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 COMELEC’s 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 Held: COMELEC has power to decide
 
not the trial courts since this case involves internal conflicts of political parties in so Note:
 
an “election” which concerns far as it affects the power of registering • When
  the
  candidate
  who
  won
  was
 
controversies regarding the true will of the political parties. In order to protect the disqualified
 or
 declared
 ineligible,
 candidate
 
people and does not concern actual electorate from misrepresentation by with
  the
  second
  highest
  votes
  doesn’t
 
controversies regarding legally candidates who promote ideals automatically
  win.
  The
  votes
  for
  those
  who
 
demandable and enforceable rights. inconsistent with those of the party, it must are
  qualified
  shall
  be
  considered
  as
  stray,
 
Note: Trial courts only have jurisdiction determine the identity of the party and its void
 or
 meaningless
 unless
 there
 is
 a
 sincere
 
over the election, returns, and legitimate officers. The ascertainment of belief
 that
 the
 candidate
 was
 alive,
 qualified
 
qualifications of candidates (appellate the identity of a political party and its or
 eligible.
 
jurisdiction on municipal and barangay legitimate officers is a matter that is well • The
  COMELEC
  has
  the
  power
  to
  annul
  an
 
elective positions) but in cases where the within the authority of COMELEC. To entire
  municipal
  election
  on
  the
  ground
  of
 
actual conduct of elections is concerned, resolve this simple issue, the COMELEC terrorism.
 (see
 primer)
 
COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction. need only to turn to the Party Constitution. • COMELEC
  may
  call
  for
  “the
  holding
  or
 
The COMELEC resolution in this case is continuation
  of
  the
  election
  as
  soon
  as
 
I. LDP v. COMELEC annulled and the petition is granted in part. practicable.”
 
 This
 includes
 the
 power
 to
 call
 
Facts: Sen. Angara, Chairman of the LDP The official list by Sen. Angara should be special
  elections
  if
  ever
  there
  is
  a
  failure
  to
 
placed Rep. Aquino, who is the LDP recognized. elect
 
Secretary General on “indefinite forced • COMELEC
 is
 not
 empowered
 to
 
 
leave”. The General Counsel of the LDP
 
 
 J.
 
 
 MANZALA
 V.
 COMELEC
  o decide
 questions
 involving
 the
 right
 
then filed a manifestation before Facts:
  Respondent
  Monton
  was
  declared
 
  to
 vote
 
COMELEC stating that whatever actions elected
  mayor
  of
  Magdiwang
  Romblon.
  o determine
  WON
  a
  person
  has
  a
 
done by Sen. Angara are official acts of Manzala
  wanted
  to
  annul
  the
  declaration.
  right
 of
 suffrage
 
LDP and so his nominations for candidacy The
  COMELEC
  denied
  the
  motion
  for
  o resolve
 such
 question
 that
 has
 been
 
for elective positions from the President reconsideration
  of
  the
  petitioner
  regarding
  excluded
  from
  the
  Commissions
 
down to the last Sangguniang Bayan the
  modification
  of
  the
  number
  of
  votes
  power
  to
  be
  judge
  of
  election
 
 
Kagawad are the official candidates of obtained
  by
  both
  parties
  after
  the
  re-­‐ contests
 
LDP for the May 2004 elections. Rep. appreciation.
  o Contempt
  cannot
  be
  exercised
  in
 
Aquino then challenged this manifestation Issue:
 The
 Petitioner
 argues
 that
 the
 second
  connection
  with
  purely
  executive
  or
 
arguing that the LDP Chairman has no division
  of
  Comelec
  has
  opened
  the
  whole
 
power to give disciplinary actions more so, ministerial
  functions
  but
  only
  in
 
case
 for
 review
 just
 like
 how
 the
 courts
 will
  furtherance
  of
  its
  quasi-­‐judicial
 
to suspend him from office. As the trial
 criminal
 cases
 but
 the
 Comelec
 
 en
 banc
 
internal conflicts of the LDP worsen, Rep. functions
 
failed
  to
  conduct
  a
  thorough
  review
  of
  the
  • All
  political
  parties
  and
  organization
  which
 
Aquino also presented his own version of contested
 ballots.
 
a list of official candidates for the May present
  their
  platform
  or
  program
  of
 
Held:
  The
  argument
  has
  no
  basis.
  The
  government
 and
 which
 satisfy
 requirements
 
