Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Ating Koop filed its Manifestation to Participate in the Party- His expulsion from Ating Koop affected his
List System for the 2010 elections, the list of its nominees qualifications as member of the House, and therefore it was
composed of petitioner Lico as first nominee and Roberto the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) that
Mascarina as second nominee. COMELEC proclaimed Ating had jurisdiction over the Petition.
Koop as one of the winning party-list groups. Petitioner Lico
subsequently took his oath and thereafter assumed office. At the same time, the COMELEC upheld the validity of
petitioner Lico's expulsion from Ating Koop, explaining that
Several months prior to its proclamation, Ating Koop issued a when the Interim Central Committee ousted him from Ating
Resolution, which incorporated a term-sharing agreement. Koop, the said Committee's members remained in hold-over
Under the agreement, petitioner Lico was to serve as Party-list capacity even after their terms had expired. Finally, the
Representative for the first year of the three-year term. COMELEC En Banc recognized the Rimas Group as the
legitimate representative of Ating Koop
In 2011, Ating Koop held its Second National Convention,
during which it introduced amendments to its Constitution and ISSUE:
By-laws. Among the salient changes was the composition of W/N the COMELEC has jurisdiction over the expulsion of Lico
the Central
Committee. in the HR as well as in the party-list?
HELD:
Almost one year after petitioner Lico had assumed office, the
The HRET acquires jurisdiction over a disqualification case
Interim Central Committee expelled him from Ating Koop for
upon proclamation of the winning party-list group, oath of the
disloyalty. Lico's refusal to honor the term-sharing agreement
nominee, and assumption of office as member of the House of
is a factual basis for disloyalty and cause for his expulsion.
Representatives. In this case, the COMELEC proclaimed Ating
Koop as a winning party-list group; petitioner Lico took his
While petitioner Lico's Motion for Reconsideration was
oath; and he assumed office in the House of Representatives.
pending, the Lico Group held a special meeting in Cebu City. At
Thus, it is the HRET, and not the COMELEC, that has jurisdiction
the said meeting, new members of the Central Committee, as
over the disqualification case.
well as a new set of officers, were elected.18 The election was
purportedly held for the purpose of implementing the 5-5-5
The Petition for petitioner Lico's expulsion from the House of
equal representation amendment.
Representatives is anchored on his expulsion from Ating Koop,
which necessarily affects his title as member of Congress. A
The Rimas Group held a Special National Convention in
party-list nominee must have been, among others, a bona fide
Parañaque, at which a new Central Committee and a new set
member of the party or organization for at least ninety (90)
of officers were constituted. Members of the Rimas Group won
days preceding the day of the election. Needless to say, bona
the election and occupied all the corresponding seats.
fide membership in the party-list group is a continuing
The Rimas Group, claiming to represent Ating Koop, filed with
qualification. We have ruled that qualifications for public
COMELEC a Petition against petitioner Lico. It prayed that
office, whether elective or not, are continuing requirements.
petitioner Lico be ordered to vacate the office in the House of
They must be possessed not only at the time of appointment
Representatives, and for the succession of the second
or election, or of assumption of office, but during the officer's
nominee, Roberto Mascarina. An amended petition was filed,
entire tenure
impleading not only petitioner Lico but the entire Lico Group.
It also prayed that the COMELEC nullify the election
We reject the Lico Group's argument that the COMELEC has no
conducted at the Cebu meeting and recognize the Paranaque
jurisdiction to decide which of the feuding groups is to be
convention.
recognized, and that it is the Regional Trial Court which has
jurisdiction over intra-corporate controversies. Indeed, the
COMELECs jurisdiction to settle the struggle for leadership
within the party is well established. This power to rule upon certified by Villanueva and Virginia S. Jose. Pia Derla submitted
questions of party identity and leadership is exercised a second Certificate of Nomination, which included petitioners
by the COMELEC as an incident of its enforcement powers Luis Lokin, Jr. and Teresita Planas as party-list nominees. Derla
affixed to the certification her signature as "acting secretary-
We find the COMELEC to have committed grave abuse of general" of CIBAC.
