View full case

FERDINAND TRINIDAD v. COMELEC

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for certiorari questioning the disqualification of the petitioner as candidate for Mayor of Iguig, Cagayan in the May 8, 1995 elections. The petition also questions the annulment of the petitioner's proclamation as elected Mayor in the May 11, 1998 elections. The disqualification case was initially dismissed by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), but a petition with the Supreme Court ordered the reinstatement of the case. The facts of the case, as summarized in Sunga v. Commission on Elections, are as follows: Petitioner Manuel Sunga filed a letter-complaint for disqualification against incumbent mayor Ferdinand Trinidad, accusing him of various election offenses. The COMELEC referred the complaint to its Law Department for investigation. Sunga presented evidence to prove his accusations, while Trinidad opted not to submit any evidence. Trinidad was proclaimed the elected mayor despite the pending disqualification case. The COMELEC Law Department recommended the filing of charges against Trinidad and the recall of his proclamation. The COMELEC En Banc approved the findings and ordered the filing of charges, as well as the referral of the disqualification case to the COMELEC 2nd Division for hearing. Sunga filed motions to suspend Trinidad's proclamation and to suspend the effects of the proclamation, but these were not acted upon by the COMELEC 2nd Division. Proposed charges were filed against Trinidad, and the disqualification case was referred to the COMELEC 2nd Division. An urgent motion to suspend the effects and annul the proclamation was filed by Sunga, but it was dismissed. Sunga filed the instant petition, alleging violation of due process in the proceedings before the COMELEC. The COMELEC issued a resolution disqualifying Sunga as a candidate in the 1995 elections and annulling his proclamation as mayor in the 1998 elections. Private respondent also filed a motion for his own proclamation as mayor. The COMELEC En Banc denied Sunga's motion for reconsideration and annulled his proclamation, but private respondent's motion for proclamation was also denied. Petitioner argues that due process was violated in the proceedings before the COMELEC and that his disqualification cannot extend beyond his term in 1995. The issues in the case are whether there was a violation of due process in the disqualification proceedings and whether the petitioner's proclamation in 1998 can be cancelled due to the disqualification case filed in 1995.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the lack of a hearing and presentation of evidence violated the petitioner's right to due process.

  2. Whether the case had become moot and academic due to the expiration of the petitioner's term of office.

  3. Whether petitioner's disqualification under SPA No. 95-213 can extend beyond the term to which he was elected in 1995.

  4. Whether petitioner was accorded due process in the annulment of his proclamation as the winner in the 1998 elections.

  5. Whether the election of the petitioner as the winner was valid in the May 11, 1998 elections.

  6. Whether the issues related to the May 8, 1995 elections have become moot and academic due to the expiration of the term of office.

RULING:

  1. The lack of a hearing and presentation of evidence did not violate the petitioner's right to due process. Due process does not necessarily require a hearing, but only an opportunity to be heard. In administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied. In this case, the petitioner was able to file an Answer, submit his counter-affidavit and sworn statements, and file a Motion for Reconsideration. Thus, there was no denial of procedural due process.

  2. The case had become moot and academic due to the expiration of the petitioner's term of office. The resolutions issued by the COMELEC after the expiration of the petitioner's term had no practical value and could not effectively remove the petitioner from his office. Removal cannot extend beyond the term during which the alleged misconduct was committed. If a public official is not removed before his term expires, he cannot be removed if he is reelected for another term.

  3. The disqualification under SPA No. 95-213 cannot extend beyond the term to which petitioner was elected in 1995.

  4. Petitioner was not accorded due process in the annulment of his proclamation as the winner in the 1998 elections.

  5. The Resolution of the COMELEC, dated October 13, 1998, which annuls the petitioner's proclamation as the winner in the May 11, 1998 elections, is set aside. Thus, the election of the petitioner as the winner in the said elections is deemed valid.

  6. The issues related to the May 8, 1995 elections have become moot and academic due to the expiration of the term of office challenged. Therefore, the petition lodged in connection with the May 8, 1995 elections is dismissed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Due process does not necessarily require a hearing but only an opportunity to be heard. Technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied in administrative proceedings.

  • The expiration of the challenged term of office renders a petition seeking to contest the election moot and academic.

  • Removal of a public official cannot extend beyond the term during which the alleged misconduct was committed. If a public official is not removed before his term expires, he cannot be removed if he is reelected for another term.

  • Laws governing election contests must be liberally construed to give effect to the manifest will of the people expressed through the ballot.

  • Legal niceties and technicalities should not stand in the way of the sovereign will of the people.

  • The candidate who obtains the second highest number of votes cannot be proclaimed the winner in the event of disqualification or failure of the candidate with the highest number of votes to hold office.

  • The will of the people should be upheld in election cases.

  • The succession to the office of the mayor is in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Code, wherein the vice mayor becomes the mayor.

  • A case becomes moot and academic when there is no longer any justifiable controversy or the issues involved have already ceased to exist.

  • The court may still decide a moot and academic case if it finds that there is a need to set a precedent, as long as there is a justiciable controversy in existence at the filing of the petition.