Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/152739434/Alunan-III-vs-Mirasol
Timestamp: 2017-04-28 08:27:13
Document Index: 31194962

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2', '§532', '§532', '§532', '§4', '§2', '§2', '§532', '§532', '§6', '§532', '§532']

Alunan III vs Mirasol | Commission On Elections (Philippines)
ScribdBrowseInterestsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthPolitics & Current AffairsScience & TechHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryFictionBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinAlunan III vs MirasolUploaded by Jayzell Mae FloresCommission On Elections (Philippines)MootnessLocal GovernmentElectionsManila0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: full text caseView Morefull text caseCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)List price: $0.00Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentRAFAEL M.ALUNAN III, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), the BOARD OF ELECTION SUPERVISORS composed of Atty. RUBEN M. RAMIREZ, Atty. RAFAELITO GARAYBLAS, and Atty. ENRIQUE C. ROA, GUILLERMINA RUSTIA, in her capacity as Director of the Barangay Bureau, City Treasurer Atty. ANTONIO ACEBEDO, Budget Officer EUFEMIA DOMINGUEZ, all of the City Government of Manila, petitioners, vs. ROBERT MIRASOL, NORMAN T. SANGUYA, ROBERT DE JOYA, ARNEL R. LORENZO, MARY GRACE ARIAS, RAQUEL L. DOMINGUEZ, LOURDES ASENCIO, FERDINAND ROXAS, MA. ALBERTINA RICAFORT,and BALAIS M. LOURICH, and the HONORABLE WILFREDO D. REYES,Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Metro Manila, respondents. DECISION MENDOZA, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision dated January 19, 1993 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch 36),[1] nullifying an order of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), which in effect cancelled the general elections for the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) slated on December 4, 1992 in the City of Manila, on the ground that the elections previously held on May 26, 1990 served the purpose of the first elections for the SK under the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160). Section 423 of the Code provides for a SK in every barangay, to be composed of a chairman, seven (7) members, a secretary, and a treasurer. Section 532(a) provides that the first elections for the SK shall be held thirty (30) days after the next local elections. The Code took effect on January 1, 1992. The first local elections under the Code were held on May 11, 1992. Accordingly, on August 27, 1992, the Commission on Elections issued Resolution No. 2499, providing guidelines for the holding of the general elections for the SK on September 30, 1992. The guidelines placed the SK elections under the direct control and supervision of the DILG, with the technical assistance of the COMELEC.[2] After two postponements, the elections were finally scheduled on December 4, 1992. Accordingly, registration in the six districts of Manila was conducted. A total of 152,363 youngsters, aged 15 to 21 years old, registered, 15,749 of them filing certificates of candidacies. The City Council passed the necessary appropriations for the elections.
1992. he ordered petitioners “to perform the specified pre-election activities in order to implement Resolution No. the DILG. acting president of the KB City Federation of Manila and a member of City Council of Manila. They argued that petitioner Secretary of Interior and Local Government had no power to amend the resolutions of the COMELEC calling for general elections for SKs and that the DILG resolution in question denied them the equal protection of the laws. 1992. IX. 1988 and January 1. Manifestly the term of office of those elected KB officials have been correspondingly extended to coincide with the term of office of those who may be elected under RA 7160. 1992 private respondents. claiming to represent the 24. the DILG stated: [A] close examination of . . the trial court.000 members of the Katipunan ng Kabataan. Hon. rendered a decision. Reyes. 1990. . RA 7160 would readily reveal the intention of the legislature to exempt from the forthcoming Sangguniang Kabataan elections those kabataang barangay chapters which may have conducted their elections within the period of January 1. now COMELEC Chairman. . 1992 because under Art. plebiscite. Wilfredo D. issued an injunction. ordering petitioners “to desist from implementing the order of the respondent Secretary dated September 18. . Alunan III. 1993. The DILG acted on a letter of Joshue R. 1992 under BP 337.On September 18. however. filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus in the RTC of Manila to set aside the resolution of the DILG. and recall” is vested solely in the COMELEC. 1992. holding that (1) the DILG had no power to “exempt” the City of Manila from holding SK elections on December 4. 1992 of the Commission on Elections providing for the holding of a general election of the Sangguniang Kabataan on December 4. 2499 dated August 27.” The case was subsequently reraffled to Branch 36 of the same court. initiative. On November 27. On January 19. through Executive Judge. C. (2) the COMELEC had already in effect determined that there had been no previous elections for KB by calling for general elections for SK officers in every barangay without exception. Pardo. 1990 were to be considered the first under the newly-enacted Local Government Code. the new judge. 1992 simultaneously in every barangay throughout the country. and (3) the “exemption” of the City of Manila was violative of the equal protection
. On November 27. through then Secretary Rafael M. §2(1) of the Constitution the power to enforce and administer “all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election. . Bernardo P. In its resolution. issued a letter-resolution “exempting” the City of Manila from holding elections for the SK on the ground that the elections previously held on May 26.” On the same day. Santiago. until further orders of the Court. which called attention to the fact that in the City of Manila elections for the Kabataang Barangay (the precursor of the Sangguniang Kabataan) had previously been held on May 26. referendum.