discretion in declaring the Rimas Group as the legitimate set of
Ating Koop officers for the simple reason that the amendments Claiming that the nomination of petitioners Lokin, Jr. and
to the Constitution and By-laws of Ating Koop were not Planas was unauthorized, respondents filed with the COMELEC
registered with the COMELEC. Hence, neither of the elections a "Petition to Expunge from the Records and/or for
held during the Cebu meeting and the Paranaque conference Disqualification," seeking to nullify the Certificate filed by
pursuant to the said amendments, were valid. Derla. Respondents contended that Derla had misrepresented
herself.
A party-list organization owes its existence to the State and the
latter's approval must be obtained through its agent, the The COMELEC First Division granted the Petition, ordered the
COMELEC. In the 2013 case of Dayao v. COMELEC, We declared Certificate filed by Derla to be expunged from the records, and
that it is the State, acting through the COMELEC, that breathes declared respondents’ faction as the true nominees of CIBAC.
life to a party-list organization. The implication, therefore, is This was affirmed by the COMELEC En Banc.
that the State, through the COMELEC, is a party to the principal
contracts entered into by the party-list organization and its ISSUE:
members - the Constitution and By-laws - such that any Whether the authority of Secretary General Virginia Jose to file
amendment to these contracts would constitute a novation the party’s Certificate of Nomination is an intra-corporate
requiring the consent of all the parties involved. An matter, exclusively cognizable by special commercial courts,
amendment to the bylaws of a party-list organization should and over which the COMELEC has no jurisdiction?
become effective only upon approval by the COMELEC.
HELD:
The Lokin case, however, involved nominees and not This Court denies the petition for being filed outside the
incumbent members of Congress. In the present case, the fact requisite period (Petition for Certiorari)
that petitioner Lico was a member of Congress at the time of
his expulsion from Ating Koop removes the matter from the The COMELEC has jurisdiction over cases pertaining to party
jurisdiction of the COMELEC. leadership and the nomination of party-list representatives.
In the COMELEC En Banc Status Quo Ante Order, Commissioner SEVILLA VS. COMELEC
Lantion stated in his handwriting that "his previous voluntary
inhibition is only in the SPR cases and not in the EAC" and that TICKLER: 3-3 voting
"as further agreed in the Second Division, [he] will not
participate in the Division deliberations but will vote when the FACTS:
case is elevated [to the] en banc. Sevilla and So were candidates for the position of Punong
Barangay of Barangay Sucat, Muntinlupa City. The Board of
ISSUE: Election Tellers proclaimed Sevilla as the winner.
W/N the COMELEC Resolution of the Status Quo Ante Order is
valid? So filed an election protest with the MeTC on the ground that
Sevilla committed electoral fraud, anomalies and irregularities
HELD: in all the protested precincts. He also prayed for a manual
Commissioner Lantion’s voluntary piecemeal inhibition cannot revision of the ballots.
be countenanced. Nowhere in the COMELEC Rules does it
allow a Commissioner to voluntarily inhibit with reservation. The MeTC issued an Order dismissing the election protest. So
To allow him to participate in the En Bancproceedings when he filed a motion for reconsideration from, the MeTC denied the
previously inhibited himself in the Division is, absent any motion on the ground that it was a prohibited pleading.
So filed a petition for certiorari with the COMELEC, alleging Rehearing is defined as a "second consideration of cause for
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the MeTC Judge. purpose of calling to court’s or administrative board’s
attention any error, omission, or oversight in first
The COMELEC Second Division granted So’s petition. The consideration. A retrial of issues presumes notice to parties
COMELEC en banc, by a vote of 3-3, affirmed the COMELEC entitled thereto and opportunity for them to be heard."
Second Division’s ruling in its October 6, 2012 Resolution
Thus, a rehearing clearly presupposes the participation of the
In his Comment, the respondent contends that the petition opposing parties for the purpose of presenting additional
was filed prematurely. He emphasizes that the October 6, 2012 evidence, if any, and further clarifying and amplifying their
Resolution of the COMELEC en banc was not a majority arguments; whereas, a re-consultation involves a re-
decision considering that three Commissioners voted for the evaluation of the issues and arguments already on hand only
denial of the motion for reconsideration and the three others by the members of the tribunal, without the participation of
voted to grant the same. the parties.
So notes that the assailed October 6, 2012 Resolution was To reiterate, neither the assenters nor dissenters can claim a
deliberated upon only by six (6) Commissioners because the majority in the En Banc Resolution of November 6, 2007. The
7th Commissioner had not yet been appointed by the Resolution served no more than a record of voters, lacking in
President at that time. Considering that the October 6, 2012 legal effect despite its pronouncement of reversal of the First
Resolution was not a majority decision by the COMELEC En Division Resolution. According, the COMELEC did not commit
Banc, So prays for the dismissal of the petition so that it can be any grave abuse of discretion in ordering a rehearing
remanded to the COMELEC for a rehearing by a full and
complete Commission IBRAHIM VS. COMELEC
ISSUE: FACTS:
W/N the Resolution of the COMELEC En banc has legal effect? Ibrahim filed his certificate of candidacy to run as Vice-Mayor
of Datu-Unsay. Thereafter, respondent Rolan G. Buagas, then
HELD: Acting Election Officer, forwarded to the COMELEC’s Law
Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution requires that "each Department candidates who were not registered voters
Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its members, therein. The list included Ibrahim’s name.
any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from the
date of its submission for decision or resolution The Law Department recommended the retention of the said
names in the Certified List of Candidates, but for the COMELEC
In the present case, while the October 6, 2012 Resolution of to motu propio institute actions against them for
the COMELEC en banc appears to have affirmed the COMELEC disqualification and for violation of election laws.
Second Division’s Resolution and, in effect, denied Sevilla’s
motion for reconsideration, the equally divided voting Thereafter, the COMELEC en banc issued the herein assailed
between three Commissioners concurring and three Resolution:
Commissioners dissenting is not the majority vote that the 1. to disqualify the f candidates for not being registered
Constitution and the COMELEC Rules of Procedure require for voters of the respective municipalities without
a valid pronouncement of the assailed October 6, 2012 prejudice to their filing of an opposition within two (2)
Resolution of the COMELEC en banc. days from publication hereof; and
2. to file election offense cases against said candidates
Thus, for all intents and purposes, the assailed October 6, 2012
Resolution of the COMELEC en banc had no legal effect Ibrahim filed a Petition/Opposition to assail the Resolution.
whatsoever except to convey that the COMELEC failed to reach This was denied by the COMELEC En Banc.
a decision and that further action is required.
In the May 10, 2010 elections, during which time the
To break the legal stalemate in case the opinion is equally Resolution dated May 6, 2010 had not yet attained finality,
divided among the members of the COMELEC en banc, Section Ibrahim obtained 446 votes, the highest number cast.
6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure mandates a However, the Board of Canvassers suspended his
rehearing where parties are given the opportunity anew to proclamation.
strengthen their respective positions or arguments and
convince the members of the COMELEC en banc of the merit In its Manifestation and Motion in Lieu of Comment,14 the
of their case Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) proposes for the instant
Petition to be granted:
A consultation is a "deliberation of persons on some subject;;" 1. Ibrahim was disqualified as a candidate without prior
hence, a re-consultation means a second deliberation of notice and hearing and he was given the chance to file an
persons on some subject. opposition only after the issuance of the Resolution
2. Jurisdiction over petitions to cancel a certificate of returns or in other authentic copies thereof as
candidacy pertains to the COMELEC sitting in division and mentioned in Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 of this
not to the COMELEC en banc. The COMELEC en banc can Code;;
only take cognizance of petitions to cancel a certificate of (c) The election returns were prepared under duress,
candidacy when the required number of votes for a threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they are
division to reach a decision, ruling, order or resolution is obviously manufactured or not authentic;; and
not obtained, or when motions for reconsideration are (d) When substitute or fraudulent returns in
filed to assail the said issuances of a division. controverted polling places were canvassed, the
3. Generally, the COMELEC cannot motu propio file petitions results of which materially affected the standing of
for disqualification against candidates. However, provides the aggrieved candidate or candidates.
the only exception to the foregoing, to wit, that
certificates of candidacy of those running for the positions In the case at bar, the now assailed Resolutions dated
of President, Vice-President, Senator and Party-List maybe December 22, 2009 and May 6, 2010 were issued with finality
denied due course by the COMELEC en banc. Under the Constitution and the Rules
4. The MBOC had no authority to order the suspension of of Court, the said resolutions can be reviewed by way of filing
Ibrahim’s proclamation. Upon motion, the suspension of a before us a petition for certiorari. Besides, the issues raised do
winning candidate’s proclamation can be ordered during not at all relate to alleged irregularities in the preparation,
the pendency of a disqualification case before the transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the election
COMELEC. However, only the COMELEC, as a tribunal, has returns or to the composition and proceedings of the board of
the authority to issue orders relative to cases pending canvassers. What the instant Petition challenges is the
before it. The MBOC cannot substitute its own judgment authority of the MBOC to suspend Ibrahim’s proclamation and
for that of the COMELEC’s. The MBOC can suspend a of the COMELEC en banc to issue the assailed resolutions. The
winning candidate’s proclamation only when an actual crux of the instant Petition does not qualify as one which can
issue within the Board’s jurisdiction arises in the course of be raised as a pre-proclamation controversy.
conducting a canvass
The COMELEC en banc is devoid of authority to disqualify
COMELEC: Ibrahim as a candidate for the position of Vice-Mayor of Datu
Ibrahim’s name was not stricken off from the certified list of Unsay.
candidates during the May 10, 2010 elections and the votes
cast for him were counted. Hence, no actual prejudice was Under the same Rules of Procedure, jurisdiction over a petition
caused upon him as the COMELEC did not even direct the to cancel a certificate of candidacy lies with the COMELEC
MBOC to suspend his proclamation. It was the MBOC’s ruling sitting in Division, not en banc. Cases before a Division may
which resulted to the suspension of his proclamation. Such only be entertained by the COMELEC en banc when the
being the case, Ibrahim should have instead filed a pre- required number of votes to reach a decision, resolution, order
proclamation controversy before the COMELEC anchored on or ruling is not obtained in the Division. Moreover, only
the supposed illegality of the MBOC’s proceedings. motions to reconsider decisions, resolutions, orders or rulings
of the COMELEC in Division are resolved by the COMELEC en
ISSUE: banc.
Whether or not the COMELEC en banc acted with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when Under Section 3, Rule 23 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of
it issued the Resolutions? Procedure, a petition for the denial or cancellation of a
certificate of candidacy must be heard summarily after due
HELD: notice. It is thus clear that cancellation proceedings involve the
A pre-proclamation controversy is defined in Section 241 of the exercise of the quasi-judicial functions of the COMELEC which
OEC as referring to "any question pertaining to or affecting the the COMELEC in division should first decide. More so in this
proceedings of the board of canvassers which may be raised by case where the cancellation proceedings originated not from a
any candidate or by any registered political party or coalition petition but from a report of the election officer regarding the
of parties before the board or directly with the Commission, or lack of qualification of the candidate in the barangay election.
any matter raised under Sections 233,31 234,32 23533 and The COMELEC en banc cannot short cut the proceedings by
23634 in relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt, acting on the case without a prior action by a division because
custody and appreciation of the election returns." Section 243 it denies due process to the candidate
of the OEC restrictively enumerates as follows the issues which
can be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy: In the case at bar, the COMELEC en banc, through the herein
(a) Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of assailed resolutions, ordered Ibrahim’s disqualification even
canvassers;; when no complaint or petition was filed against him yet. Let it
(b) The canvassed election returns are incomplete, be stressed that if filed before the conduct of the elections, a
contain material defects, appear to be tampered with petition to deny due course or cancel a certificate of candidacy
or falsified, or contain discrepancies in the same under Section 78 of the OEC is the appropriate petition which
should have been instituted against Ibrahim considering that
his allegedly being an unregistered voter of Datu Unsay Accordingly, when the case demands only the exercise by the
disqualified him from running as Vice-Mayor. COMELEC of its administrative functions, such as the
correction of a manifest mistake in the addition of votes or an
The simple purpose and duty of the canvassing board is to erroneous tabulation in the statement of votes, the COMELEC
ascertain and declare the apparent result of the voting while en banc can directly act on it in the exercise of its constitutional
all other questions are to be tried before the court or other function to decide questions affecting elections.
tribunal for contesting elections or in quo warranto
proceedings. The Petition for Correction of Manifest Errors in the case at bar
alleges an erroneous copying of figures from the election
In the case at bar, the MBOC motu propio suspended Ibrahim’s return to the Statement of Votes by Precinct. Such an error in
proclamation when the issue of the latter’s eligibility is a the tabulation of the results, which merely requires a clerical
matter which the board has no authority to resolve. Further, correction without the necessity of opening ballot boxes or
under Section 644 of R.A. 6646, the COMELEC and not the examining ballots, demands only the exercise of the
MBOC has the authority to order the suspension of a winning administrative power of the COMELEC. Hence, the Commission
candidates’s proclamation. Such suspension can only be en banc properly assumed original jurisdiction over the
ordered upon the motion of a complainant or intervenor aforesaid petition.
relative to a case for disqualification, or a petition to deny due
course or cancel a certificate of candidacy pending before the CAGAS VS. COMELEC
COMELEC, and only when the evidence of the winning
candidate’s guilt is strong. TICKLER: Creation of Davao Occidental
FACTS:
JARAMILLA VS. COMELEC Cagas, while he was representative of the first legislative
FACTS: district of Davao del Sur, filed with Hon. Franklin Bautista,
Antonio Suyat and Alberto J. Jaramilla both ran for the position House Bill No. 4451, a bill creating the province of Davao
of Member of the Sangguniang Bayan. The Municipal Board of Occidental. H.B. No. 4451 was signed into law as Republic Act
Canvassers proclaimed the winning candidates as well as 8 No. 10360.
members of the Sangguniang. In the tabulated results, it is
shown that respondent Suyat obtained 4,779 votes and was Section 46 of R.A. No. 10360 provides for the date of the
ranked no. 9 while Jaramilla ranked 8. holding of a plebiscite. “plebiscite to be conducted and
supervised by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) within
Upon review, Suyat discovered that Jaramilla was credited sixty (60) days from the date of the effectivity of this Charter.”
with only 23 votes per Election Return from Precinct No. 34A1.
However, when the figures were forwarded to the Statement R.A. No. 10360 was passed by the House of Representatives on
of Votes by Precinct, petitioner was credited with 73 votes 28 November 2012, and by the Senate on 5 December 2012.
which is 50 votes more than what he actually obtained. If the President Benigno S. Aquino III approved R.A. No. 10360 on 14
entry were to be corrected, the affected candidates would be, January 2013.2 R.A. No. 10360 was published in the Philippine
Suyat will ranked 8 while Jaramilla will be the 9th. Star and the Manila Bulletin only on 21 January 2013.
Considering that R.A. No. 10360 shall take effect 15 days after
Suyat filed before the COMELEC en banc an Urgent Motion for its publication in at least two newspapers of general and local
Issuance of Order to Reconvene, which the latter treated as a circulation,3COMELEC, therefore, only had until 6 April 2013 to
Petition for Correction of Manifest Error. This was granted by conduct the plebiscite.
the COMELEC en banc.
As early as 27 November 2012, prior to the effectivity of R.A.
ISSUE: No. 10360, the COMELEC suspended the conduct of all
W/N COMELEC en banc can validly grant the said petition? plebiscites as a matter of policy and in view of the preparations
for the 13 May 2013 National and Local Elections.
HELD:
Election cases including pre-proclamation controversies The COMELEC extended the policy on suspension of the
should first be heard and decided by a division of the holding of plebiscites by resolving to defer action on the
COMELEC, and then by the commission en banc if a motion for holding of all plebiscites until after the 28 October 2013
reconsideration of the division is filed. Barangay Elections. During a meeting, the COMELEC decided
to hold the plebiscite for the creation of Davao Occidental
It must be noted however that this provision applies only in simultaneously with the 28 October 2013 Barangay Elections
cases where the COMELEC exercises its adjudicatory or quasi- to save on expenses.
judicial powers, and not when it merely exercises purely
administrative functions. Cagas filed a petition for prohibition:
1. COMELEC is without authority or legal basis to AMEND or discretion, in postponing the holding of the plebiscite for the
MODIFY Section 46 of Republic Act No. 10360 by mere MINUTE creation of the province of Davao Occidental to 28 October
RESOLUTION because it is only CONGRESS who can validly 2013 to synchronize it with the Barangay Elections.
amend, repel [sic] or modify existing laws.
2. COMELEC is without authority or legal basis to hold a FRANCISCO VS. COMELEC
plebiscite this coming October 28, 2013 because Section 46 of
Republic Act No. 10360 has already lapsed. TICKLER: Prior judgment – Poe doctrine
ISSUE: FACTS:
Did the COMELEC act without or in excess of its jurisdiction or Nieto was elected as mayor of Cainta, Rizal in 2013. Nieto filed
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of a certificate of candidacy to signify his bid for re-election for
jurisdiction when it resolved to hold the plebiscite for the the 2016 National and Local Elections.
creation of the Province of Davao Occidental on 28 October
2013, simultaneous with the Barangay Elections? Francisco filed before the COMELEC a Petition for
Disqualification against Nieto, respondent made financial
HELD: contributions out of the government coffers for the asphalt-
The COMELEC’s power to administer elections includes the paving of the road entrance along Imelda Avenue of Cainta
power to conduct a plebiscite beyond the schedule prescribed Green Park Village. This, according to petitioner, amounted to
by law. the expending of public funds within forty-five (45) days before
the 2016 polls and to illegal contributions for road repairs.
Section 46 of R.A. No. 10360, however, specifically provides
that the plebiscite for the creation of the province of Davao The COMELEC Second Division dismissed the Petition, it is clear
Occidental be held within 60 days from the effectivity of R.A. that a candidate cannot be disqualified without a prior finding
No. 10360, or until 6 April 2013. Cagas claims that R.A. No. that he or she is suffering from a disqualification provided by
10360 "did not confer express or implied power to COMELEC law or the Constitution. To be sure, in order to disqualify a
to exercise discretion when the plebiscite for the creation of candidate there must be a declaration by a final judgment of
the Province of Davao Occidental will be held. On the contrary, a competent court that the candidate sought to be
said law provides a specific period when the COMELEC should disqualified is guilty of or found by the Commission to be
conduct a plebiscite." Cagas views the period "60 days from suffering from any disqualification provided by law or the
the effectivity" in R.A. No. 10360 as absolute and mandatory;; Constitution. The same was affirmed by the COMELEC En Banc.