of Lanao del Sur in the May 2010 national elections, asked the Supreme Court to annul or declare illegal Sections 4 and 12 of Resolution Number 8965 of the Commission on Elections, which governed the conduct of special elections in areas where there was a failure of elections. He claimed that these provisions were issued with grave abuse of discretion. The case matters because it is the Court's clearest recent statement on the breadth of the Commission's plenary power over the conduct of elections, and on the deference the Court gives to the Commission's judgment calls in the field, even when those calls are debatable.

Procedural History

This case came to the Supreme Court as an original action. Dumarpa filed the petition for prohibition and mandamus directly with the Supreme Court, invoking Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. There were no prior rulings by a trial court or by the Court of Appeals. Before filing, Dumarpa had filed a motion for reconsideration with the Commission on Elections, directed only at Sections 4 and 12 as they would apply to the Municipality of Masiu, and the Commission did not act on that motion. The Supreme Court did not issue a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction, so the special elections proceeded as scheduled. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a comment for the Commission, arguing that the issues had been mooted by the holding of the special elections and that the resolution was not tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

Facts

Salic Dumarpa was a congressional candidate for the first district of Lanao del Sur in the May 2010 elections. The Commission on Elections declared a total failure of elections in seven municipalities, including the municipalities of Masiu, Lumba Bayabao, and Kapai, all within Dumarpa's district. The special elections were first scheduled for the twenty ninth of May 2010. On the twenty fifth of May 2010, the Commission issued Resolution Number 8946, resetting the special elections to the third of June 2010, citing failure of elections in eight other municipalities, missing ballots, boards of election inspectors unwilling to serve or disqualified by relationship, and precinct count optical scan machines already pulled out.

On the twenty eighth of May 2010, the Commission issued the assailed Resolution Number 8965, which provided, among others, for the constitution of a Special Board of Election Inspectors in Section 4 and for the clustering of precincts in Section 12. On the same date, Dumarpa filed a motion for reconsideration concerning only those two sections as they would apply to the Municipality of Masiu. The Commission did not act on it.

A day before the scheduled special elections, on the second of June 2010, Dumarpa filed this petition. He alleged that the re clustering of precincts and the constitution of special boards of election inspectors would affect the Municipality of Masiu and would doom him to certain defeat if not restrained. At that time, he was leading by a slim margin over his opponent, Hussin Pangandaman, in the canvassed votes for the areas where there was no failure of elections. The special elections proceeded on the third of June 2010, and Pangandaman was proclaimed winner.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition has been mooted by the holding of the special elections on the third of June 2010 and by the proclamation of Dumarpa's opponent.
• Whether or not Section 12 of Resolution Number 8965, on the re clustering of precincts, is illegal or void for having been issued without notice to candidates and stakeholders and without hearing.
• Whether or not Section 4 of Resolution Number 8965, on the constitution of a Special Board of Election Inspectors, is illegal or void for having been issued without notice and hearing.
• Whether or not the Commission on Elections acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing those provisions.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2, paragraph 1, of Article 9 of the Constitution provides:

The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions: (1) Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall.

This is the source of the Commission's plenary power, which the Court held carries with it all necessary and incidental powers to hold free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.

Section 2, paragraph 3, of the same Article provides:

Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions affecting elections, including determination of the number and location of polling places, appointment of election officials and inspectors, and registration of voters.

This provision directly covers the two matters Dumarpa objected to, namely the location of polling places through clustering of precincts and the appointment of election inspectors.

Section 52 of the Omnibus Election Code provides:

In addition to the powers and functions conferred upon it by the Constitution, the Commission shall have exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections for the purpose of ensuring free, orderly and honest elections.

This statutory grant confirms that the Commission's authority over the conduct of elections is exclusive and broad.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition had indeed been mooted. The special elections were held as scheduled on the third of June 2010, and Dumarpa's opponent was proclaimed winner. The Court treated this as a supervening event that mooted the petition, since the issues raised could be resolved in the election protest. It defined a moot and academic case as one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical value.

On the remaining issues, the Court held that the petition was, in any event, unmeritorious. The Commission issued Resolution Number 8965 in the exercise of its plenary powers under the Constitution and statute. The Court stressed that the Commission's broad power to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections carries with it all necessary and incidental powers to achieve the objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections. Quoting its earlier decisions, the Court reminded that the Commission, because of its fact finding facilities and its experience in political controversies, is in a peculiarly advantageous position to decide complex political questions, and that the choice of means taken by the Commission, unless clearly illegal or constituting grave abuse of discretion, should not be interfered with.

On the re clustering of precincts, Dumarpa argued that it was done without notice and hearing, in less than thirty days before the special elections, and that the polling places were reduced from twenty one to only three voting centers controlled by his opponent. The Court rejected these objections. It noted that the resolution was issued precisely because of the total failure of elections in seven municipalities, and in fifteen municipalities in all, and that Dumarpa did not question the declaration of failure of elections itself. The Commission, through its deputized officials in the field, is in the best position to assess the actual condition prevailing in the area and to make judgment calls. The Court acknowledged that the Commission's actions may not be impeccable and may even be debatable, but it would not engage in academic criticism of actions taken under very difficult circumstances. It also found that the Commission closely followed Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code by scheduling the special election not later than thirty days after the cessation of the cause of the failure to elect.

On the designation of the Special Board of Election Inspectors, Dumarpa invoked the rule that public school teachers who are members of the board of election inspectors shall not be relieved nor disqualified except for cause and after due hearing. The Court held that the Commission sought to foreclose the possibility that the board of election inspectors may not report to the polling place, as had happened in the Municipality of Masiu, resulting in another failure of election. The Court confined its ruling to the issues raised against Resolution Number 8965 and did not preempt the decision in the election protest.

Doctrine

The Commission on Elections exercises plenary power over the conduct of elections under Section 2 of Article 9 of the Constitution and Section 52 of the Omnibus Election Code. That power carries with it all necessary and incidental powers to hold free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections, including the power to determine the number and location of polling places and to appoint election officials and inspectors.

The choice of means taken by the Commission in the performance of its duties must be given considerable latitude and will not be interfered with unless clearly illegal or tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The Commission, through its deputized officials in the field, is in the best position to assess actual conditions and to make judgment calls, and its actions, even if debatable, cannot be struck down through academic criticism.

A case is moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical value. Where the questioned special elections have already been held and a winner proclaimed, the proper remedy is an election protest, not a petition for prohibition and mandamus.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and ordered costs against Salic Dumarpa; the Commission on Elections prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the Commission on Elections has plenary power over the conduct of elections, and its choice of means will not be disturbed unless clearly illegal or tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Examiners use this case to test the breadth of the Commission's constitutional and statutory powers over polling places and election inspectors, and to test mootness where special elections have already been held and a winner proclaimed.