Article IX – Constitutional Commissions
Article IX – Constitutional Commissions
Section 7
Section 7
T
Tiittllee FFaaccttss IIssssuuee//ss RRuulliinngg DDooccttrriinnee Galido v. COMELEC Galido v. COMELEC GR No. 95346 GR No. 95346 18 January 1991 18 January 1991 Padilla, J. Padilla, J. Pe
Perferfectcto o GalGalidido o anand d SaSatuturnrnininoo Gal
Galeon eon werwere e botboth h cancandiddidates ates for for Mayor in the municipality of Mayor in the municipality of Garcia-Her
Hernannandez, Bohodez, Bohol, l, for for in in the 18the 18 January 1988 elections. Galido was January 1988 elections. Galido was pr
procloclaimaimed ed MayMayor-or-eleelect ct by by thethe Municipal Board of Canvassers. Municipal Board of Canvassers. Gal
Galeon eon filfiled ed an an eleelectiction on proprotestestt be
beforfore e the RTC the RTC of of BohBohol, whichol, which uphel
upheld d GalidGalido’s o’s proclaproclamatiomation n whowho wo
won n by a by a mamajojoririty ty of of 11 vote11 votes.s. Galeon appealed to the COMELEC, Galeon appealed to the COMELEC, whi
which ch revreversersed ed the the decidecisiosion n andand declared Galeon as the winner by a declared Galeon as the winner by a plurality of 5 votes. The COMELEC plurality of 5 votes. The COMELEC
hel
held d ththat at 15 15 balballotlots s in a in a preprecincinctct contai
containing the ning the initinitial “C” ial “C” after theafter the name “Galido” were marked ballots name “Galido” were marked ballots and are therefore invalid.
and are therefore invalid.
Galido filed a petition for certiorari Galido filed a petition for certiorari and injunction with the SC but was and injunction with the SC but was di
dismsmisissesed d dudue e to to prprococededururalal infirmities. The MR was also denied infirmities. The MR was also denied with finality. Undaunted, Galido filed with finality. Undaunted, Galido filed anoth
another er petitpetition for ion for certiocertiorari andrari and in
injujuncnctition on anand d a a prprayayer er fofor r aa restraining order which contains the restraining order which contains the same allegations as the previous case same allegations as the previous case whi
which ch was was disdismismissedsed. . The The coucourtrt issued the TRO. Galeon moved for issued the TRO. Galeon moved for the dismissal of the case.
the dismissal of the case.
W/N COMELEC’s decision may be W/N COMELEC’s decision may be appealed.
appealed.
YES. The
YES. The fact that decisions, finalfact that decisions, final orders, or rulings of the COMELEC orders, or rulings of the COMELEC in
in conconteteststs s invoinvolvlvining g elelecectitiveve munic
municipal and ipal and barangbarangay offices ay offices areare final, executory, and not appealable, final, executory, and not appealable, does not preclude a recourse to the does not preclude a recourse to the SC by way of a special civil action of SC by way of a special civil action of certiorari.
certiorari.
However, the Court finds no reason However, the Court finds no reason to overturn COMELEC’s decision. It to overturn COMELEC’s decision. It di
did d nonot t cocommmmit it grgravave e ababususe e of of dis
discretcretion ion amoamountunting ing to to laclack k or or ex
excescess s of of jujuririsdsdicictition on whwhen en itit rendered the questioned decision. rendered the questioned decision.
COMEL
COMELEC EC has has exclusexclusive ive origioriginalnal jurisdiction over all contests relating jurisdiction over all contests relating
to
to ththe e elelectectioionsns, , retretururnsns, , andand qualifications of all elective regional, qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials and has provincial, and city officials and has appellate jurisdiction over all contests appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials involving elective municipal officials dec
decideided d by by tritrial al coucourts of rts of gengeneraerall juri
jurisdictsdiction ion or or involinvolving ving electielectiveve baran
barangay officials decided gay officials decided by by trialtrial courts of limited jurisdiction. courts of limited jurisdiction. The function of a writ of certiorari is The function of a writ of certiorari is to keep an inferior court or tribunal to keep an inferior court or tribunal within the bounds of its jurisdiction within the bounds of its jurisdiction or to
or to prevenprevent it t it from commitfrom committing ating a grave abuse of discretion amounting grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
to lack or excess of jurisdiction.jurisdiction. COMELEC has the inherent power to COMELEC has the inherent power to decide an election contest on physical decide an election contest on physical evidence, equity, law and justice, and evidence, equity, law and justice, and apply
apply establestablished ished jurisjurisprudenprudence ce inin s u
s up pp po ro rt t o f o f i ti ts s f if innd id in gn gs s a na ndd conclusions; the extent to which such conclusions; the extent to which such p
prerecedcedenents ts apapplply y rereststs s on on ititss dis
discretcretionion, , the the exeexercircise se of of whiwhichch should not be controlled unless such should not be controlled unless such dis
discretcretion has ion has beebeen n abuabused to sed to thethe prejudice of either party.