this case comes within the rule that courts will decide a question otherwise moot and academic if it is “capable of repetition. in 5.000 barangays KB elections were held between January 1.” We hold that this case is not moot and that it is in fact necessary to decide the issues raised by the parties. elections for the kabataang barangay conducted under Batas Pambansa Blg. 1996. which provides that: All seats reserved for the pederasyon ng mga sangguniang kabataan in the different sanggunians shall be deemed vacant until such time that the sangguniang kabataan chairmen shall have been elected and the respective pederasyon presidents have been selected: Provided. 1992 but only in the City of Manila. was there no elections held on December 4. 1988 and January 1. 1992. 1990.
. doubt may be cast on the validity of the acts of those elected in the May 26. 1990 KB elections in Manila because this Court enjoined the enforcement of the decision of the trial court and these officers continued in office until May 13. (emphasis added) They maintain that the Secretary of the DILG had authority to determine whether the City of Manila came within the exception clause of §532(d) so as to be exempt from holding the elections on December 4. yet evading review. 1988 and January 1. In support of their contention. 1996[3] rendered this case moot and academic. The first is whether the Secretary of Interior and Local Government can “exempt” a local government unit from holding elections for SK officers on December 4.clause of the Constitution because. having already conducted elections for the KB on May 26. The preliminary question is whether the holding of the second elections on May 13. That. they cite §532(d) of the Local Government Code of 1991. There are two questions raised in this case.”[4] For the question whether the COMELEC can validly vest in the DILG the control and supervision of SK elections is likely to arise in connection with every SK election and yet the question may not be decided before the date of such elections. 1992. 1992 and the second is whether the COMELEC can provide that “the Department of Interior and Local Government shall have direct control and supervision over the election of sangguniang kabataan with the technical assistance by the Commission on Elections. was exempted from holding elections on December 4. 1992 shall be considered as the first elections provided for in this Code. according to the DILG‟s records. They insist that the City of Manila. 1992. For one thing. 337 at any time between January 1. The term of office of the kabataang barangay officials elected within the said period shall be extended correspondingly to coincide with the term of office of those elected under this Code. For another. Petitioners sought this review on certiorari. where there were 897 barangays.
pregnancy litigation seldom will survive. Hence. the normal 266-day human gestation period is so short that the pregnancy will come to term before the usual appellate process is complete. Alunan III had authority to determine whether under §532(d) of the Local Government Code.‟”[7] We thus reach the merits of the questions raised in this case. The case was decided only on February 20. and these considerations ought not to be. the City of Manila was required to hold its first elections for SK.
. We find the petition to be meritorious.C. it was contended that the case had thereby become moot and the appeal should be dismissed. If that termination makes a case moot. First. In rejecting this contention. defeated. yet evading review. where the rule was first articulated.IX. As already stated. from September 1. have their rights determined by the Commission without a chance of redress. the COMELEC placed the SK elections under the direct control and supervision of the DILG.” the COMELEC in effect determined that there had been no elections for the KB previously held in the City of Manila. 1908 (subsequently extended to November 15). brought suit in 1970 challenging anti-abortion statutes of Texas and Georgia on the ground that she had a constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy at least within the first trimester. as they might be. It truly could be „capable of repetition. and at another time the carriers.In the Southern Pacific Terminal case. by §4 of Resolution No. The cease and desist order was for a period of about two years. but the U. respondents argue that this is a power which Art. pregnancy is a significant fact in the litigation. Supreme Court had not been able to hand down its decision by the time the cease and desist order expired. by shortterm orders. Pregnancy provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness. petitioners sustain the affirmative side of the proposition.[6] petitioner. as here. Supreme Court refused to dismiss the case as moot. The first question is whether then DILG Secretary Rafael M. Our laws should not be that rigid. Wade. by mandating that elections for the SK be held on December 4. On the other hand. more than two years after the order had expired. 1992 “in every barangay. yet evading review. The case was not decided until 1973 when she was no longer pregnant.S. It was explained: “[W]hen. 1911. Respondents further argue that. a pregnant woman.S. capable of repetition. and at one time the government. §2(1) of the Constitution vests in the COMELEC. As already stated. 2499. But the U. the Court held: The question involved in the orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission are usually continuing (as are manifestly those in the case at bar). appellants were ordered by the Interstate Commerce Commission to cease and desist from granting a shipper what the ICC perceived to be preferences and advantages with respect to wharfage charges.[5] In Roe v.
