recommend the imposition of disciplinary action upon an employee it has deputized for violation of its order.
Since the COMELEC can recommend that disciplinary action be taken against an officer it had deputized, it can investigate an administrative charge against such an officer to determine whether or not it should recommend that disciplinary action be taken against him. (Tan v. COMELEC, 237 SCRA 353)
Section 2(6): “The Commission on Elections shall xxx [f]ile, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion of voters; investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices.”
Jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute cases. The COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute cases for violations of election laws. (De Jesus v. People, 120 SCRA 760) However, the COMELEC may validly delegate this power to the Provincial Fiscal [Prosecutor]. (People v. Judge Basilla, 179 SCRA 87)
Finding of probable cause. It is well-settled that the finding of probable cause in the prosecution of election offenses rests in the COMELEC’s sound discretion. The COMELEC exercises the constitutional authority to investigate and where appropriate, prosecute cases for violation of election laws, including acts or omissions
constituting election, fraud, offenses and malpractices. (Baytan v. COMELEC, 2003)
No obligation to search for evidence needed. COMELEC has no obligation to search for the evidence needed. ”The task of the COMELEC as investigator and prosecutor, acting upon any election offense complaint is not searching and gathering of proof in support of a complaint for alleged commission of an election offense. A complainant, who in effect accuses another person of having committed an act constituting an election offense, has the burden, as it is his responsibility to follow through his accusation and prove the complaint.”586
Subject to authority of trial judge. When the Commission acts as prosecutor, its actions and decision are subject to the authority of the trial judge. Even after the Commission has decided that an information be filed, a trial judge before whom the information is filed may still order reinvestigation.
Authority to decide whether to appeal. This power to investigate and prosecute election law violations includes the authority to decide whether or not to appeal the dismissal of a criminal case by the trial court. (COMELEC v. Silva, 286 SCRA 177)
Q: The COMELEC is given authority to investigate and prosecute violations of the election law and Section 7 says that decisions, orders and rulings of the Commission may be reviewed only by the SC on certiorari. After the preliminary investigation conducted by COMELEC lawyers and after the COMELEC approves the report and orders the filing of a criminal case, may the trial court order a reinvestigation and require the presentation of the records of the preliminary investigation made by the COMELEC?
A: Yes. The final orders, rulings and decision of the COMELEC reviewable on certiorari by the SC as provided by law are those rendered in actions of proceedings before the COMELEC and taken cognizance of by said body in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. (such as decisions in election contests. It does not refer to prosecutory function of the Commission) The RTC on the other hand, is given exclusive authority to try and decide criminal cases involving elections. When the COMELEC as prosecutor files a case before a trial court, the trial court acquires jurisdiction and all subsequent dispositions of the case must be subject to approval by the court. Hence, the court may order reinvestigation and require submission of records of the preliminary examination to satisfy itself that there is probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. (People v. Hon. Delgado, 1990)
The power of the Commission under Section 2(6) covers not just criminal cases but also
586 Kilosbayan v. COMELEC (1997)
administrative cases. (Thus, where the Commission has deputized a City Prosecutor as election canvasser, such Prosecutor cannot claim immunity from the power of the Commission on the argument that he comes under the executive department. The Commission has power all persons required by law to perform duties relative to the conduct of elections. However, under Section 2(8), the Commission may merely issue a recommendation for disciplinary action to the President.)587
2. Deciding Election Contests
Section 2(2): “The Commission on Elections shall xxx [e]xercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on election contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final, executory, and not appealable. “ Powers under Section 2(2):
1.
Exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials;2.
Appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.(The enumeration found in Section 2(2)
excludes jurisdiction over elections for the Sangguniang Kabataan. Jurisdiction over these is given to the DILG. (Alunan III v. Mirasol, 1997)
The COMELEC shall exercise… exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials.588
Who decides problems involving “elections, returns, and qualifications” of candidates?
