16 Facts:: No. 206719, Was Filed and Docketed As G.R. No. 207755. While The Petition Was Filed Separately

16
FACTS:
Before this Court are three (3) separate petitions which this Court ordered consolidated in a
Resolution dated August 12, 2014.
1
In G.R. No. 206719, Bagumbayan-VNP Movement, Inc. (Bagumbayan) and Senator Richard J.
Gordon (Senator Gordon) filed a Special Civil Action for Mandamus lodged with the Court under
2
Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, for the purpose of compelling the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) to comply with the provisions of Section 14 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8436, as 3
amended by R.A. No. 9369. 4
The Court notes that a petition to declare former Chairman of the COMELEC, Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr.
(Chairman Brillantes) in contempt for presumably failing to comply with his commitments to this
Court as manifested during oral arguments on May 8, 2013, in connection with the petition in G.R.
No. 206719, was filed and docketed as G.R. No. 207755. While the petition was filed separately,
under Section 4 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, the Court exercised its discretion and ordered the
5
consolidation of the contempt charge and the principal action for joint hearing and decision. As such,
the Court will, likewise, rule on the charge of contempt alongside ruling on the merits of the instant
petition.
In G.R. No. 206784, the petitioners Tanggulang Demokrasya (Tan Dem), et al. filed a Special Civil
Action for Mandamus lodged with the Court under Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, for the
6
purposes of compelling COMELEC to use digital signatures in the electronic election returns, and
provide for the basic security safeguards, which include the source code review, vote verification,
and the random audit, in compliance with R.A. No. 9369.
ISSUES:
I. whether or not the petitioners have locus standi in this case

II. whether or not the petitioners are entitled to the Writ of Mandamus to compel
COMELEC to open up the source code review for the elections immediately or the
review of the petitioners and other similarly situated parties
HELD:
I. The petitioners have the prerequisite locus standi to file the Petition

for Mandamus.
In Mandamus cases, jurisprudence is clear that the requirement of proper standing is

properly addressed if the petitioning party has a clear and unmistakable right to
compel the performance of the ministerial duty. The Court finds that the requirement
is satisfied by the petitioners. The petitioners have filed for Mandamus in their
capacity as interested parties, Bagumbayan as a political party, and Tan Dem, et. al.,
as a people's organization created for the purpose of defending democracy in the
Philippines. R.A. No. 9369 grants them the right as members of "any interested
political party or group" to conduct their own review of the source code. Here, a clear
and unmistakable right exists as it is the ministerial duty of the COMELEC to make
available the source code for purposes of examination and test by any political party
or candidate, or even their representatives, as expressly stated by the law.
II. Petitioners are not entitled to the Writ of Mandamus to compel COMELEC to
once again open up the source code review for the upcoming elections
immediately for the review of the petitioners and other similarly situated
parties, as the same has ceased to become a justiciable controversy and has
become moot and academic.
A justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or controversy that is appropriate

or ripe for judicial determination, not one that is conjectural or merely anticipatory. In
45
relation to the foregoing, a case is considered moot and academic when it ceases to
present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a
declaration thereon would be of no practical value, and as a rule, courts decline
jurisdiction over such a case, or dismiss it on ground of mootness.
The reasoning behind the dismissal of a case for being declared moot and academic
is clear. Especially for pragmatic reasons, courts will not determine a moot question
in a case in which no practical relief can be granted. It is deemed unnecessary to
47
indulge in an academic discussion of a case presenting a moot question as a

judgment thereon cannot have any practical legal effect or, in the nature of things,
cannot be enforced.
In this case, the supervening event is found in the superseding of the assailed
resolutions on the source code review with a new resolution, which pertains to the
source code review for the upcoming 2019 elections. In Resolution 10423, it is
observed that the COMELEC modified the qualifications for the local source code
reviewer. As this Resolution No. 10423 now governs the conduct of the upcoming
elections, and any automated election from here on out unless it, itself, is
superseded by another, the cause of action of the petitioners has ceased to exist.

16 Facts:: No. 206719, Was Filed and Docketed As G.R. No. 207755. While The Petition Was Filed Separately

Uploaded by

16 Facts:: No. 206719, Was Filed and Docketed As G.R. No. 207755. While The Petition Was Filed Separately

Uploaded by

16

amended by R.A. No. 9369. 4

I. whether or not the petitioners have locus standi in this case

I. The petitioners have the prerequisite locus standi to file the Petition

In Mandamus cases, jurisprudence is clear that the requirement of proper standing is

A justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or controversy that is appropriate

indulge in an academic discussion of a case presenting a moot question as a

You might also like