Metropolitan and municipal trial courts had exclusive original jurisdiction over contests relating to their election. Section 52. plebiscite. this Court. Article 1 of the said Code which explicitly provides that “it shall govern all elections of public officers”. That law was B. Blg. His being an ex-officio member of the sangguniang barangay does not make him one for the law specifically
. Section 2. Article VIII of the Omnibus Election Code. . and complete abdication by the COMELEC of its constitutionally and statutorily mandated duty to enforce and administer all election laws as provided for in Section 2(1).P. initiative. held: Section 252 of the Omnibus Election Code and that portion of paragraph (2). thereby contravening Section 2. . Article IX-C of the Constitution on the COMELEC‟s exclusive appellate jurisdiction over contests involving elective barangay officials refer to the elective barangay officials under the pertinent laws in force at the time the Omnibus Election Code was enacted and upon the ratification of the Constitution. Chapter 1. otherwise known as the Local Government Code. §2(1) of the Constitution which provides that the COMELEC shall have the power to “enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election. Article IX-C of the Constitution.[9] Rejecting this contention. Section 2. Article IX-C of the Constitution and that no law in effect prior to the ratification of the Constitution had made the SK chairman an elective barangay official. (b) it constitutes a total. They are also the same officers referred to by the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines on election of barangay officials. it is indisputable that contests involving elections of SK (formerly KB) officials do not fall within Section 252 of the Omnibus Election Code and paragraph 2. 2499 is null and void because: (a) it prescribes a separate set of rules for the election of the SK Chairman different from and inconsistent with that set forth in the Omnibus Election Code. as we have recently held. In Mercado v. this did not contravene Art. through Justice Davide. Title 1. . contests involving elections of SK officials do not fall within the jurisdiction of the COMELEC. They were to be elected by those qualified to exercise the right of suffrage.” Elections for SK officers are not subject to the supervision of the COMELEC in the same way that. IX. absolute. and Section 2. In the light of the foregoing. and the elective barangay officials referred to were the punong barangay and the six sangguniang bayan members. The decisions of these courts were appealable to the Regional Trial Courts. and recall. Subtitle C. and. 337.[8] it was contended that COMELEC Resolution No. . Book V of the 1987 Administrative Code.Contrary to respondents‟ contention. referendum. C. Board of Election Supervisors.
P. namely. 2421 of the President of the Philippines. Since §532(d) provided for kabataang barangay officials whose term of office was extended beyond 1992. Aquino directed the Secretary of Local Government to issue the necessary rules and regulations for effecting the representation of the Kabataang Barangay.. 1992 since by virtue of §532(d) the term of office of the kabataang barangay officials so elected was “extended correspondingly to coincide with the term of office of those elected under [the Local Government Code of 1991]. DILG supervision was to be exercised within the framework of detailed and comprehensive rules embodied in Resolution No. 1975). What was left to the DILG to perform was the enforcement of the rules. That these barangays were precisely to be determined by the DILG is. however. President Corazon C. On the other hand. Second. viz. tasked the then Ministry of Local Government. the COMELEC did not name the barangays which. 1988 and January 1. 684 (April 15. then no new elections had to be held on December 4. 1992. among other sectors. were not included in the SK elections to be held on December 4.” Again. in its resolution in question. in a Memorandum Circular dated March 7. in 1985 Proclamation No. Culture and Sports. and the Commission on Elections to assist the Kabataang Barangay in the conduct of the elections. fairly inferable from the authority given to the DILG to supervise the conduct of the elections. The role of the COMELEC in the 1992 elections for SK officers was by no means inconsequential. because they had conducted kabataang barangay elections between January 1. provided in §6 that the “Secretary of Local Government and Community Development shall promulgate such rules and regulations as may be deemed necessary to effectively implement the provisions of this Decree. If elections had been conducted. whether between January 1.” In doing this. 1988. 2499 of the COMELEC. Thus. in the legislative bodies of the local government units. 1985. 1988 and January 1.D. No. in creating Kabataang Barangays in every barangay throughout the country. It is contended that. in calling for the general elections of the Kabataang Barangay on July 13-14. the punong barangay and the seven regular sangguniang barangay members who are elected at large by those who are qualified to exercise the right of suffrage under Article V of the Constitution and who are duly registered voters of the barangay. The authority granted was nothing more than the ascertainment of a fact.[10] The choice of the DILG for the task in question was appropriate and was in line with the legislative policy evident in several statutes. 1992. the Ministry of Education. the authority to supervise the conduct of elections in that year must necessarily be deemed to include the authority to determine which kabataang barangay would not be included in the 1992 elections.provides who are its elective members. 1992 elections had been held in a given kabataang barangay. the Secretary of Interior and Local Government was to act merely as the agent of the legislative