prejudice of either party.
Salva v. Makalintal Salva v. Makalintal GR No. 132603 GR No. 132603 18 September 2000 18 September 2000 Buena, J. Buena, J.
Salva, et al, officials and residents of Salva, et al, officials and residents of Ba
Bararangngay ay SaSan n RaRafaefael, l, CaCalalaca,ca, Batangas filed a class suit against the Batangas filed a class suit against the Sa
Sangngguguninianang g PanlPanlalalawawigigan an of of Batangas, Sangguniang Pambayan of Batangas, Sangguniang Pambayan of Cal
Calaca, and aca, and the the COMCOMELEELEC C for for annulment of Ordinance No. 5 and annulment of Ordinance No. 5 and Resolution No. 345, enacted by the Resolution No. 345, enacted by the Sa
Sangngguguninianang g PanlPanlalalawawigigan an of of B
Ba ta ta na nggaass, , a na nd d CCOOMMEELLEECC Resolution No. 2987.
Resolution No. 2987.
W/N the trial court had jurisdiction to W/N the trial court had jurisdiction to en
enjojoin in ththe e COCOMEMELELEC C frfromom implementing Resolution No. 2987. implementing Resolution No. 2987.
YES. Resolut
YES. Resolution No. ion No. 2987 which2987 which provides for the rules and regulations provides for the rules and regulations governing the conduct of the required governing the conduct of the required plebiscite, was not issued pursuant to plebiscite, was not issued pursuant to
the
the COMCOMELEELEC’s C’s quaquasi-si-judjudiciicialal functions but merely as an incident of functions but merely as an incident of its inherent administrative functions its inherent administrative functions over the conduct of plebiscites, thus, over the conduct of plebiscites, thus, th
the e sasaid id reresosolulutition on mamay y nonot t bebe deemed as a final order reviewable deemed as a final order reviewable by
by certcertioriorari ari by by thithis s CouCourt. Anyrt. Any T
Thhe e ppoowweer s r s vve se stteed d bby y tthhee Con
Constistituttution ion and the and the law law on on thethe COMELEC may either be classified COMELEC may either be classified as those pertaining to its adjudicatory as those pertaining to its adjudicatory or
or quasi-quasi-judicjudicial ial functifunctions, or ons, or thosthosee which
which are are inherinherently ently adminadministratistrativeive an
and d sosomemetitimemes s mimininiststerierial al inin character.
Or
Ordidinanancnce e NoNo. . 5 5 dedeclclarared ed ththee abolition of Barangay San Rafael and abolition of Barangay San Rafael and its merger with Barangay Dacanlao, its merger with Barangay Dacanlao, an
and d accaccorordidingngly ly ininststruructcted ed ththee COME
COMELEC to LEC to conduconduct ct the requiredthe required pl
plebiebisciscite. te. ResResoluolutiotion n No. No. 345345 affirmed the effectivity of Ordinance affirmed the effectivity of Ordinance No. 5, overriding the veto exercised No. 5, overriding the veto exercised b
by y ththe e GoGovevernrnor or of of BaBatatangngas.as. COMELEC Resolution No. 2987, on COMELEC Resolution No. 2987, on the other hand, provided for the rules the other hand, provided for the rules an
and d reregugulalatitionons s gogovevernrnining g ththee condu
conduct ct of of the required plebiscitthe required plebiscitee scheduled on 28 February 1998, to scheduled on 28 February 1998, to decide the issue of the abolition of decide the issue of the abolition of Barang
Barangay San ay San Rafael and its Rafael and its merger merger with Barangay Dacanlao.
with Barangay Dacanlao.
