Velasco vs COMELEC

This petition for certiorari seeks to set aside and annul the resolutions denying the COC Velasco had filed
for the position of Mayor of the Municipality of Sasmuan, Pampanga. The distinctions between
inclusion/exclusion proceedings and COC denial/cancellation proceedings, refute and belie Velasco's
position that the COMELEC improperly ruled on his right to vote when it cancelled his COC.
ISSUE: Is decision in an inclusion/exclusion proceeding operate as a bar to any future action challenging
ones right to be registered as a voter?

HELD: Inclusion/exclusion proceedings, while judicial in character, are summary proceedings. A

decision in an inclusion/exclusion proceeding does not operate as a bar to any future action in any other
election that a party may take concerning his right to be registered as a voter. A ruling on the right to vote
by the trial court for a specific election is binding on the COMELEC. By clear implication, the
COMELEC itself does not rule on the right to vote by recognizing in a Sec. 78 COC denial/cancellation
proceeding the final and executory ruling by a court, as mandated by law, in an inclusion/exclusion
proceeding.

Velayo v. Comelec
327 SCRA 713
FACTS: The Comelec issued a resolution annulling the proclamation of Velayo as mayor. Velayo
claimed that he was denied due process because he was not furnished any notice of the pre-proclamation
proceedings against him from beginning to end. All that petitioner received from the Comelec was its en
banc resolution annulling his proclamation.

HELD: Velayo is a real party-in-interest since he was the proclaimed mayor. His non-inclusion as
respondent and his lack of notice of the proceedings in the Comelec which resulted to the cancellation of
his proclamation constitute clear denial of due process.

Page 1 of 1