Moot and Academic Principle – Alunan v. Mirasol – GR 108399, 07/31/97 – Mendoza, J.

Facts: Current case: review on certiorari on RTC 36 Manila’s 01/19/93 decision nullifying the DILG order which resulted in
the cancellation of 1992 elections for SK Manila on the ground that elections previously held on 05/26/90 served the
purpose of the first elections for the SK under RA 7160 (Local Gov. Code 1991) which took effect on 01/01/92.

The first local elections under the Code were on 05/11/92. COMELEC issued Res 2499 providing guidelines for the SK
elections coming in 09/30/92. The guidelines placed the SK elections under DILG supervision with assistance from
COMELEC. The elections were finally scheduled on 12/04/92 after two instances of postponements. 15,749, between 15-
21 years old, filed for candidacy.

On 09/18/92, the DILG, via Sec. Alunan, issued a letter-resolution exempting Manila from holding the SK elections on the
ground that the elections previously held on 05/26/90 were to be considered the first under the newly enacted LGC. On
11/27/92, the respondents representing 24k members of the Katipunan ng Kabataan filed with RTC to set aside the DILG
resolution arguing that Alunan had no power to amend the resolutions of the COMELEC and that they were denied equal
protection of the laws. COMELEC chairman Bernardo Pardo issued an injunction for DILG to desist from implementing the
resolution and to follow the COMELEC resolution.

The case was re-raffled to B-36. On 01/19/93, Judge Wilfredo Reyes decided that the DILG had no power to exempt Manila
from holding the SK elections as per Art 9 C Sec 2(1) Const. and that COMELEC had already determined that there hadn’t
been previous elections for Kabataang Barangay by calling for SK elections in every barangay without exception; and that
the exemption of Manila was violative of equal protection because 5000 barangays held elections between ’88-’92 but
Manila held no elections in 1992.

Alunan insisted that Manila, having conducted KB elections in 1990, was exempted from holding elections on Dec ’92. He
cited Sec 532(d) LGC to assert DILG’s authority to determine whether Manila came within the exception clause.

Issue:

1. Preliminary question – whether holding of the 2nd elections on 05/13/96 rendered this case moot & academic.
2. Whether DILG can exempt an LGU from holding SK elections on 12/04/92
3. Whether COMLEC can provide that DILG shall have direct control and supervision over the SK elections with their
assistance

Held: (1) No, this issue is necessary to decide the issues raised by the parties. The validity of the acts of those elected in
the May ’90 KB elections in Manila may be questioned since the court enjoined the enforcement of the RTC decision and
those officers still continued to hold office until 1996. This case is also under the rule that courts will decide whether a
question is otherwise moot and academic if it is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” The question whether
COMELEC can validly vest in DILG supervision of the SK elections is likely to apply with every SK election and yet the
question may not be decided before the date of such elections.

(2&3) Yes, Sec 4 of Res 2499 by the COMELEC placed the SK elections under DILG control. This doesn’t violate the Sec 2(1),
C, Art 9 Const. Elections for SK officers are not subject to the supervision of COMELC in the same way that contests
involving the elections of SK officials aren’t in COMELEC jurisdiction. DILG’s choice in exempting Manila from SK elections
is within its power under PD 683 which established KBs. Sec 6 of PD 683 designates the Sec of DILG to implement it.

The role of the COMELEC in the 1992 elections for SK officers was by no means inconsequential. DILG supervision was to
be exercised within the framework of detailed and comprehensive rules embodied in Resolution No. 2499 of the
COMELEC. What was left to the DILG to perform was the enforcement of the rules. There was no undue delegation of
legislative power, but only the discretion of executing a law; hence, the DILG acted as an agent of the legislature.

Sec 532(d) is a curative law. Curative laws, which are retrospective, are enacted to validate acts done which otherwise
would’ve been invalid under existing laws by considering them as having complied with the existing laws.

Wherefore, RTC B-36 is reversed and petition dismissed.

 Moot and Academic Principle – Alunan v. Mirasol – GR 108399, 07/31/97 – Mendoza, J.

Art 9 C Sec 2(1): There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who
shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least
thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not have been candidates for any
elective position in the immediately preceding elections. However, a majority thereof, including
the Chairman, shall be Members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of
law for at least ten years.

RA 7160: Local Government Code of 1991

Sec 532(d) – All seats for the pederasyon ng mga sangguniang kabataan in the different
sanggunians shall be deemed vacant until such time that the sangguniang kabataan chairmen shall
have been elected and the respective pederasyon presidents have been selected: Provided, That,
elections for the kabataang barangay conducted under Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 at any time
between January 1, 1988 and January 1, 1992 shall be considered as the first elections provided
for in this Code. The term of office of the kabataang barangay officials elected within the said
period shall be extended correspondingly to coincide with the term of office of those elected
under this Code.

Sec 4 Resolution 2499: COMELEC Resolution – SK elections are placed under the direct control and supervision of the
DILG.

Moot & Academic: Principle applies when the issue is no longer justiciable in the case; it’s an unnecessary question
regarding the issues raised by the parties.

A question is not moot and academic if it’s capable of repetition, yet evading review.