Paragraph C.

The COMELEC
Sec.1 Composition, Qualifications, and Appointment
1. Composition
- 1 Chairman, 6 Commissioners
2. Qualifications
a. Natural born Citizen.
b. At least 35 years old at the time
of appointment.
c. College Degree
d. Not a candidate for ANY elective
position in the election preceding
the appointment.
e. Majority of the members,
including the CHAIRMAN must
be members of the Phil. Bar and
must have been practicing Law
for at least 10 years.
3. Appointment
- 7 years w/o reappointment.
- For those first appointed:
i. 3 Commissioners for 7 years
ii. 2 Commissioners for 5 years
iii. 1 Commissioner for 3 years
- Terms begin on February 2 and
end at the same date every 7 years
regardless of tenure.
CASES
A. BRILLANTES v. YORAC
Facts: The petitioner in this case assails
the constitutionality of the appointment of
Assoc. Commissioner Haydee Yorac as
acting Chairman of the COMELEC in
place of Chairman Hilario Davide who
was assigned to investigate the December
1989 coup d etat attempt.
Issue: WON the President has authority to
appoint a Chairman to the COMELEC in
ACTING capacity.
Held: The appointment is unconstitutional
as it was in violation of the provision in
sec. 1(2) art. 9(C) which states, In no case
shall ANY member be designated in a
temporary or ACTING capacity. This
also violates the independent nature of the
Commission, as the Commission itself,
without the participation of the President,
could have resolved the matter regarding
the inability of the incumbent Chairman to
perform his functions.

B. Cayetano v. Monsod
Facts: In the instant case, petitioner is
challenging the appointment of Christian
Monsod as COMELEC Chairman alleging
that he does not possess the qualifications,
in particular, that he was not in the
practice of Law for at least 10 years.
Issue: WON Christian Monsod is qualified
to be appointed COMELEC Chairman and
WON he was in the practice of Law for
at least 10 years.
Held: He is qualified since the legal
profession is not only concerned with
litigation and appearances in Courts, as
most people perceive it to be. The practice
of law is defined as, ANY activity, in or
out of courts, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training, and experience.
Christian Monsod is a Corporate Lawyer.

Sec. 2 COMELEC Powers and Functions
1. Nature of COMELEC Powers
- The powers it possesses are
executive, quasi-judicial, and
quasi-legislative in nature.
- It has jurisdiction over intra-party
disputes.
- It can recommend to the President
disciplinary actions against those
public officials who do not obey or
perform what was designated to
them by COMELEC.
- It may annul an entire municipal
election on the ground of post-
election terrorism.
- It has exclusive power to conduct
investigations and prosecute
election offenses.
- However, it is not empowered to
decide questions involving the
right to vote.
- Parties that may NOT be
registered:
o Religious denominations
o Parties that promote
violence and unlawful
means.
o Parties that are supported
by foreign governments.
2. Cases
A. GALIDO v. COMELEC
This case involves election fraud (marked
ballots) as determined by COMELEC.
Issue: WON herein petitioner can appeal
before the Supreme Court on certiorari the
decision of the COMELEC regarding the
election fraud.
Held: Petitioner can appeal to the Supreme
Court on certiorari. Despite the provision
in sec. 2(2), (C), art.9 stating, Decisions,
Final Orders, or Rulings of the
Commission on Elections in contests
involving elective municipal and barangay
offices shall be FINAL, EXECUTORY,
and NOT APPEALABLE, it does not
rule out the possibility of an original
special civil action for certiorari,
prohibition, or mandamus, as the case may
be, under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. It
is still well within the power of the
Supreme Court to decide on matters
involving grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.

B. PEOPLE v. HON. DELGADO
Facts: COMELEC conducted a
preliminary investigation of a case
involving an election offense punishable
under the Omnibus Election Code and
filed a case before the RTC for its
prosecution.
Issue: WON the RTC is vested with the
power to review the actions of COMELEC
in the investigation and prosecution of the
election offense.
Held: The RTC has the power to review
the actions of COMELEC since the case

was filed before it and it acquired proper
jurisdiction. The Supreme Court only has
exclusive power to review the decisions of
COMELEC where it has exercised
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers.
Actions done by COMELEC in the
investigation and prosecution of election
offenses are subject to review by lower
courts where the case has been filed.

Note: Sec. 2(6), art. 9-C, the COMELEC
has the power to investigate, and where
appropriate, prosecute cases of violations
of election laws, including acts or
omissions constituting election frauds,
offenses, and malpractices. The phrase,
where appropriate leaves to the
legislature the power to determine the kind
of election offenses the COMELEC shall
prosecute.