The trial court denied the motion for The trial court denied the motion for th
the e isissusuanance ce of of a a TRTRO O anand/d/or or preli
preliminary injunctminary injunction for ion for lack of lack of juri
jurisdictsdiction. According to ion. According to it, anyit, any petition or action questioning an act, petition or action questioning an act,
res
resololututioion, n, or or dedecicisision on of of ththee COMELEC must be brought before COMELEC must be brought before the SC.
the SC.
question pertaining to the validity of question pertaining to the validity of said resolut
said resolution may well be ion may well be taken intaken in an ordinary civil action before the an ordinary civil action before the trial courts. trial courts. Bernardo v. Abalos Bernardo v. Abalos GR No. 137266 GR No. 137266 5 December 2001 5 December 2001 Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. An
Antotoninio o BeBernrnarardodo, , et et al al fifileled d aa criminal complaint against Benjamin criminal complaint against Benjamin Abalos
Abalos, Sr. , Sr. and Jr., and and Jr., and otherothers for s for vot
vote e buybuying in ing in vioviolatlation of ion of thethe Om
Omninibubus s ElElectectioion n CoCodede. . ThTheyey alleged that the Abaloses sponsored alleged that the Abaloses sponsored an
an outouting for ing for the publthe public ic schschoolool teache
teachers rs who were who were also registerealso registeredd voters and members of the Board of voters and members of the Board of Election Inspectors in Mandaluyong Election Inspectors in Mandaluyong Ci
Cityty, , seseveveral ral weweekeks s bebefofore re ththee elections were to take place. Abalos elections were to take place. Abalos Sr. also allegedly delivered a speech Sr. also allegedly delivered a speech prom
promising the ising the said teachers hazardsaid teachers hazard p
pay ay anand d an an inincrcreaease se in in ththeieir r allowances of a total of
allowances of a total of P3,000.00.P3,000.00. The COMELEC issued a
The COMELEC issued a resoluresolutiontion di
dismsmisissising ng ththe e cocompmplalainint t fofor r insufficiency of evidence to establish insufficiency of evidence to establish a prima
a prima facie case. The facie case. The petitpetitionersioners then filed a
then filed a petitpetition for ion for certicertiorariorari with the SC for the nullification of with the SC for the nullification of
W/N petitio
W/N petitioners’ failure to ners’ failure to file thefile the requir
required ed motiomotion n for for reconsreconsideratiderationion with the COMELEC is fatal to their with the COMELEC is fatal to their cause.
cause.
YES. Petitioners’ failure to file the YES. Petitioners’ failure to file the requir
required ed motimotion on for for reconsreconsideratiderationion utterl
utterly y disregdisregarded arded the the COMECOMELECLEC Rules intended to achieve an orderly, Rules intended to achieve an orderly, just
just, , expediexpeditious tious and and inexpeinexpensivensive det
determerminainatiotion n and and disdispospositiition on of of every action and proceeding brought every action and proceeding brought before the
before the CommCommissioission. n. A A petitpetitionion for certiorari can only be resorted to for certiorari can only be resorted to if there is no appeal, or any plain, if there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Having failed ordinary course of law. Having failed to
to fifile le ththe e rereququirired ed momotition on for for recons
reconsideratideration ion of of the the challchallengedenged Res
Resoluolutiotion, n, petpetitiitioneoners’ rs’ insinstantantt pet
petitiition on is is certcertainainly ly preprematmatureure.. Signi
Significantficantly, they ly, they have not have not raisedraised any plausible reason for their direct any plausible reason for their direct recourse to this Court.
recourse to this Court.
A petition for certiorari can only be A petition for certiorari can only be resorted to if there is no appeal, or resorted to if there is no appeal, or any
any plaplain, in, spespeedyedy, , and and adeqadequatuatee remedy in the ordinary course of law. remedy in the ordinary course of law.
the COMELEC’s Resolution, citing the COMELEC’s Resolution, citing that it was issued with apparent grave that it was issued with apparent grave abuse of discretion. The petition was abuse of discretion. The petition was fil
filed ed witwithouhout t firsfirst t subsubmitmittinting g aa moti
motion on for for reconsreconsideratideration ion with thewith the COMELEC.
