G.R. No. 177927 - FLORANTE S. QUIZON, vs. HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (SECOND DIVISION), MANILA, ATTY. ARNULFO H. PIOQUINTO (ELECTION OFFICER, ANTIPOLO CITY) and ROBERTO VILLANUEVA PUNO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Disqualification and Cancellation of the Certificate of Candidacy of respondent Roberto V. Puno is hereby DISMISSED. Respondent is a resident of the 1st District of Antipolo City, and is thus qualified to run as a Member of the House of Representatives of the same district. [6] Quizon filed a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc which remains unresolved up to this date. In his Comment, Puno argues that the petition for mandamus was mooted by the July 31, 2007 Resolution of the COMELEC Second Division. He also alleged that the petition must be dismissed for the act sought to be performed is a discretionary and not a ministerial duty; and for failure of Quizon to show that he is entitled to the writ. The Office of the Solicitor General agrees that the petition for mandamus was mooted by the July 31, 2007 Resolution of the COMELEC Second Division. It likewise posits that any question regarding Punos qualifications now pertains to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET). In the instant petition, Quizon prays that the Court order the COMELEC to resolve his pending petition for disqualification. We dismiss the petition. The principal function of the writ of mandamus is to command and to expedite, not to inquire and to adjudicate. [7] Here, Quizon prayed that COMELEC be ordered to resolve the petition for disqualification. However, pending resolution of the instant petition for mandamus, the COMELEC issued its Resolution on the petition for disqualification rendering the instant case moot. A moot case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. Generally, courts decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on ground of mootness. However, Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if: first, there is a grave violation of the Constitution; second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; third, when the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review, [8] none of which are present in the instant case. Hence, since what is sought to be done by COMELEC has been accomplished, there is nothing else that the Court can order the COMELEC to perform. Moreover, the petition failed to meet the requisites for mandamus. As a general rule, the writ of mandamus lies to compel the performance of a ministerial duty. When the act sought to be performed involves the exercise of discretion, the respondent may only be directed by Mandamus to act but not to act in one way or the other. [9] The denial of due course or cancellation of ones certificate of candidacy is not within the administrative powers of the Commission, but rather calls for the exercise of its quasi-judicial fu