|
|
|
|
CERTIORARI IN ELECTION CASES Clearly, the COMELEC,
motu proprio, reconsidered its earlier Minute Resolution No. 98-1959, as
it was within its power to do, before it became final and executory. As
argued by the COMELEC, it has the inherent power to amend and control its
process and order. Within the thirty-day period from its promulgation,19
[See CONSTITUTION, Article IX-A, Section 7, viz: x x x. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.] therefore, the questioned Minute Resolution No. 98-1959 was still under the control of the COMELEC and may thus be recalled or set aside. Necessarily, the subsequent passage by the COMELEC of Minute Resolution No. 98-2145 on July 14, 1998, wherein it corrected its earlier Minute Resolution No. 98-1959, rendered the instant petition moot and academic. Verily, this very same issue has already been resolved by this Court en banc in Jaafar v. Commission on Elections, et al.,20 [G.R. No. 134188, March 15, 1999.] which held: We agree with respondent COMELEC that this petition should be dismissed. The pleadings and their annexes show that shortly after this petition for certiorari to annul Minute Resolution No. 98-1959 dated 29 June 1998, was filed the COMELEC motu proprio issued M.R. No. 98-2145 on July 14, 1998 which held in abeyance the implementation of the questioned resolution and that of Minute Resolution No. 98-2106 dated July 7, 1998 for further study/review by the Commission. Hence, Resolution No. 98-1959 never became final and executory and is still subject to either recall or modification by the Commission. The
Court notes that COMELEC Resolution No. 98-2828 issued on October 15, 1998
clarified that all the winning candidates for local government positions
have been proclaimed and that no declaration of failure of elections in
the island province of Tawi-Tawi was made by the Commission. Sadikul
Sahali (who was proclaimed governor of Tawi-Tawi) and all other local
candidates who were proclaimed winners as of May 13, 1998 are the duly
elected officials of Tawi-Tawi as of July 14, 1998, when the status quo
ante order was issued by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the subsequent
promulgation of COMELEC Resolution Nos. 98-2145 and 9828 (sic) show that
the questioned Minute Resolution No. 98-1959 of the respondent tribunal
suspending the effects of the proclamation of the petitioner and other
local candidates has been effectively withdrawn, or at least held in
abeyance for further study and review. The subsequent issuance of COMELEC
M.R. Nos. 98-2145 and 98-2828 has mooted the instant petition.
Spped The
court should refrain from expressing its opinion in a case in which no
practical relief may be granted in view of a supervening event. It is a
rule almost unanimously observed that courts of justice will take
cognizance only of justiciable controversies wherein actual and not merely
hypothetical issues are involved. Where the issue has become moot and
academic there is no justiciable controversy, an adjudication thereon
would be of no practical use or value.21
[Citations omitted.] The present petition for certiorari, therefore, must be dismissed. It is grounded on alleged grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction. In the recent case of Perla Garcia, et al. v. HRET, et al.,22 [G.R. No. 134792, August 12, 1999.] this Court had occasion to rule: Certiorari
as a special civil action can be availed of only if there is concurrence
of the essential requisites, to wit: (a) the tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial functions has acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in
excess or jurisdiction, and (b) there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the purpose of
annulling or modifying the proceeding. There must be a capricious,
arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power for it to prosper.23
[Supra., citing Suntay v. Cojuangco-Suntay, G.R. No. 132524, December 29,
1998.] To question the jurisdiction of the lower court or the agency exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, the remedy is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The petitioner in such cases must clearly show that the public respondent acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion defies exact definition, but generally refers to "capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility." "It has been held, however, that no grave abuse of discretion may be attributed to a court simply because of its alleged misappreciation of facts and evidence. A writ of certiorari may not be used to correct a lower tribunal's evaluation of the evidence and factual findings. In other words, it is not a remedy for mere errors of judgment, which are correctible by an appeal or a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. "In
fine, certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction, not
errors of procedure or mistakes in the findings or conclusions of the
lower court. As long as a court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged
errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing
more than errors of judgment which are reviewable by timely appeal and not
by special civil action for certiorari."24
[Supra., citing People of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
128986, June 21, 1999.]
En Banc Justice Ynares-Santiago,
SADIKUL SAHALI, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC) and HADJA
JUBAIDA H. MATBA, respondents
[G.R. No. 134169. February 2, 2000]
For any
inquiries or comment, you may contact the WEBMASTER
|
CCHOPE ELECTION
2001 
