ARTICLE IX CASES DIGEST – C.
COMMISSION ON ELECTION 1
IX. Constitutional Commissions
C. Commission on Election
Section 2. Powers and Function
017 ROQUE FLORES v COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. No.
89604, April 20, 1990, CRUZ, J.:
POINT OF THE CASE: Municipal or Metropolitan Courts being
courts of limited jurisdiction, their decisions in Barangay
Election contests are subject to the exclusive appellate
jurisdiction of the COMELEC.
FACTS: The petitioner, Roque Flores was declared by the board
of canvassers as having the highest number of votes for
kagawad on the March 1989 elections, in Barangay Poblacion,
Tayum, Abra, and thus proclaimed Punong Barangay in
accordance with section 5 of R.A. 6679 which provides that the
candidate who garnered the highest vote shall be the Punong
Barangay. However, it was protested by Rapisora, who placed
second in the said election with one vote less than the
petitioner. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Tayum sustained
Rapisora and install him as Punong Barangay in place of the
petitioner after deducting two votes as stray from the latter’s
total. Flores appealed to the RTC, which affirmed the
challenged decision and agreed that the four votes cast for
“Flores” only, without any distinguishing first name or initial,
should all have been considered invalid instead of being divided
equally between the petitioner and Anastacio Flores, another
candidate for kagawad. The total credited to the petitioner was
correctly reduced by 2, demoting him to second place.
The petitioner went to the COMELEC file an appeal on
said decision of the Trial Court that was dismissed on the
ground that it had no power to review the decision of the RTC,
based on Section 9 of R.A. 6679, that the decisions of RTC in a
protest appealed to it from the municipal trial court in barangay
questions “on questions of fact shall be final and non-
appealable”.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Section 9 of R.A. 6679 was
unconstitutional
HELD: Yes, the Section 9 of R.A. 6679 was unconstitutional. The
assailed provision violates the Article IX-C, Section 2 (2) of the
Constitution which provides that the COMELEC shall “Exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the
elections, returns and qualifications of all elective regional,
provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all
contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial
courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay
officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.”
Municipal or Metropolitan Courts being courts of limited
jurisdiction, their decisions in Barangay Election contests are
subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the COMELEC
under the afore-quoted section. Hence, the decision rendered
by the Trial Court should have been appealed directly to the
COMELEC and not to the RTC.
Further, Section 9 of R.A. No. 6679, insofar as it
provides that the decision of the municipal or metropolitan
court in a barangay election should be appealed to the RTC,
must be declared unconstitutional.
018 PERFECTO V. GALIDO v COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and
SATURNINO R. GALEON, G.R. No. 95346, January 18, 199,
PADILLA, J.:
POINT OF THE CASE: The second paragraph of Section 8, Article
IX specifically adds that pensions and gratuities shall not be
considered as additional, double or indirect compensation. This
has reference to compensation already earned, for instance by
a retiree. A retiree receiving pensions or gratuities after
retirement can continue to receive such pension or gratuity
even if he accepts another government position to which
another compensation is attached.
FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent were candidates
during the 18 January 1988 local elections for the position of
mayor in the Municipality of Garcia-Hernandez, Province of
Bohol. Petitioner was proclaimed duly-elected Mayor of Garcia-
Hernandez, by the Municipal Board of Canvassers. On 25
January 1988, private respondent Saturnino R. Galeon filed an
election protest before the Regional Trial Court of Bohol, 7th
Judicial Region, Branch I, Tagbilaran City.
After hearing, the said court upheld the proclamation
of petitioner as the duly-elected Mayor of Garcia-Hernandez,
by a majority of eleven (11) votes. Private respondent appealed
the RTC decision to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).
Through its First Division, the COMELEC reversed the trial
court's decision and declared private respondent the
duly-elected mayor by a plurality of five (5) votes. Petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration was denied by the COMELEC in its
en banc resolution of 20 September 1990 which affirmed the
decision of its First Division. The COMELEC held that the fifteen
(15) ballots in the same precinct containing the initial C after
the name Galido were marked ballots and, therefore, invalid.
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
rendering the questioned decision.
RULING: No. It is settled that the function of a writ of certiorari
is to keep an inferior court or tribunal within the bounds of its
jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. As
correctly argued by public respondent COMELEC, it has the
inherent power to decide an election contest on physical
evidence, equity, law and justice, and apply established
jurisprudence in support of its findings and conclusions; and
that the extent to which such precedents apply rests on its
discretion, the exercise of which should not be controlled
unless such discretion has been abused to the prejudice of
either party.
