Enrile vs Senate Electoral Tribunal

G.R. No. 132986 | Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. | May 19, 2004

Actual Case or Controversy

DOCTRINE: Moot and Academic. A case becomes moot and academic when there is no more actual controversy
between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits.

RELEVANT 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. Petitioner then filed an answer with counter-protest.
Subsequently, the SET conducted the revision of ballots in the pilot precincts. SET directed
both parties to submit their evidences and memoranda regarding the said said conflict.

On August 1997, the SET without resolving the election protest, held a press conference
at the SC Session Hall announcing the partial and tentative results of the revision of ballots in
the pilot precincts. In the result, the name of petitioner dropped from number 11 to number
15. Upon the press release, petitioner filed a motion to set aside the partial results in Pimentel’s
protest and to conduct another appreciation of ballots in the presence of all parties, due to his
beliefs that the partial results are erroneous.

SET admitted that there was an “Oversight” on their part and that the 30,000 votes that
was deducted initially from the petition were “given back to him”. Notwithstanding the
corrections, the petitioner contended that the partial results were still erroneous because they
were improbable and not supported by evidence.

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.

ISSUE
Whether or not there is still a justiciable controversy in the case at bar. NO.

RATIO DECIDENDI
The case is moot and academic, as per Garcia V Comelec, “where the issues have become moot and academic,
there is no justiciable controversy, thereby rendering the resolution of the same of no practical use or value.” In the
case at bar, the tenure of the contested senatorial position subject to respondent’s protest expired on June 30, 1998.
Considering that it is moot and academic, a declaration thereon would be of no practice use or value (see
Gancho-on v Secretary of Labor and Employment).

RULING
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

NOTES
Ponce Enrile, Reyes and Manalastas for petitioner.
Pimentel, Yusingco, Pimentel and Garcia Law Offices for private respondent.

KOMODA, A | 1