SARMIENTO V.

COMELEC (1992)

Petitioners impugn several resolutions issued by the COMELEC as having been issued
with grave abuse of discretion in that, inter alia, the Commission, sitting en banc,
took cognizance of and decided the appeals without first referring them to any of its
Divisions. The subject matter of the resolutions involved exclusion from canvass of
certain election returns and opposition to the composition of the Municipal Board of
Canvassers.
HELD:
(1) Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution expressly provides:
The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and
shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition
of election cases, including pre- proclamation controversies. All such
election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that
motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the
Commission en banc.
It is clear from the above quoted provision of the 1987 Constitution that election
cases include pre-proclamation controversies, and all such cases must first be heard
and decided by a Division of the Commission. The Commission, sitting en banc, does
not have the authority to hear and decide the same at the first instance.
(2) Appeals from rulings of the Board of Canvassers are cognizable by any of the
Divisions to which they are assigned and not by the Commission en banc. The
COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion,
when it resolved the appeals of petitioners in the abovementioned Special Cases
without first referring them to any of its Divisions. Said resolutions are, therefore,
null and void and must be set aside. Consequently, the appeals are deemed
pending before the Commission for proper referral to a Division.
(3) All pre-proclamation cases pending before the Commission shall be deemed
terminated at the beginning of the term of the office involved and the rulings of
the boards of canvassers concerned shall be deemed affirmed, without prejudice
to the filing of a regular election protest by the aggrieved party. HOWEVER,
proceedings may continue when on the basis of the evidence thus far
presented, the Commission determines that the petition appears meritorious and
accordingly issues an order for the proceeding to continue or when an appropriate
order has been issued by the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari.

LAZATIN V. COMELEC
G.R. No. 80007 | January 25, 1988
Lazatin filed a petition assailing the jurisdiction of the COMELEC to annul his
proclamation after he had taken his oath of office, assumed office, and discharged
the duties of Congressman of the First District of Pampanga. He claims that the
House Electoral Tribunal and not the COMELEC is the sole judge of all election
contests.
The petition is impressed with merit because petitioner has been proclaimed winner
of the Congressional elections in the first district of Pampanga, has taken his oath of
office as such, and assumed his duties as Congressman. For the Court to take
cognizance of the electoral protest against him would be to usurp the functions of the
House Electoral Tribunal. The alleged invalidity of the proclamation (which had been
previously ordered by the COMELEC itself) despite alleged irregularities in connection
therewith, and despite the pendency of the protests of the rival candidates, is a
matter that is also addressed, considering the premises, to the sound judgment of
the Electoral Tribunal.