COMELEC.
c. The COMELEC
c. The COMELEC
Sec. 2. Powers of the C
Sec. 2. Powers of the C OMELEC
OMELEC
Carlos v. Angeles Carlos v. Angeles GR No. 142907 GR No. 142907 29 November 2000 29 November 2000 Pardo, J. Pardo, J. Jos
Jose e CarCarlos los and and AntAntonionio o SerSerapiapioo were candidat
were candidates for es for the positithe position of on of ma
mayoyor r of of ththe e mumuninicicipapalility ty of of Valenzuela, Metro Manila during the Valenzuela, Metro Manila during the 11 May 1998 elections.
11 May 1998 elections. On
On 21 May 21 May 1991998, 8, the Municthe Municipaipall Board of Canvassers proclaimed Jose Board of Canvassers proclaimed Jose Carlos as the duly elected mayor of Carlos as the duly elected mayor of Val
Valenzuenzuela, ela, havhaving ing obtobtainained ed thethe highest number of votes. On 21 June highest number of votes. On 21 June 1998, Serapio filed with the RTC of 1998, Serapio filed with the RTC of Va
Valelenznzueuela la an an elelecectition on prprototesestt chall
challenging the results. Due enging the results. Due to theto the inhibition of all the RTC judges in inhibition of all the RTC judges in Valenzuela, the case was assigned to Valenzuela, the case was assigned to the RTC
the RTC of Caloocan, presiof Caloocan, presided byded by Judge Angeles.
Judge Angeles. Car
Carlos los filfiled ed a a motmotion ion to to disdismismiss,s, wh
whicich h was was dendenieied. d. CaCarlrlos os ththenen elevated the order to the COMELEC elevated the order to the COMELEC on
on pepetititition on fofor r cercertitiororari ari andand p
prorohihibibititionon, , whwhicich h reremamaininss unresolved.
unresolved. The trial court, in
The trial court, in its decisioits decision, setn, set aside the final tally of
aside the final tally of valid votesvalid votes because of the finding of “significant because of the finding of “significant badg
badges of es of fraud.fraud.” ” It then declaredIt then declared tha
that t thethere re was enougwas enough h patpattertern n of of fraud in the conduct of the election fraud in the conduct of the election for mayor in Valenzuela, and stated for mayor in Valenzuela, and stated that the said fraud was attributable to that the said fraud was attributable to Car
Carlos who los who had controhad control l oveover r thethe electi
election on paraphparaphernaliernalia a and the and the basicbasic
W/N Judge Angeles committed grave W/N Judge Angeles committed grave ab
abususe e of of didiscscretretioion n whwhen en shshee declare
declared Serapio as d Serapio as the duly electedthe duly elected mayor of Valenzuela despite the fact mayor of Valenzuela despite the fact that she found that Carlos obtained that she found that Carlos obtained 17,00
17,007 7 valid votes higher than thevalid votes higher than the valid votes of Serapio.
valid votes of Serapio.
W/
W/N N ththe e SuSuprprememe e CoCoururt t hahass jurisdiction to review, by petition for jurisdiction to review, by petition for certiorari, the decision of the RTC in certiorari, the decision of the RTC in an election protest case involving an an election protest case involving an el
elecectitive ve mumuninicicipapal l ofoffificicialal considering that it has no appellate considering that it has no appellate jurisdiction over such decision. jurisdiction over such decision.
YES. The trial court committed grave YES. The trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in rendering or excess of jurisdiction in rendering its decision proclaiming Serapio the its decision proclaiming Serapio the duly elected mayor of Valenzuela on duly elected mayor of Valenzuela on the basis of
the basis of its perceits perceptiption on of of thethe voice of
voice of the people of the people of ValenzValenzuela,uela, even without a
even without a majorimajority or ty or pluralpluralityity vo
votetes s cascast t in in hihis s fafavovor. r. In In fafactct,, witho
without a ut a singlsingle vote e vote in his favor asin his favor as the trial court discarded all the votes. the trial court discarded all the votes. Thus, the decision is not supported Thus, the decision is not supported by the highest number of valid votes by the highest number of valid votes cast in his favor. This violated the cast in his favor. This violated the ri
righght t to to dudue e prprococesess s of of lalaw w of of petitioner who was not heard on the petitioner who was not heard on the issue of failure of election, an issue issue of failure of election, an issue tha
that t was not was not rairaised by sed by SerSerapiapio. Ao. A deci
decisiosion n is void for is void for laclack k of dueof due pro
procescess s if, as a if, as a resuresult, a lt, a parparty isty is deprived of the opportunity of being deprived of the opportunity of being heard.
heard.
YES. The Supreme Court is vested YES. The Supreme Court is vested with original jurisdict
with original jurisdiction ion to to issuissuee writs of
writs of certiocertiorari, prohibitrari, prohibition ion andand mandamus against the decision of the mandamus against the decision of the RTC in the election protest before it, RTC in the election protest before it, regardless of whether it has appellate regardless of whether it has appellate ju
jurisrisdicdictiotion n oveover r sucsuch h decdecisiision,on, accordi
according ng to Article to Article VIII, SectionVIII, Section 5(1
5(1) ) of of ththe e 191987 87 CoConsnstititututitionon.. Relati
Relative to ve to the appeal that the appeal that CarloCarloss filed with the COMELEC, the same filed with the COMELEC, the same would not bar the present action as would not bar the present action as an
an excexcepteption to ion to the rule the rule becbecausausee Art
Articlicle e VIIVIII, I, SecSectiotion n 5(15(1) ) of of thethe Cons
Constituttitution: ion: “The “The SupreSupreme me CourtCourt shall have the following powers: (1) shall have the following powers: (1) Exerci
Exercise se origioriginal nal jurisjurisdictidiction on over over cases
cases affectiaffecting ng ambasambassadorssadors, , other other publ
public ic miniministers and sters and consuconsuls, andls, and ov
over er pepetitititionons s fofor r cecertrtioiorarariri,, p
prorohihibibititionon, , mamandndamamusus, , ququoo warranto, and habeas corpus.” warranto, and habeas corpus.” An
An eleelectiction on meameans ns “th“the e chochoice or ice or sel
selectiection on of of cancandiddidateates s to to pubpubliclic office by popular vote” through the office by popular vote” through the use of
use of the ballothe ballot, and t, and the electthe electiveive off
officiicials als of of whiwhich ch are are detdetermermineinedd through the will of the electorate. through the will of the electorate. An election is the embodiment of the An election is the embodiment of the popu
popular will, the lar will, the expresexpression of sion of thethe sovereign power of the people. sovereign power of the people. El
Electectioion, n, in in ththe e cocontntexext t of of ththee Co
Consnstititututitionon, , mamay y rerefefer r to to ththee condu
conduct of ct of the polls, includithe polls, including theng the listing of voters, the holding of the listing of voters, the holding of the electo
electoral ral campaicampaign, and gn, and the castingthe casting and counting of votes. The winner is and counting of votes. The winner is the candi
the candidatdate e who has who has obtobtainained ed aa majo
majority or rity or pluralplurality of ity of valid votesvalid votes cast in the election.
cast in the election. In
In cascase e of protesof protest, a t, a revrevisiision or on or rec
recounount t of of the ballothe ballots ts cascast t for thefor the can
candiddidateates s decdecideides s the the eleelectictionon protest case. The candidate receiving protest case. The candidate receiving
the highest number or
servi
services in ces in the communithe community such ty such asas the supply of electricity. It then went the supply of electricity. It then went on to
on to rule that the perpetuatirule that the perpetuation of on of fraud
fraud had had undouundoubtedlbtedly y supprsuppressedessed the true will of
the true will of ththe e eleelectoctoratrate e of of Valenzuela and substituted it with the Valenzuela and substituted it with the will of
will of CarloCarlos. s. NotwiNotwithstthstanding theanding the plurality of votes in favor of Carlos, plurality of votes in favor of Carlos, tth e h e t rt ri ai al l c oc ou ru rt t s es et t a sa siid e d e h ih iss proclamation by the Municipal Board proclamation by the Municipal Board of Canvassers and declared Serapio of Canvassers and declared Serapio as
as ththe e duduly ly elelececteted d mamayoyor r of of Valenzuela. Carlos filed a notice of Valenzuela. Carlos filed a notice of appeal from the decision of the appeal from the decision of the trialtrial court to the COMELEC, then filed a court to the COMELEC, then filed a petition with the SC for certiorari and petition with the SC for certiorari and prohi
prohibitiobition, n, seekiseeking ng to to annul theannul the decision of the RTC.
decision of the RTC.
