VOTER’S STANDING

TOLENTINO V COMELEC
GR. 148334
Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court Prohibiton

Arturo M. Tolentino and Arturo Mojica for and in hteir own behalf
Roimulo B. Macalintal for private respondent Recto
Edmund AM Batara fo rSen G. Honasan

Facts:

1. PGMA nominated then Sen. Teofisto Guingona, Jr. as Vice President

2. Congress confirmed the nomination. Guingona took office Feb 9, 2001
3. Senate passed RESOLUTION No. 84 (Feb 8, 2001) certifying a vacancy in the
Senate. It also called on COMELEC to fill the vacancy with regular elections on
May 14, 2001.
RESO 84: Senatorial candidate garnering the 13th highest number of votes shall
serve only for the unexpired term of former Sen. Guingona which ends June 30,
2004.
4. June 5, 2001- COMELEC issued Resolution No. 01-005 (having canvassed all
provinces except for Lanao Del Norte) PROCLAIMING 13 candidates as the
elected senators.
RESO 01-005: the first 12 senators shall serve for a term of 6 years and the 13th
senator shall serve the unexpired term of 3 years of Sen. Guingona, Jr. who was
appointed Vice President.
12th- Ralph Recto
13th- Gregorio Honasan
5. June 20, 2001- ARTURO TOLENTINO AND ARTURO MOJICA, as voters and
taxpayers, filed a petition for PROHIBITON, impleading ONLY COMELEC as
respondent
6. They also SOUGHT TO ENJOIN COMELEC FROM PROCLAIMING WITH
FINALITY THE CANDIDATE FOR SENATOR RECEIVING THE 13TH HIGHEST
NUMBER OF VOTES as the WINNER IN THE SPECIAL ELECTION FOR A
SINGLE 3-YEAR TERM SEAT
7. They also PRAYED FOR NULLIFICATION OF RESO 01-005 in so far as it
makes a proclamation to such effect:
- Comelec failed to notify the electorate of the position to be filled in the special
election as required under Sec 2 of RA 6645
- It failed to require senatorial candidates to indicate in their certificates of
candidacy whether they seek reelection under the special or regular election
(allegedly required under Sec 73 of BP 881)
- It failed to specify in the voters’ information sheet the candidates seeking
election under the special or regular senatorial elections as purportedly
required under Sec 4, par 4 of RA 6646
- Comelec canvassed all votes cast for the senatorial candidates in the May 4,
2001 elections WITHOUT DISTINCTION such that “there were two separate
senate elections held simultaneously but just a single election for 13 seats,
irrespective of term”
  petitioners claim that if the two elections (regular and special) were to be
held simultaneously, they must be distinguished in the documentation as
well as in the canvassing of their results
 they cited that the special elections of 1951 and 1955 to fill the seats
vacated by Sen. Fernando Lopez and Carlos P. Garcia, respectively, who
both became Vice President during their tenures in the Senate—in those
two elections, Comelec SEPARATELY CANVASSED the votes cast for
regular and special elections. Comelec also SEPARATELY
PROCLAIMED the winners in each of those elections
8. Petitioners sought a TRO during the pendency of their petition
9. Court didn’t issue TRO but required Comelec to Comment on the petition.
10. July 20, 2001- Comelec had CANVASSED THE RESULTS FROM ALL
PROVINCES and ISSUED RESO 01-006, DELCARING “OFFICIAL AND FINAL”
THE RANKING OF THE 13 SENATORS PROCLAIMED IN RESO 01-005.
11. The 13 senators took their oaths of office July 23, 2001.
12. In view of RESO 01-006, the Court required petitioners to file an AMENDED
PETITION IMPLEADING RECTO AND HONASAN AS ADDITIONAL
RESPONDENTS.
13. Petitioners filed an amended petition reiterating the contentions raised in their
original petitions and, in addition, SOUGHT THE NULLIFICATION OF RESO 01-
006.
14. In their COMMENTS:
 COMELEC, HONASAN, RECTO: a special election was validly held on
May 14, 2001
 COMELEC AND HONASAN: the petition is MOOT and the petitioners
don’t have standing to litigate
 HONASAN: the petitioners who seek the nullity of his proclamation as
senator is actually a QUO WARRANTO petition and the COURT should
dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction
 RECTO: he is not a proper party because the petition only involves the
validity of the proclamation of the 13th place (he ranked 12th)

ISSUES/ HELD/ RATIO:

1. PROCEDURAL issues:
a. WON THE PETITION IS IN FACT A PETITION FOR QUO WARRANTO
OVER WHICH THE SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL IS THE SOLE
JUDGE (NOT THE COURT)

NO.
A quo warranto proceeding is, among others, one to determine the right of a
public officer in the exercise of his office and to oust him from its enjoyment if
the claim is not well-founded.
ART VI, Sec 17 of Consti: The Senate Electoral Tribunal is the sole judge of
all contests relating to the qualifications of the members of the Senate.