C. PEOPLE v. JUDGE INTING
Issue: WON a preliminary investigation
conducted by a Provincial Election
Supervisor involving election offenses has
to be coursed through the Provincial Fiscal
or Provincial Prosecutor before the RTC
may take cognizance of the investigation
and determine whether or not there is
probable cause.
Held: The case filed by the Provincial
Election Supervisor can bypass the
Provincial Prosecutor as the COMELEC is
vested with the exclusive jurisdiction over
election offenses and can prosecute and
file a case before court. See sec. 2(6),
art.9(C).

D. CORPUS v. TANODBAYAN
This case tackles the question on
jurisdiction over election offenses
committed by public officials does the
power to investigate, prosecute, and try
election offenses committed by a public
official vest in the COMELEC and the
Court of First Instance (now the RTC) or
in the Tanodbayan and the Sandiganbayan
who have the jurisdiction over offenses
committed by public officers and
employees in relation to their office?
The court ruled that jurisdiction clearly
lies with the COMELEC since the
Constitution granted it with the power,
among others, to enforce and administer
ALL laws relative to the conduct of
election and concomitant with authority to
investigate and prosecute election offenses
is not without compelling reason. The
evident Constitutional intendment in
bestowing this power is to insure free,
orderly, and honest conduct of elections.
In other words, it is the nature of the
offense and not the personality of the
offender that matters. As long as the
offense is an election offense, jurisdiction
over the same rests exclusively with the
COMELEC, in view of its all-embracing
power over the conduct of elections.

E. TAN v. COMELEC
The petitioner in this case contends that
COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction for continuing to take action in
an administrative case. He argues that
since the Civil Service Law provides that
department heads shall have jurisdiction
to investigate and decide matters involving
disciplinary action against officers under
their jurisdiction, then it is the
Department of Justice and not COMELEC
that has jurisdiction over his offense. The
court ruled that since his offense is an
election offense in relation to his duties as
an election canvasser and NOT as a city
prosecutor, the COMELECs jurisdiction
should be sustained. Moreover, the
COMELEC may merely issue a
recommendation for disciplinary action
but it still with the executive department to
which petitioner belongs that the ultimate
authority to impose the penalty lies. See
Sec. 2(8), Art. 9(C) of the Constitution.

F. REYES v. REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT
The Solicitor General, in behalf of the
COMELEC, raises a fundamental
question: Does the filing of the petitioner
of the present case on certiorari before the
Supreme Court without first filing a
motion for reconsideration before the
COMELEC en banc violate sec. 7, Art. 9
(A) of the Constitution which states that
only decisions of the COMELEC en banc
may be brought before the Supreme Court
on certiorari?
The Court ruled that it violates the
Constitution in so far as procedure is
concerned. Decisions of COMELEC are
arrived at by divisions but the Constitution
only allows the Supreme Court to review
on certiorari those which are arrived at by
the Commission en banc. And since the
Commission only decides en banc when
there is a motion for reconsideration, then
the present case cannot prosper.

G. KILOSBAYAN v. COMELEC
Kilosbayan filed a case before COMELEC
without providing for evidence to support
its claim. It asserts that COMELEC has the
obligation to provide for the evidence
since it has the Constitutional power to
enforce and administer all laws and
regulations relative to the conduct of the
elections. The Court ruled that it is the
legal obligation of the petitioner and not of
COMELEC in addition to it also being its
moral duty to submit evidence to support
its claim.

H. BUAC & BAUTISTA v. COMELEC
This is a petition for certiorari and
mandamus assailing the resolution of the
COMELEC en banc which held that it has
no jurisdiction over controversies
involving the CONDUCT of a plebiscite
transforming the municipality of Taguig
into a highly urbanized city and the
annulment of its result. The court ruled

that the COMELEC has jurisdiction and
not the trial courts since this case involves
an election which concerns
controversies regarding the true will of the
people and does not concern actual
controversies regarding legally
demandable and enforceable rights.
Note: Trial courts only have jurisdiction
over the election, returns, and
qualifications of candidates (appellate
jurisdiction on municipal and barangay
elective positions) but in cases where the
actual conduct of elections is concerned,
COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction.

