ARTURO M. TOLENTINO and ARTURO C.

MOJICA, Petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, SENATOR RALPH G. RECTO and
SENATOR GREGORIO B. HONASAN, Respondents.
G.R. No. 148334 January 21, 2004
CARPIO, J.:

Facts: Pres. GMA, after her succession to the presidency in 2001, nominated
Senator Guingona as Vice-President, thus, leaving a vacancy in the Senate. The
Senate passed Res. 84 calling on COMELEC to fill the said vacancy through a
special election to be held SIMULTANEOUSLY with the regular elections on
May the same year. 12 senators each with a 6-yr term were to be elected. Res. 84
provided that the candidate with the 13th highest number of votes shall serve for the
unexpired term of former Sen. Guingona (3 years). Gregorio Honasan ranked 13th
in the polls. COMELEC issued Res. 01-005 provisionally proclaiming the 12
senators (with 6-yr terms) and the 13th senator (for the unexpired term). Petitioners
(Tolentino and Mojica) filed a petition for prohibition against COMELEC,
enjoining them from the final proclamation the 13th senator, and prayed for the
nullification of Res. 01-005.
Issue/s:
(1) Procedurally –
(a) whether the petition is in fact a petition for quo warranto over which the Senate
Electoral Tribunal is the sole judge;
(b) whether the petition is moot; and
(c) whether petitioners have standing to litigate.

(2) On the merits, whether a special election to fill a vacant three-year term Senate
seat was validly held on 14 May 2001.
Remolazo Case Digest
_Any Motto
Ruling:
1. No. The petitioner does not seek to determine Honasan’s right in the exercise of
his office in the Senate. What the petitioners allege is COMELEC’s failure to
comply with certain requirements pertaining to the conduct of the special election.
Hence, the court has jurisdiction.
2. Yes. Special election was held validly. Hence, petition has no merit.

a) No. Sec. 2 of RA 6645 (which was passed to implement art 6, sec. 9 of the
constitution), EXPRESSLY PROVIDES that in case of a vacancy in the
Senate, the special election shall be held simultaneously with the next
succeeding regular election. In a special election, the rule is that if a statute
expressly provides that an election to fill the vacancy shall be held at the
next regular election, the statute FIXES the date, hence, the election is NOT
INVALIDATED by the fact that the body charged by law with the duty (in
this case, COMELEC) failed to do so. (as opposed to if the law does not fix
the time and place but empowers some authority to fix those, the statutory
provision on the giving of notice is considered mandatory and failure to do
so will make election void)
The law then charges the voters with knowledge of the statutory notice and
COMELEC’s failure to give additional notice does not negate the election.

b) No. The test in determining the validity of a special election in relation to

the failure to give notice is whether the lack of notice resulted in misleading
a sufficient number of voters. The petitioners were not able to prove that
COMELEC’s failure to give the notice misled a sufficient number of voters
as would change the result of the vote.

c) No. No such requirements exist. What is mandatory under RA 6645 is for

COMELEC to fix the date if necessary and state the office/s to be voted for.
The method adopted by COMELEC merely implemented RA No.84 that
“the senatorial candidate garnering the 13th highest number of votes shall

Remolazo Case Digest

_Any Motto
 serve only for the unexpired term of former Sen. Guingona” (an amendment
introduced by Sen. Roco)
“WHEREFORE, we DIMISS the petition for lack of merit. So ordered.”
(Note however, that SC reminded COMELEC to comply strictly with all the
requirements under applicable laws relative to the conduct of elections
Legal Basis: Sec. 2 of RA 6645 (which was passed to implement art 6, sec. 9 of
the constitution), EXPRESSLY PROVIDES that in case of a vacancy in the
Senate, the special election shall be held simultaneously with the next succeeding
regular election.

Remolazo Case Digest

_Any Motto