Finally, the records disclose that private respondent
had already assumed the position of Mayor of Garcia-
Hernandez as the duly-elected mayor of the municipality by
virtue of the COMELEC decision. The main purpose of
prohibition is to suspend all action and prevent the further
performance of the act complained of. In this light, the petition
at bar has become moot and academic.
019 JOSE M. MERCADO v BOARD OF ELECTION SUPERVISORS
OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF IBAAN, PROVINCE OF BATANGAS,
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
CRISANTO P. PANGILINAN and HON. CONRADO R. ANTONA,
G.R. No. 109713, April 6, 1995, DAVIDE, JR., J.:
PJC 2019-2020
 ARTICLE IX CASES DIGEST – C. COMMISSION ON ELECTION
Point of the Case: SK elections are not like elective barangay
officials, the contests of which are vested in the proper
metropolitan or municipal trial court original jurisdiction over
such contest.
Facts: Petitioner Jose M. Mercado was proclaimed winner in the
election for chairman of the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) of
Batangas. The proclamation was made by the Board of Election
Tellers (BET. Pangilinan filed a formal protest with the BES
questioning the results of the election. He alleged that the BET
Chairman was inebriated during the counting of the votes and
that he had invalidated some of them without consulting the
other members. The Board of Election Supervisors (BES)
ordered a recount of the votes for SK Chairman which reversed
the earlier tally to 51 to 49 in favor of Pangilinan, who was
thereupon proclaimed the duly elected SK Chairman by the BES.
Mercado filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus
in the RTC praying for the annulment of Pangilinan’s
proclamation by the BES and for the DILG to recognize him as
the duly elected SK Chairman of Barangay Mabalor. He assailed
the jurisdiction of the BES to act on the protest filed by
Pangilinan, claiming that it was in the nature of an election
protest properly cognizable by the Metropolitan or Municipal
Trial Court in accordance with Section 252 of the Omnibus
Election Code.
RTC dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. It
held that Resolution No. 2499 of the COMELEC did not vest in
the RTC jurisdiction over controversies affecting SK elections. It
held that the BES, which is under COMELEC jurisdiction, is the
final arbiter of all election controversies within its level.
Issue: Whether or not Board of Election Supervisors could be
the final arbiter of SK elections.
Held: Yes. The court ruled that SK elections are not like elective
barangay officials, the contests of which are vested in the
proper metropolitan or municipal trial court original jurisdiction
over such contest. In the light of the foregoing, it is indisputable
that contests involving elections of SK (formerly KB) officials do
not fall within Section 252 of the Omnibus Election Code and
paragraph 2, Section 2, Article IX-C of the Constitution and that
no law in effect prior to the ratification of the Constitution had
made the SK chairman an elective barangay official.
020 EMMANUEL M. RELAMPAGOS v ROSITA C. CUMBA and
the COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. No. 118861, April 27,
1995, DAVIDE, JR., J.:
Point of the case: The COMELEC, by constitutional mandate, is
vested with jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction
Facts: In the synchronized elections of 11 May 1992, the
petitioner and private respondent Rosita Cumba were
candidates for the position of Mayor in the municipality of
Magallanes, Agusan del Norte.
The latter was proclaimed the winning candidate, with
a margin of only twenty-two votes over the former. Unwilling
to accept defeat, the petitioner filed an election protest with
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Agusan del Norte, which was
assigned to Branch 2 thereof in Butuan City. The trial court, per
Judge Rosario F. Dabalos, found the petitioner to have won with
a margin of six votes over the private respondent and rendered
judgement in favor of the petitioner. As a result, the private
respondent then filed with the respondent COMELEC a petition
2
for certiorari to annul the aforesaid order of the trial court
granting the motion for execution pending appeal and the writ
of execution.
On 9 February 1995, the COMELEC promulgated its
resolution stating that, the Commission has exclusive authority
to hear and decide petitions for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus in election cases as authorized by law, and
therefore, assumes jurisdiction of the instant petition for
certiorari which is hereby granted and that the Order of the
court a quo of August 3, 1994 is hereby declared null and void
and the Writ of Execution issued on August 4, 1994 is lifted.
Issue: Whether Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has
jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus in election cases where it has exclusive appellate
jurisdiction.