Congressional Candidate: Once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a Member of the House of Representatives, COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election contests relating to
587 Bernas Commentary, p 1055 (2003 ed).
588 Dean Bautista: Decide questions affecting elections (but not to be
his election, returns and qualifications ends, and the HRET”s own jurisdiction begins (Aggabao v. COMELEC, 2005)
Municipal Offices: In the case of municipal offices; even if the case began with the COMELEC before proclamation before the controversy is resolved, it ceases to be a pre- proclamation controversy and becomes a contest cognizable by the Court of First Instance.589
Q: What is the difference between the jurisdiction of the COMELEC before the proclamation and its jurisdiction after proclamation?
A: The difference lies in the due process implications. COMELEC’s jurisdiction over a pre- proclamation controversy is administrative or quasi- judicial and is governed by the less stringent requirements of administrative due process (although the SC has insisted that question on “qualifications” should be decide only after a full- dress hearing).
COMELEC’s jurisdiction over “contests” is judicial and is governed by the requirements of judicial process. Hence, even in the case of regional or provincial or city offices, it does make a difference whether the COMELEC will treat it as a pre- proclamation controversy or as a contest.590 Exclusive Jurisdiction over pre-proclamation cases. The COMELEC shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all pre-proclamation controversies. (BP 881, Section 242) This should be construed as referring only to regional, provincial and city officials.(Pangilinan v. COMELEC)591
RA 7166 Section 15 prohibits pre-proclamation controversies in national offices (except on questions involving the composition and proceedings of the Board of Canvassers).592
As regards national offices, No pre-proclamation case is allowed regarding the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the election returns or certificate of canvass. (Pangilinan v. COMELEC, 228 SCRA 36)593
In a congressional election, the losing candidate cannot file a petition for correction of manifest errors. (Vinzons-Chato v. COMELEC, 520 SCRA 166)594
Q: Does the COMELEC have authority to review contests involving the election of officers of a barangay federation?
589 Bernas Primer at 396 (2006 ed.)
590 Bernas Primer at 391 (2006 ed.)
591 Jacinto Jimenez, Political Law Compendium, 390 (2006 ed.)
592 Antonio B. Nachura, Outline/Reviewer in Political Law 330
(2006 ed.)
593 Jacinto Jimenez, Election Law 37 (2008). 594 Jacinto Jimenez, Election Law 37 (2008).
A: No. the power of the COMELEC is over popular elections. (Taule v. Secretary Santos, 1991)
The COMELEC shall have …appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.
Appellate Jursidiction. The COMELEC exercises appellate jurisdiction over contests involving municipal or barangay officials as originally decided by regional or municipal trial courts, and its decision in these cases shall be final, executory and not appealable
Q: Section 9 of RA 6679 makes decisions of a municipal or metropolitan court in a barangay election appealable to the regional trial court. Is this valid?
A: No. The COMELEC has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving barangay elective officials decided by trial court of limited jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the COMELEC, however, is over questions of fact; questions of law go to the Supreme Court. (Flores v. COMELEC, 1990)
Power to issue writs. The appellate jurisdiction includes, by virtue of Section 50 of BP 967, the power to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.595
The COMELEC has the power to review decisions of municipal courts on municipal election contests. And when it does so, the entire case is not opened as what happens in appeals on criminal cases.596
Period to Appeal from RTC. Appeal to the COMELEC from the RTC must be filed within 5 days from receipt of a copy of the decision. A motion for reconsideration of the RTC decision is a prohibited pleading, and does not interrupt the running of the period for appeal. (Veloria v. COMELEC)597
Under COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the mere filing of the Notice of Appeal is not enough; it should be accompanied by payment of the correct amount of appeal fee, in order that the appeal may be deemed perfected.598
Execution Pending Appeal. The COMELEC cannot deprive the RTC of its competence to order execution of judgment pending appeal,
595 Bernas Commentary, p 1048 (2003 ed).
596 Manzala v. Comelec, GR 176211m May 8, 2007.
597 Antonio B. Nachura, Outline/Reviewer in Political Law 332
(2006 ed.)
