Paras vs Comelec

FACTS:
Petitioner Danilo E. Paras is the incumbent Punong Barangay of Pula, Cabanatuan
City who won during the last regular barangay election in 1994. A petition for his
recall as Punong Barangay was filed by the registered voters of the barangay.
Acting on the petition for recall, public respondent commission on Elections
(COMELEC) resolved to approve the petition and set the recall election. At least
29.30% of the registered voters signed the petition, well above the 25%
requirement provided by law.To prevent the holding of recall election, petitioner
filed before the Regional Trial Court a petition for injunction which was later
dismissed. Petitioner filed petition for certiorari with urgent prayer for injunction,
insisting that the recall election is barred by the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK)
election under Sec. 74(b) of Local Government Code (LGC) which states that no
recall shall take place within one (1) year from the date of the officials
assumption to office or one (1) year immediately preceding a regular local
election.

Issue: Whether or not the the recall election is barred by the Sangguniang
Kabataan (SK) election under Sec. 74(b) of Local Government Code (LGC)

RULNG:
No. However, the petition is dismissed for being moot and academic.

Rationale:
It is a rule in statutory construction that every part of the statute must be
interpreted with reference to the context, i.e., that every part of the statute must
be considered together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the general
intent of the whole enactment. The evident intent of Section 74 is to subject an
elective local official to recall election once during his term of office.

Paragraph (b) construed together with paragraph (a) merely designates the period
when such elective local official may be subject of a recall election, that is, during
the second year of his term of office. Thus, subscribing to petitioner's
interpretation of the phrase regular local election to include the SK election will
unduly circumscribe the novel provision of the Local Government Code on recall, a
mode of removal of public officers by initiation of the people before the end of his
term. And if the SK election which is set by R.A No. 7808 to be held every three
years from May 1996 were to be deemed within the purview of the phrase
"regular local election", as erroneously insisted by petitioner, then no recall
election can be conducted rendering inutile the recall provision of the Local
Government Code.

Furthermore, recall election is potentially disruptive of the normal working of the

local government unit necessitating additional expenses, hence the prohibition
against the conduct of recall election one year immediately preceding the regular
local election. The proscription is due to the proximity of the next regular election
for the office of the local elective official concerned.
Pangandaman vs comelec

FACTS: A failure of election was found in 12 municipalities and partial failure of

election in 5 municipalities in Lanao del Sur due to various reasons such
confrontation of opposing parties. Thus COMELEC decided to hold a special
election and made certain changes as to how it shall take place, I.e. Only
elements of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police
who are assigned to the affected areas shall serve as members of the Board of
Election Inspectors (BEIs) and the BEIs are given explicit authority to prevent from
voting all those registered voters who are visibly underaged.
Petitioner asserts that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Omnibus Order by
insisting on holding special elections on July 18 and 25, 1998 more than thirty (30)
days after the failure to elect, in certain municipalities, in contravention of the
clear and explicit provisions of Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code and by
failing to declare a total failure of elections in the entire province of Lanao del Sur
and to certify the same to the President of the Philippines and Congress so that
the necessary legislation may be enacted for the holding of a special election

ISSUE: Whether or not COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion

RULING: No. The petition is dismissed.

RATIONALE:

Sec. 2 (1) of Article IX (C) of the Constitution gives the COMELEC the broad power
to "enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an
election, plebiscite initiative, referendum and recall." There can hardly be any
doubt that the text and intent of this constitutional provision is to give COMELEC
all the necessary and incidental powers for it to achieve the objective of holding
free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections. Pursuant to this intent, this
Court has been liberal in defining the parameters of the COMELEC's powers in
conducting elections.

The purpose of the governing statutes on the conduct of elections is to protect the
integrity of elections to suppress all evils that may violate its purity and defeat the
will of the voters. In fixing the date for special elections the COMELEC should see
to it that: 1.] it should not be later than thirty (30) days after the cessation of the
cause of the postponement or suspension of the election or the failure to elect
and, 2.] it should be reasonably close to the date of the election not held,
suspended or which resulted in the failure to elect. The first involves a question of
fact. The second must be determined in the light of the peculiar circumstances of
a case.

