G.R. Nos. L-68379-81 September 22, 1986
EVELIO B. JAVIER, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and ARTURO F. PACIFICADOR, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Evelio B. Javier and private respondent Arturo F. Pacificador were candidates for the Batasang Pambansa in Antique during the May 1984 elections. The campaign was marred by extreme violence, including an ambush on May 13, 1984, that killed several of Javier’s followers, for which Pacificador and others faced trial. This climate of terror allegedly intimidated voters. After the elections, Javier complained to the COMELEC about massive fraud and terrorism, seeking to prevent Pacificador’s proclamation. The COMELEC’s Second Division dismissed his complaints and proclaimed Pacificador the winner. Javier petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing the proclamation was void as it was made by a division, not the COMELEC en banc as constitutionally required.
During the pendency of the case, Javier was assassinated on February 11, 1986. Subsequently, the 1986 People Power Revolution ousted the Marcos regime, leading to the abolition of the Batasang Pambansa. The Solicitor General moved to dismiss the petition as moot, given the disappearance of the contested office and the death of the petitioner.

ISSUE

Whether the petition, rendered moot by supervening events, should still be resolved by the Supreme Court on its merits.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the case was technically moot, chose to resolve the underlying constitutional issue to serve the higher demands of justice and provide guidance for the future. The Court condemned the electoral terrorism and COMELEC’s inaction that characterized the Marcos-era elections, emphasizing the judiciary’s role as the conscience of the government. Legally, the Court held that were it not for the supervening events, it would have granted the petition. It ruled that the COMELEC’s Second Division acted without jurisdiction in proclaiming Pacificador. Under Sections 2 and 3, Article XII-C of the 1973 Constitution, all election contests involving members of the Batasang Pambansa, including pre-proclamation cases, fell under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the COMELEC en banc. A division had no authority to decide such matters. Therefore, the proclamation by the Second Division was constitutionally infirm and void. The Court’s decision to rule on a moot case was an exceptional exercise of judicial power to condemn electoral malfeasance and affirm that the Court will not condone wrongs by hiding behind procedural technicalities.