THE PETITIONERS ARE QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF THE SPECIAL

ELECTION ON MAY 14, 2001 and they anchor their petition on Comelec’s
alleged failure to comply with certain requirements pertaining to the conduct
 of that special election. THEY DID NOT SEEK TO DETERMINE
HONASAN’S RIGHT IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS OFFICE AS SENATOR. IT
IS MERELY INCIDENTAL TO PETITIONER’S CAUSE OF ACTION.
Therefore, the court CAN PROPERLY EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER
THE INSTANT PETITION.

b. WON THE PETITION IS DEEMED MOOT IN LIGHT OF COMELEC’S

PROCALMATION ON JUNE 5, 2001 AND ITS SUBSEQUENT
CONFIRMATION ON JULY 20, 2001

The writ of prohibition is to command a tribunal or board to desist from

committing an act threatened to be done without jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting o lack or excess of jurisdiction. THE WRIT
WILL NOT LIE TO ENJOIN ACTS ALREADY DONE (this is where mootness
comes in).
BUT AS AN EXCEPTION ON THE RULE OF MOOTNESS, the court will
decide a question otherwise moot IF IT IS CAPABLE OF REPETITION YET
EVADING REVIEW.
This is what happened in ALUNAN III v MIRASOL – the court took
cognizance of the petition to set aside an order canceling the general
elections for SK despite that at the time the petition was filed, the SK election
had already taken palce.
THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF A SPECIAL ELECTION TO FILL A
VACANCY IN THE SENATE IN RELATION TO COMELEC’S FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS ON THE CONDUCT OF SUCH SPECIAL
ELECTION IS LIKELY TO ARISE IN EVERY SUCH ELECTION. Such
question, however, may not be decided before the date of the election.

c. WON THE PETITIONERS HAVE STANDING

NO.
A party will be allowed to litigate only when:
- he can show that he has personally suffered actual or threatened injury
because of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government
- the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action
- the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action

Petitioners assert a harm classified as “generalized grievance” which is

shared in substantially equal measure by a large class of voters, if not all
voters, who voted in that election.
The petitioners did not allege in their capacity as taxpayers that the court
should give due course to the petition because in the special election on May
14, 2001 “tax money was extracted and spent in violation of specific
constitutional protection against abuses of legislative power” or that there
was a misapplication of such funds by Comelec or that public money was
deflected to any improper purpose. (in short, the petitioners did not raise
these in their petitions)

BUT the COURT RELAXED THE REQUIREMENT ON STANDING AND

EXERCISED ITS DISCRETION TO GIVE DUE COURSE TO VOTERS’
SUITS INVOLVING THE RIGHT TO SUFFRAGE.
 This is what happened in IBP v ZAMORA: “..the court has discretion to take
cognizance of a suit which does not satisfy the requirement of legal standing
WHEN PARAMOUNT INTEREST IS INVOLVED.”

2. WON A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR A SINGLE, THREE-YEAR TERM WAS

VALIDLY HELD ON MAY 14, 2001
YES.

Sec 9, Art VI of Constitution:

“In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of Representatives, a special
election may be called to fill such vacancy IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY
LAW, but the Senator or Member of the House of Representatives thus elected shall
serve only for the unexpired term.”

To implement this Consti provision, Congress passed RA No. 6645:

SEC2, RA 6645:
The COMELEC SHALL FIS THE DATE OF THE SPECIAL ELECTION which shall
not be earlier than 45 days nor later than 90 days from the date of such resolution or
communication, stating among other things the office or offices to be voted for;
PROVIDED HOWEVER THAT IF WITHIN SAID PERIOD A GENERAL ELECTION
IS SCHEDULED TO BE HELD, THE SPECIAL ELECTION SHALL BE HELD
SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH SUCH GENERAL ELECTION.

SEC4 of RA 7166 subsequently amended Section 2 of RA 6645:

Sec 4:
In case a permanent vacancy shall occur in the Senate or HoR ate least one year
before the expiration of the term, the Comelec shall call and hold a special election to
fill the vacany not earlier that 60 days nor longer than 90 days after the occurrence of
the vacancy. HOWEVER IN CASE OF SUCH VACANY IN THE SENATE, THE
SPECIAL ELECTION SHALL BE HELD SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE NEXTS
SUCCEEDING REGULAR ELECTION.

Petitoners claim the special election is invalid for lack of a “call” for such an election
and for lack of notice as to the office to be filled and the manner by which the winner
in the special election is to be determined.

