Ali v. Commission On Elections

I O N ALAMPAY, J.:

In the majority decision of the Court, promulgated on November 19, 1985, rendered in the three above captioned cases, which were all decision of the Court, promulgated on November 19, 1985, rendered in the three above captioned cases, which were all consolidated, the separate petitions for certiorari filed by the respective petitioners therein were dismissed for lack of merit. On December 13, 1985, a joint motion for reconsideration of the aforestated decision was filed by petitioner Mahadi M. Pimping, in G.R. Nos. 69765-67 and by petitioners, Habib Ali, et al., in G.R. Nos. 69773-75. Likewise, in G.R. No. 69846, a similar motion for reconsideration, dated December 20, 1985, was submitted by petitioner Rashid Sampaco thru his counsel.

In the resolution of the Court dated January 7, 1986, respondents were asked to comment on the aforestated motions for reconsideration. On February 21, 1986, the Office of the Solicitor General as counsel for public respondent Commission on Elections, moved to dismiss said motions for reconsideration for lack of merit, contending that said motions are pro forma, and do not raise any new and substantial argument that may justify a modification or reversal of the decision in this case. Considering the events which thereafter transpired, and which led to a change in administration of our government, pursuant, therefore, to the provisions of Section 18 of Rule 3, of the Rules of Court, the new Solicitor General, by our resolution of April 3, 1986 and reiterated in another resolution dated April 29, 1986, was directed to submit his Comment on said motions filed by the respective petitioners therein, for reconsideration of the decision of November 19, 1985, and to state whether or not he maintains the action and position taken by his predecessor in office.

In their manifestation of compliance, dated April 22, 1986, petitioners Mahadi M. Pimping and Habib All, et al., in G.R. Nos. 69765-67 and G.R. Nos. 69773-75, thru a common counsel, expressed the view that the instant cases have not become moot with the change of administration and the expiration of the term of the officers involved, because the determination of the validity of the elections of private respondents will have a bearing on the right of petitioners to claim for damages. Respondent Salam N. Pangadapun in G.R. Nos. 69765-67, complying with the Court's resolution of April 3, 1986, in her Manifestation dated May 30, 1986 states that the said case has already become moot and academic, considering that an officer-in-charge has already been appointed to the contested position. Complying with the mentioned resolutions of this Court, the new Solicitor General, as counsel for public respondent COMELEC, submitted a manifestation, dated May 7, 1986, stating therein that the COMELEC, in its letter dated April 30, 1986, maintains the validity of its decision in installing as local elective officials in Marawi City the private respondents named in the petitions.

However, public respondent COMELEC states that on the basis of the information received from the Ministry of Local Government, Messrs. Hadji Abbas M. Basman and Sultan Ali M. Mindalano have now been designated as officers-in-charge for the offices of Mayor and Vice-Mayor of Marawi City, respectively. In the stated manifestation of the new Solicitor General, the Court finds no statement that there is any need for any modification, much less reversal of the decision rendered in this case.

In view of all the foregoing, the Court Resolved to DENY the motions for reconsideration filed by the herein petitioners in the three aforementioned cases for lack of merit and on the further consideration that the said motions have now been rendered moot and academic. Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera and Gutierrez, JJ., concur.