Banat v COMELEC

Facts: This is a petition for Prohibition with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction filed by petitioner Barangay
Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) Party List
(petitioner) assailing the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9369 (RA 9369)and
enjoining respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) from implementing the
statute.
RA 9369 is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2231 and House Bill No. 5352 passed
by the Senate on 7 December 2006 and the House of Representatives on 19
December 2006.On 23 January 2007, less than four months before the 14 May 2007
local elections.
On 7 May 2007, petitioner, a duly accredited multi-sectoral organization, filed this
petition for prohibition alleging that RA 9369 violated Section 26(1), Article VI of the
Constitution.Petitioner also assails the constitutionality of Sections 34, 37, 38, and
43 of RA 9369.According to petitioner, these provisions are of questionable
application and doubtful validity for failing to comply with the provisions of the
Constitution.
Petitioner argues that Sections 37 and 38 violate the Constitution by impairing the
powers of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) and the Senate Electoral Tribunal
(SET).According to petitioner, under the amended provisions, Congress as the
National Board of Canvassers for the election of President and Vice President
(Congress), and the COMELECen banc as the National Board of Canvassers
(COMELEC en banc), for the election of Senatorsmay now entertain preproclamation cases in the election of the President, Vice President, and
Senators.Petitioner concludes that in entertaining pre-proclamation cases, Congress
and the COMELEC en banc undermine the independence and encroach upon the
jurisdiction of the PET and the SET.
Issue/s:
Whether or not RA 9369 is violative of Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution;
Ruling: The petition is denied. RA 9369 is constitutional.
The COMELEC maintains that the amendments introduced by Section 37 pertain
only to the adoption and application of the procedures on pre-proclamation
controversies in case of any discrepancy, incompleteness, erasure or alteration in
the certificates of canvass. The COMELEC adds that Section 37 does not provide
that Congress and the COMELEC en banc may now entertain pre-proclamation cases
for national elective posts.
Defensor- Santiago v. Ramos- 253 SCRA 559 [1996]
Facts:
The protestant, Miriam Defensor-Santiago ran for presidency and lost in the May
1992 election. In her Motion on the 16th day of August in the year 1995, reiterated

in her comment of the 29th of August of the same year, protestant DefensorSantiago prayed that the revision in the remaining precincts of the pilot areas be
dispensed with and the revision process in the pilot areas be deemed computed.
The Court deferred action on the motion and required, instead, the protestant and
protestee to submit their respective memoranda. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the election protest filed by Defensor-Santiago is moot and
academic by her election as a Senator in the May 1995 election and her assumption
of office as such on the 30th of June in the year 1995.
Held:
YES. The Court held that the election protest filed by Santiago has been abandoned
or considered withdrawn as a consequence of her election and assumption of office
as Senator and her discharge of the duties and functions thereof.
The protestant abandoned her determination to protest and pursue the public
interest involved in the matter of who is the real choice of the electorate.
Moreover, the dismissal of this protest would serve public interest as it would
dissipate the aura of uncertainty as to the results of the 1992 presidential elections,
thereby enhancing the all too crucial political stability of the nation during this
period of national recovery.
Also, the PET issued a resolution ordering the protestant to inform the PET within 10
days if after the completion of the revision of the ballots from her pilot areas, she
still wishes to present evidence. Since DS has not informed the Tribunal of any such
intention, such is a manifest indication that she no longer intends to do so.