Held: Yes. The Court held that the last paragraph of Section 50
of B.P. Blg. 697 providing as follows: “The Commission is hereby
vested with exclusive authority to hear and decide petitions for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus involving election cases”
remains in full force and effect but only in such cases where,
under paragraph (2), Section 1, Article IX-C of the Constitution,
it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction. Simply put, the COMELEC
has the authority to issue the extraordinary writs of certiorari,
prohibition, and mandamus only in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction. Since the COMELEC, in discharging its appellate
jurisdiction pursuant to Sec. 2 (2), Art. IX-C, acts as a court of
justice performing judicial power and said power includes the
determination of whether or not there has been grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, it
necessarily follows that the COMELEC, by constitutional
mandate, is vested with jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari
in aid of its appellate jurisdiction
021 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v HON. GUALBERTO P.
DELGADO, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, Br. 29, Toledo City, ELSIE
RAGO LUMANGTAD, VIVENCIA ABARIDO, AVELINA
BUTASLAC, ROSELLANO BUTASLAC, HAYDELISA
LUMANGTAD, SILVESTRE LUMANGTAD, MAXIMO RACAZA,
NENA RACAZA, VICTORIANO/ VICTOR RAGO, EDNA TEJAS,
MERCEDITA TEJAS, TEOFISTO TEJAS, BERNABE TOQUERO, JR.,
and PEDRO RAFAELA, G.R. Nos. 93419-32, September 18,
1990, GANCAYCO, J.:
Point of the Case: When the COMELEC conducts the
preliminary investigation of an election offense and upon a
prima facie finding of a probable cause files the information in
the proper court, said court thereby acquires jurisdiction over
the case.
Facts. On 14 Jan 1988, the COMELEC received a report-
complaint from the Election Registrar of Toledo City against
private respondents for alleged violation of the Omnibus
Election Code. The COMELEC directed the Provincial Election
Supervisor of Cebu to conduct the preliminary investigation of
the case who eventually recommended the filing of an
information against each of the private respondents for
violation of the Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC en banc
resolved to file the information against the private respondents
as recommended. Private respondents filed motions for
reconsiderations and the suspension of the warrant of arrest
with the respondent court on the ground that no preliminary
investigation was conducted. Later, an order was issued by
respondent court directing the COMELEC through the Regional
Election Director of Region VII to conduct a reinvestigation of
PJC 2019-2020
 ARTICLE IX CASES DIGEST – C. COMMISSION ON ELECTION
said cases. The COMELEC Prosecutor filed a motion for
reconsideration and opposition to the motion for
reinvestigation alleging therein that it is only the Supreme Court
that may review the decisions, orders, rulings and resolutions
of the COMELEC. This was denied by the court.
Issue. Whether or not the Regional Trial Court (RTC) have the
authority to review the actions of the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) in the investigation and prosecution of election
offenses filed in said court.
Held. Yes. Based on the Constitution and the Omnibus Election
Code, it is clear that aside from the adjudicatory or quasi-
judicial power of the COMELEC to decide election contests and
administrative questions, it is also vested the power of a public
prosecutor with the exclusive authority to conduct the
preliminary investigation and the prosecution of election
offenses punishable under the Code before the competent
court. Thus, when the COMELEC, through its duly authorized
law officer, conducts the preliminary investigation of an
election offense and upon a prima facie finding of a probable
cause, files the information in the proper court, said court
thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case. Consequently, all
the subsequent disposition of said case must be subject to the
approval of the court. The COMELEC cannot conduct a
reinvestigation of the case without the authority of the court or
unless so ordered by the court
022 LUCITA Q. GARCES v THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS, SALVADOR EMPEYNADO and CLAUDIO
CONCEPCION, G.R. No. 114795, July 17, 1996, FRANCISCO, J.:
POINT OF THE CASE: Only decisions of the COMELEC made in
the exercise of adjudicatory or quaasi-judicial power may be
brought to the Supreme Court on certioraari
FACTS: Garces was appointed as an Election Registrar in
Gutalac, Zamboanga del Norte. She replaced respondent
Concepcion who was transferred to Liloy, Zambpanga del
Norte. However, respondent Provincial Election Supervisor
Empeynado issued a memorandum to prohibit Garces from
assuming her post. Garces filed before the RTC a petition for
mandamus with preliminary prohibitory and mandatory
injunction and damages against Empeynado and Concepcion,
among others. Meantime, the COMELEC en banc through a
Resolution dated June 3, 1988, resolved to recognize
respondent Concepcion as the Election Registrar of Gutalac and
ordered that the appointments of Garces to Gutalac and of
Concepcion to Liloy be cancelled. In view thereof, respondent
Empeynado moved to dismiss the petition for mandamus
alleging that the same was rendered moot and academic by the
said COMELEC Resolution, and that the case is cognizable only
by the COMELEC under Sec. 7 Art. IX-A of the 1987 Constitution.
