G.R. No. 108399 July 31, 1997
RAFAEL 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 NOEL 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.

FACTS

The Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160) provides for the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK). Section 532(a) states the first SK elections shall be held thirty days after the next local elections. The Code took effect on January 1, 1992. The first local elections under the Code were on May 11, 1992. Consequently, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 2499, setting the general SK elections for September 30, 1992, placing them under the direct control and supervision of the DILG with COMELEC technical assistance. After postponements, the elections were rescheduled to December 4, 1992. In Manila, registration and candidacy filings proceeded. However, on September 18, 1992, DILG Secretary Rafael M. Alunan III issued a letter-resolution “exempting” Manila from holding the SK elections. The DILG reasoned that Kabataang Barangay (KB) elections held in Manila on May 26, 1990, should be considered the first elections under the new Code, citing Section 532(d), which states that KB elections conducted under B.P. Blg. 337 between January 1, 1988, and January 1, 1992, shall be considered as the first elections under the Code, with the terms of those officials extended accordingly. Private respondents, representing the Katipunan ng Kabataan, filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus in the RTC to nullify the DILG resolution. The RTC, through Judge Wilfredo D. Reyes, granted the petition, ruling the DILG had no power to exempt Manila, that such power belonged to the COMELEC, and that the exemption violated equal protection. Petitioners sought review by certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the case was rendered moot and academic by the holding of the subsequent SK elections in May 1996.
2. Whether the Secretary of the DILG had the authority to determine if the City of Manila was exempt from holding the December 4, 1992, SK elections under Section 532(d) of the Local Government Code.
3. Whether COMELEC Resolution No. 2499, which placed the SK elections under the direct control and supervision of the DILG, was valid.
4. Whether the DILG’s exemption of Manila from the SK elections violated the equal protection clause.

RULING

1. The case was not moot and academic. The Supreme Court held the case fell under the exception for matters “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” The validity of the acts of the officials elected in the 1990 KB elections who continued in office until 1996 could be doubted due to the pending litigation. Furthermore, the legal questions involved, particularly the COMELEC’s ability to delegate control of SK elections to the DILG, were likely to recur in future SK elections but might not be adjudicated before those elections occur.
2. The Secretary of the DILG had the authority to determine the applicability of the exemption under Section 532(d). The Court found that the DILG, as the department with administrative supervision over local governments, was the appropriate body to make this factual determination. The COMELEC, by mandating elections in “every barangay” through its resolution, did not make a prior determination that no previous KB elections had been held; it was a general directive. The DILG’s function was to implement the law by ascertaining which localities qualified for the exemption.
3. COMELEC Resolution No. 2499 was valid in placing the SK elections under the DILG’s direct control and supervision. The Court ruled that SK elections are not within the COMELEC’s constitutional mandate to “enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election” in the same manner as regular elections. Citing Mercado v. Board of Election Supervisors, the Court reiterated that the COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election contests does not extend to SK officials. Therefore, the COMELEC could validly delegate administrative supervision of the SK elections to the DILG.
4. The exemption did not violate the equal protection clause. The Court held that the classification between barangays that held KB elections between January 1, 1988, and January 1, 1992, and those that did not, was based on a substantial distinction and was germane to the purpose of the law, which was to avoid the unnecessary expense and effort of holding another election so soon after a previous one. The fact that some barangays which may have been entitled to the exemption still held elections did not create an invalid classification. The equal protection clause does not require absolute uniformity.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 36, is REVERSED and the case filed against petitioners by private respondents is DISMISSED.