und
under er the the circircumcumstastancences, s, appappealeal would not be a
would not be a speedy and adequatspeedy and adequatee remedy in the ordinary course of law. remedy in the ordinary course of law. The exception is sparingly allowed in The exception is sparingly allowed in si
situtuatatioions ns whwhere ere ththe e ababususe e of of dis
discretcretion is ion is not only not only gragrave ve andand whi
whimsimsical cal but but alsalso o palpalpabpable le andand pat
patentent, , and and the the invinvalialiditdity y of of thethe assailed act is shown on its face. assailed act is shown on its face.
votes shall be proclaimed the winner. votes shall be proclaimed the winner. Even if
Even if the candidate receivinthe candidate receiving theg the ma
majojoririty ty vovotetes s is is inineleligigibible le or or disqualified, the candidate receiving disqualified, the candidate receiving the next highest number of votes or the next highest number of votes or the second placer, cannot be declared the second placer, cannot be declared elected.
elected. A
A defdefeateated ed candcandidaidate te cancannot not bebe deemed electe
deemed elected to d to the office. Thethe office. The rig
right to ht to holhold d an an eleelectictive ve offoffice isice is roo
rooted ted on on eleelectoctoral ral manmandatdate, e, notnot perceived entitlement to the office. perceived entitlement to the office.
To declare a
To declare a failufailure of re of electielection, twoon, two conditions must first occur: first, no conditions must first occur: first, no vo
votiting ng hahas s tatakeken n plplacace e in in ththee precincts concerned on the date fixed precincts concerned on the date fixed by law or, even if there were voting, by law or, even if there were voting, the election nevertheless resulted in a the election nevertheless resulted in a failure to elect; and second, the votes failure to elect; and second, the votes not cast would affect the results of not cast would affect the results of the election.
the election. Obiter: Obiter:
The sea of suspicion has no shore, The sea of suspicion has no shore, and the court that embarks upon it is and the court that embarks upon it is without rudder or compass. without rudder or compass.
Sec. 3. En Banc Sessions
Sec. 3. En Banc Sessions
Sarmiento v. COMELEC Sarmiento v. COMELEC GR Nos. GR Nos. 10562105628, 105725, 105727,8, 105725, 105727, 10573 105730, 0, 10577105771, 1, 10577105778, 8, 10579105797,7, 105919, & 105977 105919, & 105977 6 August 1992 6 August 1992 Davide, Jr., J. Davide, Jr., J. COME
COMELEC resolved a LEC resolved a numbnumber er of of cases
cases en bancen banc regarding the appealsregarding the appeals for inclusion and exclusion of certain for inclusion and exclusion of certain electi
election on returnreturns s and certificateand certificates s of of canvass, as well as the composition canvass, as well as the composition of a Municipal Board of Canvassers. of a Municipal Board of Canvassers. Petit
Petitionerioners s aver aver that the that the resolresolutionutionss wer
were e ississued with ued with gragrave ve abuabuse se of of discr
discretion because etion because the the COMELCOMELECEC took cognizance of and decided the took cognizance of and decided the appeal
appeals s withowithout ut first referring themfirst referring them to any of its Divisions.
to any of its Divisions.
W/N the
W/N the COMELCOMELEC should haveEC should have heard the appeals
heard the appeals en banc.en banc.
NO
NO. . EleElectiction on cascases es incincludlude e pre pre-- procl
proclamatiamation on contrcontroversioversies, es, and and allall such cases must first be heard by and such cases must first be heard by and de
decicideded d by by a a DiDivivisision on of of ththee Com
Commimissission. on. The The ComCommismissiosion,n, sitting
sitting en bancen banc, , doedoes s not have thenot have the authority to hear and decide the same authority to hear and decide the same at first instance. In the COMELEC at first instance. In the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, pre-proclamation Rules of Procedure, pre-proclamation cases are classified as Special Cases cases are classified as Special Cases an
and, d, in in cocompmplilianance ce wiwith th ththee Constitution, the 2 Divisions of the Constitution, the 2 Divisions of the Com
Commimissission on are are vesvested ted witwith h thethe author
authority to ity to hear and hear and deciddecide e thesethese Special Cases.