598 Antonio B. Nachura, Outline/Reviewer in Political Law 332
because the mere filing of appeal does not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction over a case and the authority to resolve pending incidents. (Edding v. COMELEC, 246 SCRA 502)599
Rationale. Such exception is allowed in election cases “to give as much recognition to the worth of the trial judge’s decision as that which is initially ascribed by the law to the proclamation of the board of canvassers”. Indeed, to deprive trial courts of their discretion to grant execution pending appeal would “bring back the ghost of the ‘grab-the-proclamation, prolong the protest’ techniques so often resorted to by devious politicians in the past in their efforts to perpetuate their hold on an elective public office.” (Santos v. COMELEC, 2003)600
It was held that RTC may grant a motion for execution pending appeal when there are valid and special reasons to grant the same such as: 1. The public interest or the will of the
electorate;
2. The shortness of the remaining portion of the term;
3. The length of time that the election contest has been pending. (Navarosa v. COMELEC, 2003)
The motion for execution pending appeal should be filed before the expiration of the period for appeal. (Relampos v. Cumba, 243 SCRA 757)
Q: Does the COMELEC have jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto or
habeas corpus?
A: Yes, it does, but only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction over election protest cases involving elective municipal officials decided by courts of general jurisdiction. (This means that its jurisdiction is concurrent with that of the Supreme Court under Article VIII, Section 5(1). (Carlos v. Judge Angeles, 2000)601
Congressional Candidate. The general rule is that the proclamation of a congressional candidate divests COMELEC of jurisdiction in favor of the proper Electoral Tribunal – unless the proclamation was invalid.602
Plebiscites. The Comelec has jurisdiction over cases involving plebiscites. Thus where the question was whether the electorate of Taguig voted in favor of, or against the conversion of the municipality of Taguig into a highly urbanized city in the plebiscite conducted for the purpose, the
599 Antonio B. Nachura, Outline/Reviewer in Political Law 332
(2006 ed.)
600 Antonio B. Nachura, Outline/Reviewer in Political Law 332
(2006 ed.)
601 Bernas Primer at 393 (2006 ed.)
602 Planas v Comelec, G.R. No. 167594, March 10, 2006.
Comelec correctly assumed jurisdiction. The problem was not for regular courts. It was not a case calling for the exercise of judicial power since it did not involve the violation of any legally demandable right and its enforcement. There was no plaintiff or defendant in the case. It merely involved the ascertainment of the vote of the electorate of Taguig.603
Q: Does the Commission have the power to transfer municipalities form one congressional district to another for the purpose of preserving proportionality?
A: No. This is not one of the broad power granted by Section 2(2). Neither is it what is referred to by the Ordinance Appended to the Constitution (Sections 2 and 3) authorizing the Commission to make “ minor adjustments”. The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission on the subject clearly excluded the power to transfer whole municipalities. (Montejo v. COMELEC, 1995)
Power to Punish Contempt. The power to punish contempt can be exercised only in connection with judicial functions and not administrative functions. (Masangcay v. COMELEC, 6 SCRA 27)
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on election contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final, executory, and not appealable. “
. (This rule does not conflict with the minimum
appellate jurisdiction of the SC under Article VIII, Section 5(2), which covers only the final judgments and orders of courts of justice. The Commission is not a judicial tribunal but only an administrative body.) It should be noted that, its decisions, orders
and rulings may be challenged in a petition for
certiorari with the SC under Article IX-A, Section 7,
on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.604
The non-appealable character refers only to questions of fact and not of law. Such decisions remain subject to the jurisdiction of the SC through the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 in accordance with Article IX-A, Section 7.(Rivera v. COMELEC, 1991)
3. Deciding Administrative Questions Section 2(3): “The Commission on Elections shall xxx [d]ecide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions affecting elections, including determination of the number and location of polling places, appointment of election officials and inspectors, and registration of voters.”
