Facts
KMMB, its four member organizations, and several individuals filed a Petition for Mandamus to compel COMELEC to issue implementing rules for automated-election safeguards under the Omnibus Election Code and RA Nos. 7166, 8436, and 9369, and to hold the public consultations they claimed those laws required. The Court's April 19, 2022 Resolution directed petitioners to cure defects in proof of service, verification, and certification against forum shopping, and to supply competent evidence of identity for the affiants. Their Compliance still lacked Paquiz's signature on the certification, still omitted the IDs of Macatangay, Jr. and Gonzales from the document itself, and still lacked competent evidence of identity for Mauricio, Jr.'s affidavit of service. Two member-organizations, KMP and KNK, never had an authorized representative execute any certification, and four individual petitioners never executed one at all.
Issue
Whether the Petition for Mandamus against COMELEC should be dismissed where petitioners, despite being given the opportunity, failed to cure defects in verification, certification against forum shopping, and proof of service, and where the petitioning organizations failed to establish standing.
Ruling
Yes. Despite being given the chance to rectify the Petition's procedural infirmities, petitioners "still failed to correct the said errors," so the Court dropped KMP, KNK, and petitioners Paquiz, Celis, Magdamo, Cornejo, and Mauricio, Jr., for want of proper verification and certification against forum shopping under Rule 65 in relation to Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 7, and for defective proof of service under Section 2(c) of Rule 56 in relation to Section 17 of Rule 13. On standing, citing AES Watch v. COMELEC's test of "such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy," the Court held that the organizational petitioners' bare claims of corporate personality, board authorization, and public scrutiny of their advocacy "do not meet the requisite personal and substantial interest which would grant them standing." As to the remaining individual petitioners, Macatangay, Jr. and Gonzales, a relaxation of the standing rule as citizens would have been warranted were it not for the dismissal of the Petition on procedural grounds. The Court also found petitioners failed to substantiate their claim that no implementing rules exist, since their own pleadings discussed COMELEC Resolution Nos. 10088 and 10460 at length. Accordingly, "the instant Petition for Mandamus is DISMISSED, and the prayer for temporary restraining order and/or any injunctive relief is DENIED."