[12] Third.department. and in lieu thereof. the Kabataang Barangay as an organization provided for under Batas Pambansa Bilang 337. Jr. That this is constitutionally permissible is the teaching of our cases. KB City Federation elections were conducted. Lopez. . 1990 stated: WHEREAS. 1990 in the 897 barangays of Manila. 1990 KB elections in Manila were void because (a) they were called at the instance of then Mayor Gemiliano C. . Respondents claim. most of the present crop of KB officers are way past the age limit provided for under the law.. The proceedings of the Bicameral Conference Committee which drafted the Code show the following:[13] CHAIRMAN DE PEDRO: Isa-cite na lang ko ano iyong title o chapter o section. . The rationale. has been practically dormant since the advent of the present national administration. however. 1990. .[11] There was no undue delegation of legislative power but only of the discretion as to the execution of a law. WHEREAS. LINA: . which is over their three years term of office. . lines 13 to 14 delete within eighteen months prior to December 31. . insert from 1988 up to the effectivity of the Code. Lopez who did not have authority to do so and (b) it was not held under COMELEC supervision. WHEREAS. The elections were actually held on May 26. 1990. WHEREAS. Later. The 1990 elections for the Kabataang Barangay were called by then Manila Mayor Gemiliano C. to determine and declare the event upon which its expressed will was to take effect. CHAIRMAN DE PEDRO: How should it be read?
. It was precisely to foreclose any question regarding the validity of KB elections held in the aftermath of the EDSA revolution and upon the effectivity of the new Local Government Code that the exception clause of §532(d) was inserted. that the May 26. . on June 30. ha! HON. there is an urgent need to involve the youth in the affairs and undertakings of the government to ensure the participation of all sectors of our population in the task of nation building. . 21 dated April 25. Page 436. who in his Executive Order No. the last elections for the Kabataang Barangay officers were held in November 1985 yet. .
because they already had elections between January 1.[14] Fourth. 1992 while the rest of the 5. and insert from 1988 up to the effectivity of this Code. 1992 (p. LINA: From 1988 up to the effectivity of this Code.” CHAIRMAN DE PEDRO: So. when. 1992 there had already been SK elections held. mag[ka]karoon sila ng question. HON. by considering them as having complied with the existing laws. na ginawa. 1988 and January 1. any deletion from the word “within. based on the record of the DILG. according to petitioners‟ own evidence. . LINA: It will read as follows: “Provided however. 9). na nag-conduct na ng election nila based on the KB Constitution and By-Laws. during that period. 1992 either. 1992. Chairman. Section §532(d) may thus be deemed to be a curative law.” CHAIRMAN DE PEDRO: From? HON. 1988 and January 1. which in essence are retrospective in effect. Merely showing that there were 5. LINA: Remove the words. 1992 would deny the youth voters in those barangays of the equal protection of laws. eh. and they‟re sitting already. 1992 does not prove that despite that fact these same barangays were permitted to hold elections on December 4. up to the effectivity.000 barangays. up to. . Kasi meron nang mga election. eh. imagine that.HON.” ha. SK elections had actually been conducted in 5. . Such laws are recognized in this jurisdiction. For one thing. Mr. CHAIRMAN DE PEDRO: Accepted. even assuming that only barangays in Manila were not permitted to hold SK elections on December 4. “within eighteen months prior to December 31. 1988 and January 1. out of forty thousand. . 1990. Curative laws. It is finally contended that the exemption of the barangays of the City of Manila from the requirement to hold elections for SK officers on December 4. were elections for SK not held in 1992 on the ground that between January 1. 568 barangays in the Province of Bulacan did not have SK elections on December 4. . are enacted to validate acts done which otherwise would be invalid under existing laws. which then numbered 897.000 barangays were
. now if we do not recognize that. For another. There are five thousand barangays. the phrase. in Batas Pambansa Bilang 337. 1992. Respondents claim that only in the barangays in the City of Manila. . according to the Manila Bulletin issue of November 18. Whether this claim is true cannot be ascertained from the records of this case. that the Local Government Units which have conducted elections for the Kabataang Barangay as provided for.000 barangays which similarly held KB elections between January 1.
