SEC. 2. Powers and Functions of COMELEC Power to Enforce; Recall Claudio v. COMELEC G.R. No. 140560, G.R. No.

140714, May 4, 2000 Mendoza, J. FACTS: Petitioner is the newly elected Mayor of Pasay City who was sought to be removed from office via recall for loss of confidence. A year after the elections or on May of 1999, barangay officials began convening the Preparatory Recall Assembly. The petition for recall was filed before the COMELEC on July 2, 1999, or a year after the assumption of office of petitioner. ISSUES: Whether, under Section 74 of the Local Government Code of 1991: (1) The word "recall" in paragraph (b) covers a process which includes the convening of the Preparatory Recall Assembly and its approval of the recall resolution; and (2) The term "regular local election" in the last clause of paragraph (b) includes the election period for that regular election or simply the date of such election. RULING: (1) NO. The term "recall" in paragraph (b) refers to the recall election and not to the preliminary proceedings to initiate recall. (2) The term "regular local election" in the last clause of paragraph (b) does not contemplate the election period, i.e. the campaign period. RATIO: (1) 1. Because 74 speaks of limitations on "recall" which, according to 69, is a power which shall be exercised by the registered voters of a local government unit. Since the voters do not exercise such right except in an election, it is clear that the initiation of recall proceedings is not prohibited within the one-year period provided in paragraph (b); 2. Because the purpose of the first limitation in paragraph (b) is to provide voters a sufficient basis for judging an elective local official, and final judging is not done until the day of the election; and 3. Because to construe the limitation in paragraph (b) as including the initiation of recall proceedings would unduly curtail freedom of speech and of assembly guaranteed in the Constitution. (2) The law is unambiguous in providing that "[n]o recall shall take place within one (1) year immediately preceding a regular local election." Had Congress intended this limitation to refer to the campaign period, which period is defined in the Omnibus Election Code, it could have expressly said so. Indeed, there is a distinction between election period and campaign period. Under the Omnibus Election Code, unless otherwise fixed by the COMELEC, the election period commences ninety (90) days before the day of the election and ends thirty (30) days.

SEC. 2. Powers and Functions of COMELEC Registration of Parties and Organizations LDP v. COMELEC G.R. No. 161265, February 24, 2004 Tinga, J. FACTS: The LDP Party Chairman, purporting to represent the LDP, manifested that under the Party Constitution only he or his representative, to the exclusion of the Secretary General, has the authority to endorse and sign party nominations. The Secretary General vigorously disputes this claim and maintains his own authority. The COMELEC decided to split the LDP into two wings, the first wing being entitled to the election returns of oddnumbered precincts and the other, the even-numbered precincts. Both wings were allowed to field their candidates, all under the LDP. ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC has jurisdiction over issues of leadership of political parties. RULING: Under the Constitution, the COMELEC is empowered to register political parties [Sec. 2(5), Article IX-C]. RATIO: The COMELECs powers under Article IX-C, Section 2, of the Constitution to, among others, enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections, decide all questions affecting elections, register and regulate political parties, and insure orderly elections. Additionally, the COMELEC is mandated by the Election Code to, inter alia, require candidates to specify their political party affiliation in their certificates of candidacy, allow political parties to appoint watchers, limit the expenditures of each political party, determine whether or not a political party shall retain its registration on the basis of its showing in the preceding elections, etc. These matters include the ascertainment of the identity of the political party and its legitimate officers responsible for its acts and the resolution of such controversies as the one now before it where one party appears to be divided into two wings under separate leaders each claiming to be the president of the entire party (Kalaw v. COMELEC). Necessarily, the power to act on behalf of a party and the responsibility for the acts of such political party must be fixed in certain persons acting as its officers. In the exercise of the power to register political parties, the COMELEC must determine who these officers are. Consequently, if there is any controversy as to leadership, the COMELEC may, in a proper case brought before it, resolve the issue incidental to its power to register political parties (Palmares v. COMELEC).

SEC. 3. Commission Decisions Bautista v. COMELEC G.R. Nos. 154796-97, October 23, 2003 Carpio, J. FACTS: On 10 June 2002, Bautista filed his certificate of candidacy for Punong Barangay in Lumbangan for the 15 July 2002 barangay elections. Election Officer Josefina P. Jareo refused to accept Bautistas certificate of candidacy because he was not a registered voter in Lumbangan. On 11 June 2002, Bautista filed an action for mandamus against Jareo with the to order Jareo to accept Bautistas COC and to include his name in the certified list of candidates for Punong Barangay. The trial court granted the petition. Jareo complied and at the same time, she referred the matter of Bautistas inclusion in the certified list of candidates with the COMELEC Law Department. The COMELEC Law Department recommended the cancellation of Bautistas COC since he was not registered as a voter in Lumbangan. The COMELEC en banc failed to act on the COMELEC Law Departments recommendation before the barangay elections. Bautista and private respondent Divina Alcoreza were candidates for the position of Punong Barangay. Bautista won while Alcoreza came in second. Bautista was proclaimed as the elected Punong Barangay. He later took his oath. Meanwhile, COMELEC issued Resolutions cancelling Bautistas COC. The COMELEC en banc directed Jareo to delete Bautistas name from the official list of candidates and ordered the Board of Canvassers of Lumbangan to reconvene for the purpose of proclaiming the elected Punong Barangay with due notice to all candidates concerned. Alcoreza was thereafter proclaimed the winner. ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in issuing Resolution Nos. 5404 and 5584. RULING: YES. Under Section 3, Rule 23 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a petition for the denial or cancellation of a certificate of candidacy must be heard summarily after due notice. The COMELEC en banc cannot short cut the proceedings by acting on the case without a prior action by a division because it denies due process to the candidate. RATIO: Under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, jurisdiction over a petition to cancel a certificate of candidacy lies with the COMELEC sitting in Division, not en banc. Cases before a Division may only be entertained by the COMELEC en banc when the required number of votes to reach a decision, resolution, order or ruling is not obtained in the Division. Moreover, only motions to reconsider decisions, resolutions, orders or rulings of the COMELEC in Division are resolved by the COMELEC en banc. On the other hand, the COMELECs quasi-judicial powers are found in Section 2 (2) of Article IX-C, where it provides that decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on election contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final, executory, and not appealable.