G.R. No. 192249; April 2, 2013
SALIC DUMARPA, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Salic Dumarpa was a congressional candidate for the 1st District of Lanao del Sur in the 10 May 2010 elections. The COMELEC declared a total failure of elections in seven municipalities, including three (Masiu, Lumba Bayabao, and Kapai) within the 1st District. Special elections were initially set for 29 May 2010 but were reset to 3 June 2010 via COMELEC Resolution No. 8946 due to logistical and security concerns, including missing ballots, unwilling or disqualified BEIs, pulled-out PCOS machines, and the need for training. Subsequently, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8965, which contained guidelines for the special elections, including provisions for constituting Special Boards of Election Inspectors (SBEIs) in Section 4 and clustering precincts in Section 12. On 28 May 2010, Dumarpa filed a Motion for Reconsideration specifically targeting Sections 4 and 12 as they applied to the Municipality of Masiu, but the COMELEC did not act on it. On 2 June 2010, a day before the special elections, Dumarpa filed this petition for prohibition and mandamus, arguing that Sections 4 and 12 of Resolution No. 8965 were illegal, issued without notice and hearing, and would guarantee his defeat. At the time of filing, Dumarpa was leading by a slim margin in the canvassed votes from areas without failure of elections. The Supreme Court did not issue a restraining order, and the special elections proceeded on 3 June 2010. Dumarpa’s opponent, Hussin Pangandaman, was later proclaimed the winner.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing Sections 4 and 12 of Resolution No. 8965, which provided for the constitution of Special Boards of Election Inspectors and the clustering of precincts for the special elections in Lanao del Sur.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition. The issues raised were rendered moot and academic by the supervening event of the special elections being held on 3 June 2010 and the subsequent proclamation of Dumarpa’s opponent as the winner. A moot case ceases to present a justiciable controversy, and courts generally decline jurisdiction. Furthermore, the petition was unmeritorious on substantive grounds. The COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8965 in the exercise of its broad plenary powers to enforce election laws and ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections, as enshrined in the Constitution and statutes. The Commission possesses considerable latitude in adopting means and methods to achieve these objectives, and its choices should not be interfered with unless clearly illegal or constituting grave abuse of discretion. Dumarpa’s objections—that the re-clustering of precincts and constitution of SBEIs were done without notice and hearing, within less than thirty days before the election, and would disadvantage him—failed to consider that the resolution was a necessary exercise of the COMELEC’s authority to address the specific failure of elections, where the original BEIs did not report and logistical hurdles existed. The proper recourse for any remaining grievances was an election protest.