GR L 36927 28; (April, 1974) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. L-36927-28, L-37715, L-38331 April 15, 1974
CRESENCIO PAREDES and VENANCIO UYAN, BELINO C. SUNGA, and VICENTE O. VALLEY, petitioners, vs. JUDGE FRANCISCO MEN ABAD, et al., JUDGE LORENZO R. MOSQUEDA, et al., and JUDGE FELIX T. CARO, et al., respondents.
FACTS
The petitioners, losing candidates in the November 8, 1971 elections, filed timely election protests against the private respondents who had been proclaimed winners for four-year terms. After the ratification of the 1973 Constitution on January 17, 1973, the respondent judges dismissed the pending election protests. They ruled that under Section 9, Article XVII (Transitory Provisions) of the new Constitution, the original four-year terms of the proclaimed officials had expired. Consequently, the respondents were deemed to be holding office under a new, indefinite term, rendering the election contests moot and academic.
ISSUE
Whether the ratification of the 1973 Constitution, making the terms of local elective officials indefinite, rendered pending election protests moot and academic, thereby depriving the courts of jurisdiction to hear them.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court granted the petitions, annulled the dismissal orders, and directed the respondent judges to proceed with the election protests. The Court clarified the distinction between the “term” of office and the “right” to hold office. Section 9, Article XVII affected only the “term,” extending it indefinitely from its original expiration date of December 31, 1975. It did not affect or legitimize the “right” to the office itself, which is derived from a valid election. The constitutional provision applies only to officials who were “duly elected.” An election protest precisely challenges whether the proclaimed winner was in fact duly elected and thus has a legal right to the office. To hold otherwise would shield potentially fraudulent electoral victories from judicial scrutiny, contrary to the goals of the New Society. Furthermore, existing laws, including the Election Code provision granting the right to file an election contest, remained operative under the transitory provisions. Therefore, the courts retained jurisdiction to hear, try, and decide the protests under the laws in force at the time of their filing. The indefinite term does not bar a challenge to the legitimacy of the incumbent’s title to the office.