TOLENTINO VS.

COMELEC
GR NO. 148334, JANUARY 21, 2004
Facts:
When Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo ascended to the presidency, she nominated then Sen. Teofisto Guingona as VP which Congress
confirmed. Sen. Guingona took his oath as VP on February 9, 2001. After the confirmation, the Senate passed Resolution No. 84 on
February 8, 2001 certifying the vacancy in the Senate and calling Comelec to fill the vacancy though a special election to be held
simultaneously with the regular elections on May 14, 2001.

The Resolution provided that the candidate garnering the 13th highest number of votes shall serve only for the unexpired term for
Sen. Guingona which ends on June 30, 2004. On June 5, 2001, Coemlec issued Resolution No. 01-005 provisionally claiming 13
candidates as elected Senators (election results have been canvassed except from Lanao del Norte). Respondents Ralph Recto and
Gregorio Honasan ranked 12th and 13th respectively in the resolution.

On June 20, 2001, petitioners Arturo Tolentino and Arturo Mojica, as voters and taxpayers, filed the petition for prohibition
impleading only Comelec. Petitioners sought to enjoin Comelec from proclaiming with finality the candidate for Senator receiving
the 13th highest number of votes as the winner in the special election for a single 3-year term seat. Accordingly, petitioners prayed
for the nullification of Resolution No. 01-005.

Petitioners contend that Comelec issued the resolution without jurisdiction because:
 It failed to notify the electorate of the position to be filled in the special election as required under Section 2 of RA 6645.
 It failed to require senatorial candidates to indicate in their certificates of candidacy whether they seek election
under the special or regular elections as allegedly required under Section 73 of BP 881 (Omnibus Election Code).
 It failed to specify in the Voters Information Sheet the candidates seeking election under the special or regular
senatorial elections as purportedly required under Section 4 paragraph 4 of RA 6646.

Because of these, petitioners argue that Comelec canvassed all the votes cast for the senatorial candidates without distinction
such that there were no 2 separate Senate elections held simultaneously but just a single election for 13 seats.

Petitioners claim that if held simultaneously, a special and a regular election must be distinguished in the documentation as well
as in the canvassing of their results (they cited the special elections held simultaneously with the regular elections on 1951 and 1955,
where the canvassing and proclamation of winners were separate for the special and regular elections). The Court, without issuing
any TRO, required Comelec to comment on the petition.

However, after Comelec had canvassed the results from all provinces, it issued Resolution No. 01-006 declaring “official and
final” the ranking of the 13 senators proclaimed in Resolution No. 01-005, and the 13 senators took their oaths on July 23, 2001.
In view of Resolution No. 01-006,

The Court required the petitioners to file an amended petition impleading Recto and Honasan which petitioners complied with.

In their comments, Comelec , Honasan, and Recto claim that a special election was validly held. Comelec and Honasan raised
preliminary issues on the mootness of the petition and standing of the petitioners.

Honasan claims that the petition is actually a quo warranto which the Court should dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Recto claims that he is not a proper party because the petition only involves the validity of the proclamation of the 13th placer.

ISSUE:
1. WON the petition is in fact a quo warranto over which the SET is the sole judge.
2. WON the petition is moot.
3. WON petitioners have standing to litigate.
4. WON a special election to fill a vacant 3-year term Senate seat was validly held on May 14, 2001.

Ruling:
1) No. A quo warranto proceeding is one to determine the right of a public officer in the exercise of his office and to ouse
him from its enjoyment if his claim is not well-founded.

Petitioners are questioning the validity of the special election on May 14, 2001. The petitioner does not seek to determine
Honasan’s right in the exercise of his office as senator. Petitioners’ prayer for annulment of Honasan’s proclamation and
election is merely incidental to petitioners’ cause of action. Consequently, the Court can properly exercise jurisdiction over the
instant petition.

2) YES. The petition may be moot, but the Court will decide a question otherwise moot if it is capable of repition yet evading
 revie. The question of the validity of a special election to fill a vacancy in the Senate in relation to Comelec’s failure to comply
with the requirements on the conduct of such special election is likely to arise in every such election.

3) NO. Applied strictly, the doctrine of standing will bar the instant petition.

The “general grievance” that petitioners assert is shared substantially by a large class of voters, if not all voters, who voted in
the election. Neither did petitioners, in their capacity as taxpayers, allege that the petition should be given due course
because in the special election held, tax money was spent in violation of specific constitutional protections against abuse
of legislative power or that there was misapplication of funds by Comelec.

However, the Court has relaxed the requirement of standing and has given due course to voters’ suits involving the right of
suffrage such as in the case of IBP v. Zamora. The Court has the discretion to take cognizance of a suit which does not satisfy
the requirement of legal standing when paramount interest is involved.

4) Yes. Under Section 9 Article VI of the Constitution, a special election may be called to fill any vacancy in the Senate and
the House of Reps in the manner prescribed by law.

To implement this provision, Congressed passed RA 6445. Section 4 of RA 7166 subsequently amended Section 2 of RA 6645.
Thus, in case of a vacancy in Congress at least 1 year before the expiration of the term, Section 2 of RA 6645 requires Comelec:
To call a special election by fixing the date of the said election, which should not be earlier than 60 days nor later than
90 days after the occurrence of the vacancy, but in case of a vacancy in the Senate, the special election shall be held
simultaneously with the next succeeding regular election; and To give notice to the voters of, among other things, the
office or officers to be voted for.

Upon checking the Comelec resolutions, they contain nothing which would amount to a compliance, strict or substantial,
with the requirements of Section 2 of RA 6645. Comelec did not give notice that it would hold a special election for a single
3-year term nor did it give notice that it would proclaim as winner the senatorial candidate receiving the 13th highest number of
votes in the special election.

However, this does not invalidate the special election. In a special election to fill a vacancy, the rule is that a statute that
expressly provides that an election to fill a vacancy shall be held at the next general elections fixes the date at which the
election is to be held and operates as the call for that election.
Consequently, an election held at the time thus prescribed is not invalidated by the fact that the body charged by law with
the duty of calling the election failed to do so.

Section 2 of RA 6645 itself provides that in case of vacancy in the Senate, the special election shall be held simultaneously
with the next succeeding regular election. The law charges the voters with knowledge of this statutory notice and
Comelec’s failure to give the additional notice did not negate the calling of such special election, much less invalidate it .

The conclusion might be different had the case involved a special election to fill a vacancy in the House of Reps. The time of
the election is left to the discretion of Comelec. This makes mandatory the requirement in Section 2 of RA 6645 to call a special
election not earlier than 60 days nor longer than 90 days after the occurrence of the vacancy and give notice of the office to be
filled.

The required notice to the voters covers 2 matters:

1) That Comelec will hold a special election to fill a vacant single 3-year term Senate seat simultaneously with the
regular elections.

2) That Comelec will proclaim as winner the senatorial candidate receiving the 13th highest number of votes in the
special election

Petitioners neither claimed nor proved that Comelec’s failure to give this required notice misled a sufficient number of
voters as would change the result of the special senatorial election.

The absence of formal notice from Comelec does not preclude the possibility that the voters had actual notice of the
special election, the office to be voted in that election, and the manner by which Comelec would determine the winner.

The Court cannot disenfranchise those who voted for Honasan in the absence of proof that Comelec’s omission prejudiced
voters in the exercise of their right of suffrage so as to negate the holding of the special election.

Neither is there basis in petitoners’ claim that the manner by which Comelec conducted the special election is null because
Comelec failed to document separately the candidates and to canvass separately the votes cast for the special election. No such
requirements exist in our election laws.

Comelec merely chose to adopt the Senate’s proposal, as embodied in Resolution No. 84. Comelec’s decision to abandon
the means it employed in the 1951 and 1955 special elections and adopt the method in Resolution No. 84 is a legitimate
exercise of its discretion. That Comelec adopts means that are novel or even disagreeable is no reason to adjudge it liable for
grave abuse of discretion.