I. LDP v. COMELEC
Facts: Sen. Angara, Chairman of the LDP
placed Rep. Aquino, who is the LDP
Secretary General on indefinite forced
leave. The General Counsel of the LDP
then filed a manifestation before
COMELEC stating that whatever actions
done by Sen. Angara are official acts of
LDP and so his nominations for candidacy
for elective positions from the President
down to the last Sangguniang Bayan
Kagawad are the official candidates of
LDP for the May 2004 elections. Rep.
Aquino then challenged this manifestation
arguing that the LDP Chairman has no
power to give disciplinary actions more so,
to suspend him from office. As the
internal conflicts of the LDP worsen, Rep.
Aquino also presented his own version of
a list of official candidates for the May
2004 elections. COMELEC ruled by
dividing the party into an Angara Wing
and an Aquino Wing maintaining both
lists of candidates as official candidates of
LDP. Sen. Angara filed a petition for
certiorari before the Supreme Court
assailing the decision by COMELEC for
having been issued with grave abuse of
discretion.
Issue: WON COMELEC has jurisdiction
and power to decide on internal conflicts
of political parties.
Held: COMELEC has power to decide
internal conflicts of political parties in so
far as it affects the power of registering
political parties. In order to protect the
electorate from misrepresentation by
candidates who promote ideals
inconsistent with those of the party, it must
determine the identity of the party and its
legitimate officers. The ascertainment of
the identity of a political party and its
legitimate officers is a matter that is well
within the authority of COMELEC. To
resolve this simple issue, the COMELEC
need only to turn to the Party Constitution.
The COMELEC resolution in this case is
annulled and the petition is granted in part.
The official list by Sen. Angara should be
recognized.

"# $%&'%(% )# *+$,(,*
!"#$%& Responuent Nonton was ueclaieu
electeu mayoi of Naguiwang Romblon.
Nanzala wanteu to annul the ueclaiation.
The C0NELEC uenieu the motion foi
ieconsiueiation of the petitionei iegaiuing
the mouification of the numbei of votes
obtaineu by both paities aftei the ie-
appieciation.
'%%()& The Petitionei aigues that the seconu
uivision of Comelec has openeu the whole
case foi ieview just like how the couits will
tiial ciiminal cases but the Comelec en banc
faileu to conuuct a thoiough ieview of the
contesteu ballots.
*)+,& The aigument has no basis. The
C0NELEC can exeicise oiiginal juiisuiction
to ieview, ievise, mouify oi even ieveise
anu set asiue the uecision of the tiial couit
anu substitute it with its own uecision. Anu
in the exeicise of its aujuuicatoiy oi quasi-
juuicial poweis, the constitution manuates
the C0NELEC to heai anu ueciue cases fiist
by uivision anu upon motion foi
ieconsiueiation, by the C0NELEC. This is
what C0NELEC exactly uiu when they
ieaffiimeu the finuings.

Note:
When the canuiuate who won was
uisqualifieu oi ueclaieu ineligible, canuiuate
with the seconu highest votes uoesn't
automatically win. The votes foi those who
aie qualifieu shall be consiueieu as stiay,
voiu oi meaningless unless theie is a sinceie
belief that the canuiuate was alive, qualifieu
oi eligible.
The C0NELEC has the powei to annul an
entiie municipal election on the giounu of
teiioiism. (see piimei)
C0NELEC may call foi "the holuing oi
continuation of the election as soon as
piacticable." This incluues the powei to call
special elections if evei theie is a failuie to
elect
C0NELEC is not empoweieu to
o ueciue questions involving the iight
to vote
o ueteimine W0N a peison has a
iight of suffiage
o iesolve such question that has been
excluueu fiom the Commissions
powei to be juuge of election
contests
o Contempt cannot be exeiciseu in
connection with puiely executive oi
ministeiial functions but only in
fuitheiance of its quasi-juuicial
functions
All political paities anu oiganization which
piesent theii platfoim oi piogiam of
goveinment anu which satisfy iequiiements
piesciibeu by law may iegistei. Bowevei,
ieligious uenominations anu sect anu
oiganizations which aim to achieve theii
goals thiough violence may not be
iegisteieu

Sec S
%# -%.%/%& )# *+$,(,*
!"#$%& The comelec is ueteimining whethei
piobable cause exists to chaige petitioneis
foi violation of the piovision of Election

Coue piohibiting uouble iegistiation -
auministiative case.
'%%()& Whethei the C0NELEC en banc's
assumption of oiiginal juiisuiction ovei the
case violateu the constitution
*)+,& It is not applicable in auministiative
cases
Ratio: It is only when C0NELEC exeicises its
quasi juuicial powei that it is subject to the
Section S of aiticle IX which iequiies that all
cases incluuing pie pioclamation
contioveisies shall be ueciueu in uivision
anu the motion foi ieconsiueiation shall be
ueciueu by the C0NELEC en banc. But the
C0NELEC en banc can uiiectly act when it is
exeicising its auministiative powei.

