The case considered whether Miriam Defensor-Santiago's presidential election protest against Fidel Ramos had been rendered moot by her subsequent election and assumption of office as Senator. Santiago argued public interest required resolving the case on its merits, while Ramos argued her actions demonstrated abandonment of the protest. The Court ultimately ruled the protest was moot and dismissed the case, finding that by running for and serving as Senator, Santiago had effectively withdrawn the protest and broken her "political contract" with voters. It also cited her waiver of revising ballots as further indication she no longer intended to pursue the protest.
The case considered whether Miriam Defensor-Santiago's presidential election protest against Fidel Ramos had been rendered moot by her subsequent election and assumption of office as Senator. Santiago argued public interest required resolving the case on its merits, while Ramos argued her actions demonstrated abandonment of the protest. The Court ultimately ruled the protest was moot and dismissed the case, finding that by running for and serving as Senator, Santiago had effectively withdrawn the protest and broken her "political contract" with voters. It also cited her waiver of revising ballots as further indication she no longer intended to pursue the protest.
The case considered whether Miriam Defensor-Santiago's presidential election protest against Fidel Ramos had been rendered moot by her subsequent election and assumption of office as Senator. Santiago argued public interest required resolving the case on its merits, while Ramos argued her actions demonstrated abandonment of the protest. The Court ultimately ruled the protest was moot and dismissed the case, finding that by running for and serving as Senator, Santiago had effectively withdrawn the protest and broken her "political contract" with voters. It also cited her waiver of revising ballots as further indication she no longer intended to pursue the protest.
The case considered whether Miriam Defensor-Santiago's presidential election protest against Fidel Ramos had been rendered moot by her subsequent election and assumption of office as Senator. Santiago argued public interest required resolving the case on its merits, while Ramos argued her actions demonstrated abandonment of the protest. The Court ultimately ruled the protest was moot and dismissed the case, finding that by running for and serving as Senator, Santiago had effectively withdrawn the protest and broken her "political contract" with voters. It also cited her waiver of revising ballots as further indication she no longer intended to pursue the protest.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
Petitioner Miriam Defensor-Santiago was elected as a Senator in the May 1995 election and
assumed office as such on 30 June 1995
She had an ongoing election protest with regard to the 11 May 1992 presidential election, where she lost and Respondent Ramos won
In her motion of 16 August 1995 in relation to her election protest, Protestant Miriam Defensor- Santiago prayed that the revision of ballots in the remaining precincts of the pilot areas be dispensed with and the revision process in the pilot areas be deemed completed.
The Court required the Protestant and the Protestee to submit their respective memoranda on the issue of whether this case had been rendered moot by the election of the Protestant.
Protestant Santiago answers in the negative and argues that:
o An election contest involves not only an adjudication and settlement of the private interests of the rival candidates, but more importantly, the paramount need to dispel the uncertainty that beclouds the true choice of the electorate. Hence, it is imbued with public interest and should be pursued to its final conclusion to determine the bona fide winner. o An election case may be rendered moot only if the term of the contested office has expired, thus her election as Senator and assumption of office as such cannot be construed as an abandonment of the instant protest.
For his part, the Protestee Ramos submits that:
o There is strong legal basis for this Tribunal to rule that the Protestant is deemed to have abandoned the instant protest, in light of the ruling in Dimaporo vs. Mitra which construed Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code). o However, public interest requires that this protest be resolved on the merits considering that it involves a matter of paramount and grave public interest. o He likewise claims that a resolution on the merits would confirm his victory in the 11 May 1992 presidential election and prove that the instant protest is unfounded. o Furthermore, it would establish guiding and controlling principles or doctrines with respect to presidential election protest cases, thereby educating the bench and the bar and preventing the indiscriminate filing of baseless protest cases.
W/N the case had been rendered moot by the election of the Protestant as a Senator in the May 1995 election and her assumption of office as such on 30 June 1995
On grounds of public interest
Protestant Santiago relied on the cases of Sibulo vda. de De Mesa vs. Mencias, Lomugdang vs. Javier, and De Castro vs. Ginete to support her argument on the consideration of public interest and public policy However, the Court held that the facts of the aforementioned cases are not on all fours with the instant protest o In Sibulo vda. de De Mesa, the protestee had been proclaimed the winning mayoralty candidate and had assumed office, and then died during the pendency of the election protest. o In Lomugdang, it was the protestant whodied during the pendency of the protest. o In De Castro, the only issue presented was whether the protest should be dismissed on the ground of estoppel when the protestant congratulated the protestee after the latter was proclaimed the winner by the board of canvassers. In the case of Protestant Santiago, she filed a certificate of candidacy for Senator, campaigned for such office, and submitted herself to be voted upon. o She knew that the term of office of the Senators who would then be elected would be six years. o In short, she filed her certificate of candidacy for the Senate without any qualification, condition, or reservation. o In so doing, she entered into a political contract with the electorate that if elected, she would assume the office of Senator, discharge its functions and serve her constituency as such for the term for which she was elected. o These are givens which are in full accord with the principle enshrined in the Constitution that public office is a public trust. It is contrary to her promise to serve the electorate as Senator if it is subject to the outcome of this protest.
In this jurisdiction, an elected public official may even be held criminally liable should he refuse to discharge an elective office.
In assuming the office of Senator then, the Protestant has effectively abandoned or withdrawn this protest o Such abandonment or withdrawal operates to render moot the instant protest.
Moreover, it is rather the dismissal of this protest which would serve public interest as it would dissipate the aura of uncertainty as to the results of the 1992 presidential election, thereby enhancing the all-too crucial political stability of the nation during this period of national recovery.
Waiver of protestant of the revision of the remaining unrevised ballots
Another reason why this case should now be dismissed is the waiver of the protestant of the revision of the remaining unrevised ballots from 4,017 precincts out of the 17,527 precincts of the designated three pilot areas. This is nothing short of a manifest indication that she no longer intends to do so.
Waiver of protestant of the revision of the remaining unrevised ballots
Another reason why this case should now be dismissed is the waiver of the protestant of the revision of the remaining unrevised ballots from 4,017 precincts out of the 17,527 precincts of the designated three pilot areas.