The RTC, thereafter, dismissed the petition for mandamus on
two grounds, viz., (1) that quo warranto is the proper remedy,
and (2) that the cases or matters referred under the
constitution pertain only to those involving the conduct of
elections. On appeal, respondent CA affirmed the RTCs
dismissal of the case. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Is this case cognizable by the RTC or by the Supreme
Court?
RULING: The contention is without merit. Sec. 7, Art. IX-A of the
Constitution provides: Each commission shall decide by a
majority vote of all its members any caseor matter brought
before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for
decision or resolution. A caseor matteris deemed submitted for
3
decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief,
or memorandum required by the rules of the commission or by
the commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this
constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each
commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari
by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy
thereof. This provision is inapplicable as there was no case or
matter filed before the COMELEC. On the contrary, it was the
COMELECs resolution that triggered this Controversy. The case
or matter referred to by the constitution must be something
within the jurisdiction of the COMELEC, i.e., it must pertain to
an election dispute. The settled rule is that decision, rulings,
order of the COMELEC that may be brought to the Supreme
Court on certiorari under Sec. 7 Art. IX-A are those that relate
to the COMELEC’s exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial
powers involving elective regional, provincial and city officials.
In this case, what is being assailed is the COMELECs choice of
an appointee to occupy the Gutalac Post which is an
administrative duty done for the operational set-up of an
agency. The controversy involves an appointive, not an elective,
official.
023 MARIVIC ZARATE v COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and
JULIAN LALLAVE, JR., G.R. No. 129096, November 19, 1999,
PURISIMA, J.:
POINT OF THE CASE: Election cases, including pre-proclamation
controversies, and all such cases must first be heard and
decided by a Division of COMELEC. COMELEC, sitting En Banc,
does not have the authority to hear and decide the same at the
first instance.
FACTS: During the SK elections, Lallave won over Zarate by a
single vote and was proclaimed thereafter. Zarate lodged his
election protest before the MTC alleging that there are invalid
three votes that were counted stating a named “JL” which is
irregular, anomalous and void. That had the three (3) been
voided or excluded, Zarate should have been proclaimed as the
Chairman. The MTC rendered a decision declaring and setting
aside the proclamation of Julian Lallave Jr and proclaiming
Marivic Zarate as the Chairman of Brgy Malaiqui, Pangasinan.
Dissatisfied with the decision, Julian Lallave Jr., filed an appeal
to the COMELEC theorizing that those three (3) votes should be
counted and validly credited in his favor since the initials can
sufficiently identify him as the candidate since, among the
three, he has the only initials of “JL.” The COMELEC en banc
came out with a resolution setting aside the decision of the
MTC declaring Lallave as the SK Chairman. However, Zarate find
her way to raise the protest against Lallave to the Supreme
Court. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: WON the COMELEC en banc acted with grave abuse?
HELD: Yes. The COMELEC en banc acted with grave abuse of
discretion or without jurisdiction when it resolved the appeals
of the petitioner 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.
024 DOMINADOR REGALADO, JR. v COURT OF APPEALS and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 115962, February 15,
2000, MENDOZA, J.:
POINT OF THE CASE: The powers of the Commission on election
in cases involving the illegal transfer of a public employee.
FACTS: Petitioner allegedly charged for violating 261(h) of the
Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code). That the
PJC 2019-2020
 ARTICLE IX CASES DIGEST – C. COMMISSION ON ELECTION
petitioner’s brother as the OIC Mayor of the Municipality of
Tanjay, Negros Oriental, did then and there unlawfully,
feloniously and illegally transfer Mrs. Editha P. Barba, a
permanent Nursing Attendant, Grade I, in the Office of the
Mayor of Tanjay, during the election period without obtaining
prior permission or clearance from the Commission on
Elections, Manila.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner violated the COMELEC
Resolution No. 1937 for failure to comply with prior approval
for the transfer
HELD: Yes, the Court held that it may well be that Barangay Sto.
Nio in January 1988 was in need of health service personnel.
Nonetheless, this fact will not excuse the failure of petitioner to
obtain prior approval from the COMELEC for the movement of
personnel in his office. appointing authorities can transfer or
detail personnel as the exigencies of public service
require. However, during election period, as such personnel
movement could be used for electioneering or even to harass
subordinates who are of different political persuasion, 261(h)
of the Omnibus Election Code, as amended, prohibits the same
unless approved by the COMELEC.
