Topic: Justiciable and Political Question

Title: Casibang v. Aquino

G.R. No. L-38025 August 20, 1979
Respondent: Dante O. Casibang
Petitioner: Honorable Narciso A. Aquino, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan,
Branch XIV, and Remegio P. Yu
Ponente:

FACTS:
Respondent Remigio P. Yu was proclaimed on November 9, 1971 as the elected Mayor of
Rosales. Pangasinan in the 1971 local elections, by a plurality of 501 votes over his only rival,
herein petitioner, who seasonably filed on November 24, 1971 a protest against the election of
the former with the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. on the grounds of (1) anomalies and
irregularities in the appreciation, counting and consideration of votes in specified electoral
precincts; (2) terrorism: (3) rampant vote buying; (4) open voting or balloting; and (5) excessive
campaign expenditures and other violations of the 1971 Election Code. Before it was decided on,
the incumbent President declared Martial Law on September 21, 1972 and supplanted the 1935
Constitution with the 1973 Constitution. When petitioner finished presenting his evidence,
respondent Yu filed to dismiss the election protest on the grounds that the new Constitution is
now in effect and all provision relative to all local government under the 1935 Constitution is
suspended. Trial Court has lost its jurisdiction and was intervened by a political question.

Petitioner vigorously opposed the motion to dismiss, and, relying mainly on Sections 7 and 8 of
Article XVII (Transitory Provisions) of the New Constitution and G.O. No. 3, contended that the
New Constitution did not divest the Court of First Instance of its jurisdiction to hear and decide
election protests pending before them at the time of its ratification and effectivity; that the
ratification of the New Constitution and its effectivity did not automatically abolish the office
and position of municipal mayor nor has it automatically cut short the tenure of the office, so as
to render the issue as to who is the lawfully elected candidate to said office or position moot and
academic; that election protests involve public interest such that the same must be heard until
terminated and may not be dismissed on mere speculation that the office involved may have been
abolished, modified or reorganized; and that the motion to dismiss was filed manifestly for delay.
Respondent would maintain that provisions of the new Constitution in which Section 9, Article
XVII provides that “All officials and employees in the existing Government of the Republic shall
continue in office until otherwise provided by law or decreed by the incumbent President of the
Philippines.” Respondent was the one proclaimed winner and petitioner is not covered by this
provision. The Trial Court would affirm the political question theory of respondent Yu. As the
new Constitution was overwhelmingly ratified by the Filipino people and the provisions involved
are about the revamping of the whole local government code, therefore, the case at bar is
political in nature. It is outside of judicial review.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the election protest filed involves a political question.

HELD:
No, there is no political question interwoven in the case. The only issue in the electoral protest
case dismissed by respondent Judge on the ground of political question is who between petitioner
and respondent Yu was the duly elected mayor of Rosales, Pangasinan, and legally entitled to
enjoy the rights, privileges and emoluments appurtenant thereto and to discharge the functions,
duties and obligations of the position. If the Yu’s election is upheld by the respondent Judge,
then he continues in office; otherwise, it is petitioner. This is the only consequence of a
resolution of the issue involved — a purely justiciable question or controversy as it implies
a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or omission violative of said right,
and a remedy, granted or sanctioned by law, for said breach of right. Before and after the
ratification and effectivity of the New Constitution, the nature of the aforesaid issue as well as
the consequences of its resolution by the Court, remains the same as above-stated.

Any judgment to be made on that issue will not in any way collide or interfere with the mandate
of Section 9 of Article XVII of the New Constitution, as it will merely resolve who as between
petitioner and respondent is the duly elected mayor of Rosales, Pangasinan; hence, entitled to
enjoy the extended term as mandated by said provision of the New Constitution. As construed by
the Court, the elective officials referred to in Section 9 of Article XVII are limited to those duly
elected as the right to said extended term was not personal to whosoever was incumbent at the
time of the ratification and effectivity of the New Constitution. Nor would such judgment
preempt, collide or interfere with the power or discretion entrusted by the New Constitution to
the incumbent President or the Legislative Department, with respect to the extended term of the
duly elected incumbents; because whoever between petitioner and respondent is declared the
duly elected mayor will be subject always to whatever action the President or the Legislative
Department will take pursuant thereto.

WHEREFORE, respondent court's order of dismissal is hereby set aside and the respondent
court is directed to immediately proceed with the trial and determination of the election protest
before it on the merits. This decision shall be immediately executory upon promulgation hereof.