In this case, the COMELEC can hardly be faulted for tardiness. The dates set for
the special elections were actually the nearest dates from the time total/partial
failure of elections was determined, which date fell on July 14, 1998, the date of
promulgation of the challenged Omnibus Order. Needless to state, July 18 and 25,
the dates chosen by the COMELEC for the holding of special elections were only a
few days away from the time a total/partial failure of elections was declared and,
thus, these were "dates reasonably close" thereto, given the prevailing facts
herein. Furthermore, it bears stressing that in the exercise of the plenitude of its
powers to protect the integrity of elections, the COMELEC should not and must not
be straitjacketed by procedural rules in the exercise of its discretion to resolve
election disputes.

Absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion, the findings of fact of the
COMELEC or any administrative agency exercising particular expertise in its field
of endeavor, are binding on the Court.
Gabatan vs comelec

FACTS: Petitioner Gabatan and private respondent Macalalag were the only
candidates for the
position of Mayor of the municipality of Pagsanjan, Laguna in the local elections
held on January 30, 1980 . Thereafter, petitioner was duly proclaimed as winner
the next day by the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Pagsanjan, Laguna. Then
came on February 2, 1980, a petition for her disqualification filed with respondent
Commission on the ground of turncoatism, she having changed her party
affiliation within six months preceding the election.

A petition for quo warranto based on the same ground was filed before the Court
of First Instance by private respondent on February 7, 1980. Then on February 23,
1980, a motion to dismiss was filed by petitioner with respondent Commission on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction. An answer was filed, the motion to dismiss
having remained unresolved, and on March 4, 1981 the motion to dismiss was
denied. A motion for reconsideration proved unavailing. Hence, this petition.

ISSUES: Whether or not an action for ineligibility against a municipal official tags
within the jurisdiction of respondent

RULING: Yes, it is respondent Commission, that is vested with jurisdiction. The

petition is dismissed.

RATIONALE:
The Election Code recognizes the right of any voter to file a petition for quo
warranto on the ground of ineligibility or disloyalty to the Republic of the
Philippines. It would be then far too restrictive an interpretation of such provision
if respondent Commission, is denied the power to act on a petition of this
character. That would not be in keeping with the expanded scope of its authority
as ordained by the Constitution.

As previously held in De Jesus vs People of the Philippines, the court stated

that the grant to the COMELEC of the power, among others, to enforce and
administer all laws relative to the conduct of election and the concomittant
authority to investigate and prosecute election offenses is not without compelling
reason. The evident constitutional intendment in bestowing this power to the
COMELEC is to insure the free, orderly and honest conduct of elections, failure of
which would result in the frustration of the true wig of the people and make a
mere Idle ceremony of the sacred right and duty of every qualified citizen to vote.
To divest the COMELEC of the authority to investigate and prosecute offenses
committed by public officials in relation to their office would thus seriously impair,
its effectiveness in achieving this clear constitutional mandate.

A similar ruling was provided in Villegas vs COMELEC which stated that should be
"the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications
of all Members of the Batasang Pambansa and elective provincial and city
officials." Implicit in the use of the word "sole" is the recognition of the power of
the legislative body to enable the courts to judge controversies of municipal
officials. As long as such statutory provision exists then there being no finding of
unconstitutionality, it must be obeyed.

Lastly. as admitted by petitioner, the plea for her disqualification on the ground of
having changed her party affiliation within six months preceding the election was
filed as early as February 2, 1980 before a quo warranto proceeding was filed on
February 7, 1980 in the Court of First Instance. It is elementary that the agency
which first assumes jurisdiction of a case retains control.
Pacis vs comelec

FACTS: The returns in the abovementioned precincts were contested as a result of

the shooting incident on November 15, 1967 in the vicinity of polling places Nos.
18, 19, 21 and 22 located in the school building at Namuac barrio where then Vice
Mayor Manuel Franco was killed. The inspectors had fled and left open and
unsealed some of the election documents, ballot boxes and election
paraphernalia. It was discovered the following day that some election returns
were either tampered or sealed or placed inside the envelopes, and the tally
sheets and tally board were all missing.