Special Cases. Indisp
Indisputablutably, y, then, the then, the COMELCOMELECEC
Section 3, Subdivision C, Article IX Section 3, Subdivision C, Article IX of the 1987
of the 1987 Constitution:Constitution:
“The Commission on Elections may “The Commission on Elections may sit
sit en bancen banc or in or in two Divisitwo Divisions, andons, and sh
shalall l prpromomululgagate te itits s ruruleles s of of p
prorocedcedurure e in in orordeder r to to exexpepediditete di
dispspososititioion n of of elelectectioion n cacaseses,s, in
inclclududining g prpre-e-prprococlalamamatitionon controversies. All such election cases controversies. All such election cases sh
shalall l be be hehearard d anand d dedecicideded d inin divis
division, provided ion, provided that motions that motions for for reconsideration of decisions shall be reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the
en banc
en banc acted without jurisdiction, or acted without jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, when with grave abuse of discretion, when it resolved the appeals of petitioners it resolved the appeals of petitioners in the
in the SpeciSpecial Cases al Cases withowithout firstut first referring them to any of its Divisions. referring them to any of its Divisions. Said resolutio
Said resolutions ns are, are, thereftherefore, nullore, null and void and
and void and musmust t be be set asidset aside.e. How
Howeveever, r, SecSectiotion n 16 16 of of RA RA 71671666 provi
provides des that that all all pre-ppre-proclamroclamationation case
cases s penpendinding g befbefore it ore it shashall ll bebe deemed terminated at the beginning deemed terminated at the beginning of the
of the term of the term of the office involoffice involved.ved. Since the terms of office involved in Since the terms of office involved in the
the SpeSpecial Cases subjecial Cases subject ct of of thethe petit
petitions ions have have alreadalready y commecommenced,nced, these cases have been rendered moot these cases have been rendered moot and academic, and must be dismissed and academic, and must be dismissed wit
withouhout t preprejudjudice ice to to the the filfiling of ing of p
petetititioioneners rs of of reguregulalar r elelectectioionn protests. protests. Canicosa v. COMELEC Canicosa v. COMELEC GR No. 120318 GR No. 120318 5 December 1997 5 December 1997 Bellosillo, J. Bellosillo, J. Ri
Ricarcardo do “B“Boyoy” ” CaCaninicocosa sa anandd Severino Lajara were candidates for Severino Lajara were candidates for Mayor in
Mayor in CalamCalamba, Laguna ba, Laguna durinduringg the 8 May 1995 elections. Lajara was the 8 May 1995 elections. Lajara was proclaimed winner by the Municipal proclaimed winner by the Municipal
Board of Canvassers. Board of Canvassers.
On 15 May Canicosa filed with the On 15 May Canicosa filed with the COM
COMELEELEC C a a PetPetitiition on to to DeclDeclareare Failu
Failure of re of ElectiElection and on and to Declareto Declare Nu
Null ll and Void and Void the Canvathe Canvass ss andand Pro
Proclamclamatiation on becbecausause e of of allallegeegedd wides
widespread pread frauds and frauds and anomanomalies.alies. Howev
However, er, the the COMELCOMELECEC en bancen banc dismissed the petition on the ground dismissed the petition on the ground that the
that the allegallegationations s thereitherein n did notdid not ju
justistify fy a a decdeclarlaratiation on of of failfailure ure of of election.
election.
W/N a COMELEC division should W/N a COMELEC division should have first heard the
have first heard the petitpetition beforeion before deciding on it
deciding on it en bancen banc on a motionon a motion for reconsideration.
for reconsideration.
NO. Section 3, Article IX-C applies NO. Section 3, Article IX-C applies only when the COMELEC acts in the only when the COMELEC acts in the exercise of its adjudicatory or exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi- judi
judicial functioncial functions s and not and not when itwhen it m
meerreelly y e xe xe re rcciissees s ppuur er ellyy administrative functions. Moreover, administrative functions. Moreover, it is expressly provided in Rule 27, it is expressly provided in Rule 27, Section 7 of the COMELEC Rules of Section 7 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure that any party dissatisfied Procedure that any party dissatisfied wi
with th ththe e ruruliling ng of of ththe e boboard of ard of canv
canvassassers shall ers shall havhave e a a rigright ht toto appeal to the
appeal to the COMECOMELECLEC en banc.en banc. Questi
Questions as ons as to to whethwhether er electielectionsons have been held
have been held or whether certainor whether certain r e
r ettuurrnns s wweerre e ffa la lssiiffiieed d oor r manufa
manufactured and ctured and theretherefore fore shoulshouldd be excluded from the canvass do not be excluded from the canvass do not
in
invovolvlve e ththe e ririghght t to to vovotete. . SuSuchch questi
questions ons are properly within are properly within thethe adm
admininisistrtratativive e jujuririsdsdicictition on of of COM
COMELEELEC, C, henhence, ce, may may be be actacteded upon directly by the COMELEC upon directly by the COMELEC enen banc
banc without having to pass throughwithout having to pass through any of its divisions.
any of its divisions.