2004 elections. COMELEC ruled by COMELEC
  can
  exercise
  original
  jurisdiction
 
dividing the party into an “Angara Wing” prescribed
  by
  law
  may
  register.
  However,
 
to
  review,
  revise,
  modify
  or
  even
  reverse
  religious
  denominations
  and
  sect
  and
 
and an “Aquino Wing” maintaining both and
  set
  aside
  the
  decision
  of
  the
  trial
  court
 
lists of candidates as official candidates of organizations
  which
  aim
  to
  achieve
  their
 
and
  substitute
  it
  with
  its
  own
  decision.
  And
  goals
  through
  violence
  may
  not
  be
 
LDP. Sen. Angara filed a petition for in
  the
  exercise
  of
  its
  adjudicatory
  or
  quasi-­‐
certiorari before the Supreme Court registered
 
judicial
  powers,
  the
  constitution
  mandates
 
 
assailing the decision by COMELEC for
the
 COMELEC
 to
 hear
 and
 decide
 cases
 first
  Sec
 3
 
having been issued with grave abuse of
by
  division
  and
  upon
  motion
  for
  A. BATAYAN
 V.
 COMELEC
 
discretion.
reconsideration,
  by
  the
  COMELEC.
 
  This
  is
  Facts:
 
  The
  comelec
  is
  determining
  whether
 
Issue: WON COMELEC has jurisdiction
what
  COMELEC
  exactly
  did
  when
  they
  probable
  cause
  exists
  to
  charge
  petitioners
 
and power to decide on internal conflicts
reaffirmed
 the
 findings.
  for
  violation
  of
  the
  provision
  of
  Election
 
of political parties.

 
Code
  prohibiting
  double
  registration
  –
  Comelec
  en
  banc
  by
  the
  division
  of
  all
  of
  COMELEC
  in
  untenable
  because
  the
 
administrative
 case.
  members
 agree
  participants
  are
  random
  and
  not
  meant
  to
 
Issue:
 
  Whether
  the
  COMELEC
  en
  banc’s
  • It
  is
  only
  in
  adjudicatory
  or
  quasi
  judicial
  replace
 the
 actual
 results.
 In
 addition
 to
 that,
 
assumption
  of
  original
  jurisdiction
  over
  the
  powers
  that
  the
  COMELEC
  is
  mandated
  to
  it
  violates
  the
  constitutionally
  guaranteed
 
case
 violated
 the
 constitution
  hear
  and
  decide
  cases
  first
  by
  division
  and
  rights
  of
  the
  media
  and
  electorate.
  It
  also
 
Held:
  It
  is
  not
  applicable
  in
  administrative
  then
 upon
 motion
 of
 reconsideration,
 by
 the
  doesn’t
  violate
  ballot
  secrecy
  because
  the
 
cases
 
  COMELEC
  en
  banc.
  The
  filing
  of
  an
  purpose
 of
 secrecy
 is
 to
 prevent
 vote
 buying
 
Ratio:
 It
 is
 only
 when
 COMELEC
 exercises
 its
  information
  in
  court
  does
  not
  involve
  the
 
 
quasi
  judicial
  power
  that
  it
  is
  subject
  to
  the
  exercise
 of
 adjudicatory
 function
  C. SOCIAL
 WEATHER
 STATIONS
 V.
 COMELEC
 
Section
  3
  of
  article
  IX
  which
  requires
  that
  all
 
  Issue:
  Petioners,
  Social
  Weather
  Stations
  Inc.
 
cases
  including
  pre
  proclamation
  Sec
 4
  and
  Kamahan
  Publishing
  Corporation
 
controversies
  shall
  be
  decided
  in
  division
  A. SANIDAD
 V.
 COMELEC
  questions
  WON
  the
  prohibition
  of
  surveys
 
and
  the
  motion
  for
  reconsideration
  shall
  be
  Facts:
 there
 is
 a
 plebiscite
 to
 be
 held
 for
 the
  affecting
 national
 candidates
 15
 days
 before
 
decided
  by
  the
  COMELEC
  en
  banc.
 
  But
  the
  ratification
  of
  an
  organic
  act
  for
  the
  and
  local
  candidates
  7
  days
  before
  the
 
COMELEC
  en
  banc
  can
  directly
  act
  when
  it
  is
  Cordillera
  autonomous
  region.
  COMELEC
  election
 
exercising
 its
 administrative
 power.
  then
  released
  Resolution
  No.
  2176,
  Held:
 Unconstitutional
 

  prohibiting
 
 campaign
 of
 plebiscite
 issues
 in
  Ratio:
 Because
 of
 the
 preferred
 status
 of
 the
 
B. BALINDONG
 V.
 COMELEC
  columns,
 radio
 or
 televisions.
  constitutional
  rights
  of
  speech,
  expression,
 
Facts:
  Anwar
  Balindong,
  a
  candidate
  for
  Issue:
  WON
  the
  resolution
  was
  and
  the
  press,
  it
  is
  declared
 
mayor
  seeks
  to
  set
  aside
  the
  resolution
  of
  constitutional
  unconstitutional.
  This
  purpose
  of
  this
  this
 
COMELEC
  en
  banc
  ordering
  the
  Municipal
  Held:
 The
 instant
 petition
 is
 granted.
  power
  is
  also
  to
  ensure
  equal
  opportunity
 
Board
  of
  Canvassers
  (MBC)
  to
  immediately
  Ratio:
  What
  was
  granted
  to
  the
  comelec
  was
  for
 the
 candidates
 
reconvene
  to
  totally
  exclude
  from
  the
  supervise
  and
  regulate
  the
  use
  and
 
 
canvass
 the
 election
 return
 
  enjoyment
  for
  media
  communication
  Dissent
 by
 Justice
 Kapunan:
 
Issue:
  Whether
  the
  COMELEC
  en
  banc
  had
  because
  it
  might
  give
  some
  candidates
  It
  is
  a
  mere
  restriction
  and
  not
  an
  absolute
 
jurisdiction
  over
  pre-­‐proclamation
  undue
  advantage
  and
  not
  the
  right
  to
  prohibition
  on
  the
  publication
  of
  election
 
controversies
 at
 the
 first
 Instance
 
  supervise
  the
  petitioner’s
  right
  to
  surveys
  especially
  during
  the
  period
  when
 
Held:
  The
  COMELEC
  en
  banc
  acted
  without
  expression
  during
  plebiscite
  periods
  the
  voters
  are
  presumabley
  contemplating
 
jurisdiction
 or
 with
 grave
 abuse
  because
 those
 who
 they
 are
 not
 candidates
  whom
  they
  should
  elect
  and
  when
  they
  ate
 
Ratio:
  The
  hearing
  and
  the
  decision
  of
 
  most
  susceptible
  to
  such
  unwarranted
 
election
  cases,
  including
  pre
  proclamation
  B. ABS-­CBN
  BROADCASTING
  CORPORATION
  persuasion.
 These
 surveys
 may
 be
 published
 
controversies,
  at
  the
  first
  instance
  by
  a
  V.
 COMELEC
  thereafter.
 
division
  of
  COMELEC,
  and
  not
  by
  the
  poll
  Facts:
  An
  exit
  poll
  is
  an
  electoral
  survey
  for
 
 
body
  as
  a
  whole
  is
  mandatory
  and
  the
  purpose
  of
  determining
  the
  probable
 
 
jurisdictional
 according
 to
 Article
 IX
 –C
 sec
 3
  result
  of
  an
  election
  by
  asking
  random
 
 

  selected
  voters
  whom
  they
  have
  voted
  for.
 
 
 

  Notes
  This
 will
 be
 published
 publicly.
 
 
• The
  rule
  is
  that
  only
  decision
  of
  the
  Comelec
  Issues:
  Whether
  or
  not
  the
  respondent
 
 
en
  banc
  may
  be
  brought
  to
  the
  court
  on
  commission
  acted
  with
  grave
  abuse
  of
 
 
certiorari.
 However
 if
 a
 division
 of
 a
 comelec
  discretion
  amounting
  to
  lack
  or
  excess
  of
 
 
decides
  a
  motion
  for
  reconsideration
  in
  jurisdiction
  when
  it
  approved
  the
  issuance
 
 
violation
  of
  Article
  IX,
  C,
  3,
  the
  ruling
  is
  a
  of
  a
  restraining
  order
  preventing
  the
 
 
complete
  nullity
  and
  may
  be
  brought
  to
  the
  conducting
 of
 exit
 polls.
 
court
 on
 certiorari
  Held:
 The
 petition
 is
 meritorious.
 
 
 
• A
  motion
  to
  reconsider
  an
  interlocutory
  Ratio:
  The
  fear
  of
  COMELEC
  that
  it
  would
 
order
  of
  a
  division
  may
  be
  referred
  to
  the
  create
  confusion
  and
  destroy
  the
  credibility