Comelec then initiated an investigation Case No. RR607 to ascertain the true
return's from Precincts 18, 19, 21 and 22. The investigation provided that the
copies of COMELEC of Precint 18, 19 and 21 were falsified and Precinct 22 had no
valid return. The votes that were considered true and correct were counted.
COMELEC then ordered to canvass anew all the votes cast for the office of mayor
of said municipality in the November 14, 1967 elections and to proclaim the
municipal mayor elected in accordance with said canvass

The votes obtained by the candidates for Mayor are as follows: Pacis 2,102
Negre 2,342. On May 21, 1968, the newly elected of Mayor of Sanchez Mira,
Cagayan was proclaimed. On the same day, petitioner filed his notice of appeal
before Comelec and the present petition for certiorari before this Court.
Impugning the validity of the canvass

On June 3, 1968, petitioner Pantaleon Pacis lodged with the Court of First Instance
of Cagayan an election protest (No 68S) ex abundantia cautela pending the final
determination of the present petition for review alleging in addition to the
illegality of the canvass and proclamation, acts of terrorism, frauds, anomalies
and other irregularities which marred the elections held in a number of precincts.

ISSUE: Whether or not the canvass was valid

RULING: Yes, the canvass of respondent Atanacio Negre as Mayor-elect of the

Municipality of Sanchez Mira, Province of Cagayan, is declared valid and
subsisting and of full force and effect.

RATIONALE:
Comelec's broad power under the Constitution and the statutes has gained
judicial approval. The rationale is that Comelec is entrusted with the "enforcement
and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections" and the
authority to decide "all administrative questions, affecting elections" all of
which rest upon the purpose of Comelec: to insure free, orderly and honest
elections.

This Court has set down the rule that when returns are obviously manufactured or
palpably irregular, the canvassing board may reject them. Clean elections control
the appropriateness of the remedy. The purpose of the Election Code "to protect
the integrity of elections and to suppress all evils that may vitiate its purity and
defeat the will of the voters" gives Comelec authority to ascertain whether the
genuineness of a given election return may yet be salvaged by an examination of
the said return.

Comelec then must strain every effort to ascertain the true returns to be used in
the proclamation, a possible alternative being that the victor will be cheated of his
victory the seat that is justly his will be occupied by one rejected at the polls our
democratic institutions will suffer in integrity.
In Precinct 19, Comelec made a thorough investigation concerning the alleged
irregularities. It even made use of the services of the NBI to determine the original
erased entry for Pacis and the testimony of the chairman and poll clerk of the
precinct. It was there ascertained that Negre obtained 73 votes, to Pacis' 89. This
is no abuse of discretion on the part of Comelec. If the true result of the voting in
Precinct 19 could still be determined, it is within Comelec's power to direct that
they be used in the canvass. And this was done.

With respect to Precinct 21, Comelec directed the board to use the untampered
portion of the copy for the provincial treasurer which is the entry written in words.
The entry being by long hand was harder to change and any tampering here
would have been easier to detect. As deserving of serious consideration is the
directive of Comelec rejecting the entries for Mayor in all election return copies for
Precinct 22. The election returns all bear the signatures of all the board members.
But then, Comelec found that it was prepared "at the point of a gun" and that
"other surrounding circumstances belie its authenticity." An election return
prepared at the point of a gun is no return at all it is not one notch above a
falsified or spurious return. Comelec was correct in ruling that there was no valid
return for the office of Mayor at Precinct 22 and that no vote should be counted
for said precinct in the canvass of votes for Mayor.
Sandoval vs comelec

FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
RATIONALE: