Enrile v Senate Electoral Tribunal

By -
Facts: On January 20, 1995, Sen. Aquilino Pimentel filed with the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) an election protest against Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile and other senatorial candidates who won in the May 1995 senatorial elections.
On June 30, 1995, the petitioner, Sen. Enrile, filed his answer in counter-protest. Issues having joined, the SET required the parties to submit the list of pilot precincts number not more than 25% of the total precints involved.
On Aug. 21, 1997, SET held a press conference at the Supreme Court Session Hall announcing the partial and tentative results of the revision of ballots in the pilot precincts without resolving the protest. In the tabulation presented, the petitioner’s name dropped to the 15th position in the senatorial race.
On September 24, 1997, petitioner filed a Motion to Set Aside Partial Results in Sen. Pimentel’s Protest and to Conduct Another Appreciation of Ballots in the Presence of All Parties. Respondent and Sen. Coseteng filed separate comments alleging petitioner’s motion is premature considering the SET has not resolved respondent’s election protest.
Nevertheless, the SET denied petitioner’s motion holding no sufficient basis to discard the partial tabulation. The SET also denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
A petition for Certiorari assailed for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion the resolution that denied petitioner’s Motion to Annul/Set Aside Partial Results in Pimentel’s Protest and to conduct another Appreciation of Ballots in the Presence of All Parties.

Issue: Whether or not there is still useful purpose that can serve in passing upon merits of said petition.

Held: The Court finds the petition becoming moot and academic. The tenure of the contested senatorial position subject to respondent’s protest expired on June 30, 1998. The case became moot considering there is no more actual controversy between the parties and has no useful purpose that can serve in passing upon any merit.
Where issues have become moot and academic, justiciable controversies are lost, thereby rendering the resolution of no practical use or value.

The petition is dismissed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Co vs Court of Appeals

By -
ALBINO S. CO,  petitioner,  vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,  respondents. G.R. No. 100776 October 28, 1993 Facts:                 In connection with an agreement to salvage and refloat asunken vessel — and in payment of his share of the expenses of the salvage operations therein stipulated — petitioner Albino Co delivered to the salvaging firm on September 1, 1983 a check drawn against the Associated Citizens' Bank, postdated November 30, 1983 in the sum of P361,528.00. The check was deposited on January 3, 1984. It was dishonored two days later, the tersely-stated reason given by the bank being: "CLOSED ACCOUNT."                 A criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 2 was filed by the salvage company against Albino Co with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. The case eventuated in Co's conviction of the crime charged, and his being sentenced to suffer a term of imprisonment of sixty (60) days and to inde
Read more

GONZALES vs COMELEC [G.R. No. L-28196, November 9, 1967]

By -
FACTS: On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed resolutions No. 1, 2 and 3 – i.e. to increase the seats of the Lower House from 120 to 180; to convoke a Constitutional Convention of 1971; and to amend the Constitution (Section 16, Article VI) so they can become delegates themselves to the Convention.  Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which, upon approval by the President, on June 17, 1967, became Republic Act No. 4913, providing that the amendments to the Constitution proposed in the aforementioned Resolutions No. 1 and 3 be submitted, for approval by the people, at the general elections which shall be held on November 14, 1967. Two cases were filed against this act of Congress:  One an is original action for prohibition, with preliminary injunction by Ramon A. Gonzales, in L-28196, a Filipino citizen, a taxpayer, and a voter. He claims to have instituted case L-28196 as a class unit, for and in behalf of all citizens, taxpayers, and voters simil
Read more

PNB vs CA & Gueco et al

By -
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK VS. COURT OF APPEALS,RITA GUECO TAPNIO,CECILIO GUECO and THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY FACTS: Mrs. Rita Gueco Tapnio was indebted to the Philippine National Bank at San Fernando,Pampanga for the total sum of P2,379.91.  Her indebtedness was a crop loan and was secured by the mortgage on her standing crap including her sugar quota allocation for the agricultural year corresponding to the said standing crop. During agricultural year 1956-1957 Mrs. Tapnio had an excess in her export sugar quota, 1000 piculs which she does not need. Mr. Jacobo Tuazon, a planter harvest less than his sugar quota. Mrs. Tapnio agreed to allow Mr. Tuazon to use her excess sugar quota for the consideration of P2,500.00.  Since the quota of Mrs. Tapnio was mortgaged to the PNB, the contract of lease that Mrs. Tapnio and Mr. Tuazon agreed into had to be approved by the bank. The branch manager required the parties to raise the consideration to P2,800.00 informing
Read more