There are only three instances where There are only three instances where a failure of election may be declared: a failure of election may be declared: namely:
namely:
((aa)) TThhe e eelleeccttiioon n iin n aannyy polling place has not been polling place has not been held on the date fixed on held on the date fixed on accoun
account t of force of force majeumajeure,re, violence, terrorism, fraud, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; or other analogous causes; ((bb)) TThhe e eelleec tc tiioon n iin n aannyy
po
pollilling ng plaplace ce has has beebeenn suspended before the hour suspended before the hour fi
fixexed d by by lalaw w fofor r ththee closi
closing of thng of the e votivoting onng on accoun
account t of force of force majeumajeure,re, violence, terrorism, fraud, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; or other analogous causes; or
or
((c )c ) AAf tf te r e r tthhe e vvoottiinng g aanndd during the preparation and during the preparation and tr
tranansmsmisissision on of of ththee election returns or in the election returns or in the c u
c usst ot oddy y o r o r c ac annv av assss the
thereoreof, f, sucsuch h eleelectictionon results in a failure to elect results in a failure to elect on
on acaccocoununt t of of foforcrcee m
ma ja je ue ur er e, , v iv io lo le ne nc ec e,, terrorism, fraud, or other terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes. analogous causes.
Th
The e ququesestition on of of ininclclususioion n or or exc
excluslusion from ion from the the lislist t of of votvotersers involves the right to vote which is involves the right to vote which is notnot withi
within the n the power and authoritpower and authority y of of CO
COMEMELELEC C to to rurule le upuponon. . ThThee determination of whether one has the determination of whether one has the right to vote is
right to vote is a a justjusticiabliciable e issueissue prop
properly cognizablerly cognizable e by by our regular our regular courts.
courts. It
It is only in is only in ththe e exexercercisise e of of ititss adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers that the COMELEC is mandated to that the COMELEC is mandated to he
hear ar anand d dedecicide de cascases es fifirsrst t byby Division and then, upon motion for Division and then, upon motion for recons
reconsideratiideration, on, by by the the COMELCOMELECEC en
en babancnc. . TThhiis s iis s wwhheen n iit t iiss jurisdictional.
jurisdictional.
The COMELEC exercises direct and The COMELEC exercises direct and immed
immediate iate supersupervisiovision n and and controcontroll over nationa
over national l and local officials or and local officials or emplo
employees, including members yees, including members of of any national or local law enforcement any national or local law enforcement agency and
agency and instrinstrumentumentality of ality of thethe go
govevernrnmement nt reqrequiuired red by by lalaw w toto perform duties relative to the conduct perform duties relative to the conduct
of
of eleelectictionsons. . Its power Its power to to dirdirectect supervision and control includes the supervision and control includes the power to review, modify, or set aside power to review, modify, or set aside
any act of
any act of such natiosuch national and localnal and local off
officiicialsals. . It It exeexercircises ses immimmediediateate supervision over the members of the supervision over the members of the board
boards s of of electielection on inspinspectors andectors and canvas
canvassers. Its sers. Its statustatutory power tory power of of supervision and control includes the supervision and control includes the power to revise, reverse, or set aside power to revise, reverse, or set aside the action of the boards, as well as to the action of the boards, as well as to do what the boards should have done, do what the boards should have done, eve
even n if if quequestistions ons relrelatiative ve thetheretoreto have not been elevated to it by an have not been elevated to it by an agg
aggrievrieved ed parparty, ty, for for sucsuch h powpower er includes the authority to initiate includes the authority to initiate motumotu proprio
proprio or by or by itsitself such steps or elf such steps or actio
actions as ns as may be may be requirrequired pursuanted pursuant to law.