THE COURTS’ ANSWER:

In a GENERAL ELECTION, where the law fixes the date of the election, the election
is valid WITHOUT ANY CALL BY COMELEC.
In a special election to fill a vacancy, the rule is that a statue that expressly provides
that an election to fill a vacancy shall be held at the next general elections fixes the
date at which special election is to be held. The right and duty to hold the election
emanate from the statute and not from any call for the election by some authority (in
this case, Comelec).
According to Sec 2, RA 6645, the special election shall be held SIMULTANEOUSLY
WITH THE NEXT SUCCEEDING REGULAR ELECTION.
The Comelec’s failure to give notice did not negate the calling of such special
election, much less invalidate it.
 On the other hand, if the vacancy is in the House of Reps, the time of election is left
to the discretion of Comelec subject to the limitation that it holds the election within
the prescribed time. In this case, it is mandatory that the Comelec “call” for such an
election. Otherwise, that election would be null and void.

3. WON COMELEC’S FAILURE TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE OFFICE TO BE FILLED

AND THE MANNER OF DETERMINING THE WINNER IN THE SPECIAL
ELECTION MISLED THE VOTERS

NO.

Sec 2, RA 6645, as amended, already CHARGED THOSE WHO VOTED IN THE

ELECTIONS OF MAY 14, 2001 WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THE VACANCY IN
THE SENATE ARISING FROM SEN. GUINGONA’S APPOINTMENT AS VICE
PRESIDENT WAS TO BE FILLED IN THE NEXT SUCCEEDING REGULAR
ELECTION.

We cannot simply disenfranchise the 10 million people who voted in favor of

Honasan, in the absence of proof that Comelec’s omission prejudiced voters in the
exercise of their right of suffrage.

“When that is done and no frauds have been committed, the ballots should be
counted and the election should not be declared null. Innocent voters should not be
deprived of their participation in the affirs of their government for mere irregularities
on the part of the election officers, for which they are in no way responsible.”

3. WON SEPARATE DOCUMENTATION AND CANVASSING IS REQUIRED

UNDER SEC 2 OF RA 6645.

NO.

This is not required. No such requirements exist in our election laws, What is
mandatory under sec2 RA 6645 is that Comelec will “fix the date” and if
necessary, “state the office to be voted for.”
Petitioners’ reliance on Sec 73 of BP 881 on the filing of certificates of candidacy
and on Sec4(4) of RA 6646 on the printing of election returns and tally sheets is
misplaced.
These provisions govern elections in general and in NO WAY REQUIRE
SEPARATE DOCUMENTATION OF CANDIDATES OR SEPARATE CANVASS
OF VOTES IN JOUNTLY HELD REGULAR AND SPECIAL ELECTIONS.

The method adopeted by Comelec was specified by the Senate in Resolution 84.
Reso 84 initially did mention the manner by which the seat vacated by Sen Guingona
would be filled. However upon Sen. Roco’s suggestion, the Senate agreed to provide
“the senatorial candidate garnering the 13th highest number of votes shall serve only for
the unexpired term of en Guingona.” Sen. Roco introduced the amendment to spare
COmelec and the candidates needless expenditures and the voters further
inconvenience.
Therefore: Comelec’s decision to abandon the means it employed in the special election
sof 1951 and 1955 is but a legitimate exercise of its discretion. This Court will not
interfere should Comelec, in subsequent special senatorial elections, choose to revert to
the means followed in 1051 and 1955.

“.. the Commission may err, so may this court also. It should be allowed considerable
latitude in devising means and methods that will ensure the accomplishment of the great
objective for which it was created- free, orderly and honest elections.”

RULING: “WE DISMISS THE PETITION FOR LACK OF MERIT.”

Note: While the Court ruled that the Comelec has the discretion to employ best means to
conduct elections, it also provided some words of advice to the Commission:

“The COMELEC should not take chances in future elections. We remind COMELEC to
comply strictly with all the requirements under applicable laws relative to the conduct of
regular elections in general and special elections in particular.”

DISSENTING OPINION, PUNO:

The Comelec had no discretion to alter the procedure (Reso 84).

NOBODY filed a certificate of candidacy to fill the position of senator to serve the
unexpired three- year term in the special election.
ALL the senatorial candidates filed certificates of candidacy for the 12 regular Senate
seats to be vacated on June 30, 2001, with a six-year term expiring June 30, 2007.
The list of candidates DID NOT indicate a separate list of candidates for the specified
election.
The sample ballot and the official ballots DID NOT PROVIDE TWO DIFFERENT
CATEGORIES of Senate seats to be voted (12 regular 6-year term seats and 1 3-year
term seat)
The ballots DID NOT PROVIDE A SEPARATE SPACE for the candidate to be voted in
the special election and instead provided 13 spaces for 13 senatorial seats.

Informing the electorate on the issues and conduct of an election is a prerequisite to a

‘free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.”