GR L 67215; (January, 1985) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-67215. January 4, 1985. RAFAEL LAZATIN, JUANITA NEPOMUCENO, BREN GUIAO and IMIGDIO LINGAD, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE REGIONAL COMMANDERS OF REGION III, THE PC PROVINCIAL COMMANDER OF PAMPANGA, and KILUSANG BAGONG LIPUNAN (Pampanga Chapter), respondents.
FACTS
On May 7, 1984, petitioners filed a petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and military respondents. They sought to compel COMELEC to order all election registrars in Pampanga and Angeles City not to transfer ballot boxes from designated precincts for voting and counting, and to deputize the Citizen Military Training Corps (formerly ROTC) to safeguard the May 14, 1984 elections in lieu of the military. The petition alleged that a prior letter-request dated April 25, 1984, making these pleas, had not been acted upon by COMELEC.
The Court required the respondents to comment and set the case for hearing. The Solicitor General, commenting for the respondents, contended that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to supervise COMELEC’s administrative functions and that mandamus did not lie, as the requests were not rejected but merely deemed inappropriate. During the hearing on May 9, 1984, the Solicitor General manifested no objection to COMELEC acting on the petitioners’ letter, and COMELEC’s counsel assured the Court the matter would be resolved according to law.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should grant the petition for mandamus to compel COMELEC to act on the petitioners’ specific requests regarding election safeguards.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as moot and academic. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of mandamus and the supervening events. Mandamus lies to compel the performance of a ministerial duty when there is a clear unlawful neglect to act. Here, during the hearing, COMELEC’s counsel gave an assurance to the Court that it would resolve the petitioners’ requests according to law. This assurance effectively addressed the core allegation of inaction, as the body duty-bound to act committed to doing so.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the election in question—May 14, 1984—had already been duly held. The petitioners did not subsequently raise any further complaints about COMELEC’s conduct of the election, implying satisfaction with how its functions were discharged. Consequently, there was no longer any live controversy requiring judicial intervention. The Court’s supervisory authority via mandamus is generally limited to compelling action, not directing its content, except in rare, urgent instances where an imminent election threatens the suffrage right. That exceptional circumstance was not present here after the election was concluded, rendering the case moot.