Questions on Right to Vote. The COMELEC cannot decide the right to vote, which refers to the
603 Buac and Bautista v. Comelec, G.R. No. 155855, January 26,
2004.
inclusion or exclusion of voters. (2001 Bar Question)
The Constitution prevents the COMELEC, in the exercise of its administrative powers and functions, to decide questions involving the right to vote. (It may do so, however, in the discharge of its duties concerning registration of voters, except that its decision shall be subject to judicial review. Such power comes within its quasi-judicial authority and may be validly exercised as incidental to its powers of regulation.)605
Change in polling places. While changes in the location of polling places may be initiated by the written petition of the majority of the voters, or by agreement of all the political parties, ultimately, it is the COMELEC that determines whether a change is necessary after due notice and hearing. (Cawasa v. COMELEC, 2002)
The Supreme Court held that the contempt power conferred upon the COMELEC by law was an inherently judicially prerogative and could not be exercised by it in connection with the discharge of its purely routinary or administrative duties, as distinguished from quasi-judicial duties. (Guevara v. COMELEC)
4. Deputization of Law Enforcement Agencies Section 2(4): “The Commission on Elections shall xxx [d]eputize, with the concurrence of the President, law enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the Government, including the Armed Forces of the Philippines, for the exclusive purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.“
It should be stressed that this power may be exercised only with the consent of the President, or negatively stated, may not be exercised without his permission.606
Q: What is the scope of power of the Commission over deputized officers?
A: The power of the Commission over deputized officers under Section 2(6) covers not just criminal cases but also administrative cases. Thus, where the Commission has deputized a City Prosecutor as election canvasser, such Prosecutor cannot claim immunity form the power of the Commission on the argument that he comes under the executive department. The Commission has power over
605 Cruz, Philippine Political Law, p. 313 (1995 ed); Nachura: As
an incident to its duties concerning registration of voters, it may decide a question involving the right to vote, but its decision shall be subject to judicial review. Antonio B. Nachura, Outline/Reviewer in Political Law 334 (2006 ed.)
606 Bernas Commentary, p 1052 (2003 ed).
all persons required by law to perform duties relative to the conduct of elections. However, under Section 2(8), the Commission may merely issue a recommendation for disciplinary action to the President. (Tan v. COMELEC, 1994)
Q: What is one instance that the COMELEC is subordinated to the President?
A: Section 2(8) provides that the COMELEC may merely “recommend to the President the removal of any officer or employee it has deputized, or the imposition of any disciplinary action, for violation or disregard of, or disobedience to, its decision, order, or directive.”607 5. Registration of Political Parties
Section 2(5): “The Commission on elections shall xxx [r]egister, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other requirements, must present their platform or program of government; and accredit citizens' arms of the Commission on Elections. Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered. Those which seek to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and adhere to this Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign government shall likewise be refused registration.
Financial contributions from foreign governments and their agencies to political parties, organizations, coalitions, or candidates related to elections, constitute interference in national affairs, and, when accepted, shall be an additional ground for the cancellation of their registration with the Commission, in addition to other penalties that may be prescribed by law.”
Purpose of Registration.
1.
To acquire juridical personality2.
To qualify for accreditation,3.
To be entitled to the rights of political parties, a political party must be registered with the COMELEC (Section 60, Omnibus Election Code)Reason for presentation of platforms and programs. It is essential that political parties present their programs and platforms of government for the information of the electorate whose support they are seeking as otherwise the voters may not properly and intelligently exercise their suffrages. This rule will also enable the Commission to determine if the party seeking registration is not entitled thereto because it is a religious group, or is subversive in nature or purpose, or does not recognize the Constitution, or being supported by a foreign government.
Political Party. Section 80 of the 1965 Election Code and Section 22 of the 1971 Election Code defined a political party as “an organized group of person pursuing the same political ideals in a government and includes its branches and divisions..” the 1978 Election Code adopted the aforequoted definition by providing in Section 199 that “any other group of persons pursuing the same political ideals in the government may register with the Commission and be entitled to the same right and privileges.” (Geronimo v. COMELEC, 1981)608
Groups which cannot be registered as political