1992 because the fact was that they already had their own. The difference between that case and the one at bar lies in the fact that what youth voters in the other barangays might have been allowed was not a right which was denied to youth voters in Manila. 1990. In People v. Vera[15] this Court struck down the Probation Law because it permitted unequal application of its benefits by making its applicability depend on the decision of provincial governments to appropriate or not to appropriate funds for the salaries of probation officers. If those barangays were not entitled to have SK elections on December 4. this fact does not give the youth voters in the 897 Manila barangays ground for complaint because what the other barangays did was contrary to law. SO ORDERED. 1992 but nevertheless were allowed to have such elections. WHEREFORE. with the result that those not disposed to allow the benefits of probations to be enjoyed by their inhabitants could simply omit to provide for the salaries of probation officers. There is no discrimination here. Branch 36 is REVERSED and the case filed against petitioner by private respondents is DISMISSED.
. that fact did not mean those in Manila should similarly have been allowed to conduct elections on December 4.allowed even if KB elections had already been held there before. just two years before on May 26. Respondents‟ equal protection argument violates the dictum that one wrong does not make another wrong right. the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
Documents Similar To Alunan III vs MirasolSkip carouselBagatsing v. RamirezPeople v. Que Po Lay Yaokasin v. Commissioner of CustomsEugenio v Executive SecretaryAstorga vs VillegasBagatsing vs. RamirezTanada v TuveraBuyco vs PNBAusl Morales vs. SubidoAlunan vs Mirasol DigestNational Marketing Corp v. Tecson GR L-29131Statcon DigestsIskolar-bos Tm (Final) 2011Tanada vs Tuvera CaseMendozaVLaxinaBarangayPubcorp Cases 1Que Po Lay DigestAff ComplaintRep v Imperial9. Gaminde vs COA--GIST16. Batobor v ComelecPpt. Decentralization PA Report25Albert Profile EvergreenConsti1 - Justice Antonio NachuraCommittee Report Item 787Perez vs ComelecDue ProcessAquino v. ComelecDocuments About Commission On Elections (Philippines)Skip carouselCarpio's dissenting opinion on Poe vs. Comelec, et al.COMELEC Electoral CodeManila Standard Today - Friday (November 30, 2012) IssueAteneo COMELEC ElectoralCode 2015Manila Standard Today - Wednesday (November 7, 2012) IssueManila Standard Today - May 5, 2012 IssueAmended Electoral Code 2012COMELEC Resolution No. 201401 - Ratification of Electoral Code 2014Resolution 201204 - Unlawful ElectioneeringManila Standard Today - April 11, 2012 IssueManila Standard Today - April 21, 2012 IssueManila Standard Today -- Tuesday (October 2, 2012) issueManila Standard Today - Thursday (November 1, 2012) IssueManila Standard Today - Friday (November 9, 2012) IssueManila Standard Today - Wednesday (November 14, 2012) IssueMemo 201224 - Revised COMELC CalendarElectoral Code 2012Manila Standard Today - Saturday (January 12, 2013) IssuePetitionMemo 201412LCA LINES | Volume II, Issue No. 10Memo 201419 - Official Statement on System Glitch Affecting 4 BS CTM and 3 BS MGT Course RepresentativesMemo 201635 - Ateneo COMELEC Calendar for SY 2015-16-2nd SemesterComelec Memo No. 201644More From Jayzell Mae FloresSkip carouselMarubeniCivil ProcedurePIL OutlineCivilPro CasesCivil Procedure CasesCivil Procedure CasesDiaz v. Sec of FinanceTAXATION CASES.docxCIR v. Estate of TodaTAx Cases- NEWSample ComplaintCanicosa vs ComelecHaw PiaEtormaFord v. Surget.rtfRA 4200abakadaAteneo 2007 Civil ProcedureSC Circular 14-93RA 7902Local Government CodeRamos vs CAFIRST assMorata vs GoSs Circular No. 2011-002Environmental LawSta. Ana Victoria vs. RepublicVilla vs Heirs of AltavasPNB vs DeJesuschavez vs. National Housing Authority