-# -%(0&1+&2 )# *+$,(,*
!"#$%& Anwai Balinuong, a canuiuate foi
mayoi seeks to set asiue the iesolution of
C0NELEC en banc oiueiing the Nunicipal
Boaiu of Canvasseis (NBC) to immeuiately
ieconvene to totally excluue fiom the
canvass the election ietuin
'%%()& Whethei the C0NELEC en banc hau
juiisuiction ovei pie-pioclamation
contioveisies at the fiist Instance
*)+,& The C0NELEC en banc acteu without
juiisuiction oi with giave abuse
-"$./& The heaiing anu the uecision of
election cases, incluuing pie pioclamation
contioveisies, at the fiist instance by a
uivision of C0NELEC, anu not by the poll
bouy as a whole is manuatoiy anu
juiisuictional accoiuing to Aiticle IX -C sec S

Notes
The iule is that only uecision of the Comelec
en banc may be biought to the couit on
ceitioiaii. Bowevei if a uivision of a comelec
ueciues a motion foi ieconsiueiation in
violation of Aiticle IX, C, S, the iuling is a
complete nullity anu may be biought to the
couit on ceitioiaii
A motion to ieconsiuei an inteilocutoiy
oiuei of a uivision may be iefeiieu to the
Comelec en banc by the uivision of all
membeis agiee
It is only in aujuuicatoiy oi quasi juuicial
poweis that the C0NELEC is manuateu to
heai anu ueciue cases fiist by uivision anu
then upon motion of ieconsiueiation, by the
C0NELEC en banc. The filing of an
infoimation in couit uoes not involve the
exeicise of aujuuicatoiy function

Sec 4
%# 3%&01%1 )# *+$,(,*
!"#$%& theie is a plebiscite to be helu foi the
iatification of an oiganic act foi the
Coiuilleia autonomous iegion. C0NELEC
then ieleaseu Resolution No. 2176,
piohibiting campaign of plebiscite issues in
columns, iauio oi televisions.
'%%()& W0N the iesolution was
constitutional
*)+,& The instant petition is gianteu.
-"$./& What was gianteu to the comelec was
supeivise anu iegulate the use anu
enjoyment foi meuia communication
because it might give some canuiuates
unuue auvantage anu not the iight to
supeivise the petitionei's iight to
expiession uuiing plebiscite peiious
because those who they aie not canuiuates

-# %-34*-& -5+%1*%3.0&2 *+56+5%.0+&
)# *+$,(,*
!"#$%& An exit poll is an electoial suivey foi
the puipose of ueteimining the piobable
iesult of an election by asking ianuom
selecteu voteis whom they have voteu foi.
This will be publisheu publicly.
'%%()%& Whethei oi not the iesponuent
commission acteu with giave abuse of
uiscietion amounting to lack oi excess of
juiisuiction when it appioveu the issuance
of a iestiaining oiuei pieventing the
conuucting of exit polls.
*)+,& The petition is meiitoiious.
-"$./& The feai of C0NELEC that it woulu
cieate confusion anu uestioy the cieuibility
of C0NELEC in untenable because the
paiticipants aie ianuom anu not meant to
ieplace the actual iesults. In auuition to that,
it violates the constitutionally guaianteeu
iights of the meuia anu electoiate. It also
uoesn't violate ballot seciecy because the
puipose of seciecy is to pievent vote buying

*# 3+*0%( 7,%.8,5 3.%.0+&3 )# *+$,(,*
'%%()& Petioneis, Social Weathei Stations Inc.
anu Kamahan Publishing Coipoiation
questions W0N the piohibition of suiveys
affecting national canuiuates 1S uays befoie
anu local canuiuates 7 uays befoie the
election
*)+,: 0nconstitutional
-"$./& Because of the piefeiieu status of the
constitutional iights of speech, expiession,
anu the piess, it is ueclaieu
unconstitutional. This puipose of this this
powei is also to ensuie equal oppoitunity
foi the canuiuates

Bissent by }ustice Kapunan:
It is a meie iestiiction anu not an absolute
piohibition on the publication of election
suiveys especially uuiing the peiiou when
the voteis aie piesumabley contemplating
whom they shoulu elect anu when they ate
most susceptible to such unwaiianteu
peisuasion. These suiveys may be publisheu
theieaftei.