025 EUGENIO "JING-JING" FAELNAR v PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, HON. RAMON CODILLA, in his capacity as
Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 19, Cebu City, and
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. Nos. 140850-51, May 4,
2000, MENDOZA, J.:
POINT OF THE CASE: COMELEC shall exercise original
jurisdiction over all contests involving elective barangay officials
decided by the trial court of limited jurisdiction.
FACTS: Eugenio Faelnar filed his certificate of candidacy for the
position of Barangay Chairman in Cebu. After filing such
certificate, a basketball tournament was held in the sports
complex dubbed as, “2nd Jing-Jing Faelnar’s Cup.” This gave rise
to a complaint for electioneering against petitioner. It was
alleged that it was actually a form of campaign done outside the
official campaign period. The complaint alleged that the
basketball tournament was actually a gimmick staged outside
the campaign period which during the tournament, there was
a streamer bearing the name of petitioner placed at the façade
of the venue, Faelnar’s name was repeatedly mentioned over
the microphone, it was widely published in the local
newspapers and a raffle sponsored by Gillamac was held with
home appliances as prize. It constituted an election offense. Luy
moved for reconsideration prompting te COMELEC to proceed
with the filing of the case against Lallave. Petitioner move to
quash on the basis that the previous dismissal of the COMELEC
en banc was immediately final and executory. And that Luy’s
motion for reconsideration was a prohibited pleading under the
Commission’s rules of procedure.
ISSUE: WON COMELEC has jurisdiction over the motion for
reconsideration filed?
HELD: Yes. COMELEC has jurisdiction over the motion for
reconsideration filed by the petitioner. It was held that the
COMELEC en banc is the one that determines the existence of
probable cause in an election offense. But, it may also be
delegated to the State Prosecutor or to the Provincial or City
Fiscal but may still be reviewed by the COMELEC.
026 ABDUSAKUR M. TAN, ABDULWAHID SAHIDULLA,
BRAHAM BURAHAN v COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, YUSOP
H. JIKIRI, ABDEL S. ANNI, DEN RASHER I. SALIM, TALIB L.
HAYUDINI, RIZAL TINGKAHAN, BARLIE NAHUDAN, ABRAHAM
4
DAUD, LUKMAN OMAR, ONNIH AHMAD and BASARON M.
BURAHAN, G.R. Nos. 148575-76, December 10, 2003
x-----------------------x
YUSOP JIKIRI, ABDEL ANNI, ABRAHAM DAUD, LUKMAN
OMAR, ONNIH AHMAD, BASARON BURAHAN, DEN RASHER
SALIM, TALIB HAYUDINI, RIZAL TINGKAHAN, and BARLIE
NAHUDAN v COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ABDUSAKUR TAN,
ABDULWAHID SAHIDULLA, MUNIB ESTINO and ABRAHAM
BURAHAN, G.R. Nos. 152882-83, CALLEJO, SR., J.:
POINT OF THE CASE:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD: In Loong v. COMELEC, we held that “the COMELEC is
duty-bound to investigate allegations of fraud, terrorism,
violence and other analogous causes in actions for annulment
of election results or for declaration of failure of elections, as
the OEC denominates the same. Thus, COMELEC, in the case of
actions for annulment of election results or declaration of
failure of elections, may conduct a technical examination of
election documents and compare and analyze voters’
signatures and fingerprints in order to determine whether or
not the elections had indeed been free, honest and clean.”
However, the exercise of this authority presupposes that the
petition has properly been acted upon on account of the
existence of any of the grounds provided under Section 6 of the
OEC. Where, as in this case, elections had been held and
winners had been duly proclaimed, the proper recourse should
have been to file regular election protest cases to ventilate the
veracity of the alleged election fraud and irregularities of the
election in the subject precincts with the consequent
determination and declaration of the real winners in the
elections.
027 ELLAN MARIE P. CIPRIANO, a minor represented by her
father ROLANDO CIPRIANO, (AND OTHER YOUTH OF THE
LAND AFFECTED AND SIMILARLY SITUATED) v COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, Election Officer LOPE GAYO, JR., 1st District,
Pasay City, SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY thru its Chairman
JOHNNY SANTIAGO of Barangay 38, Pasay City, GREG PAOLO
ALCERA in his capacity as SK Federation President of Pasay
City, EDNA TIBAR – a minor assisted by parents, KRISTAL GALE
BONGGO – a minor assisted by parents, SK Chairman RUEL
TAYAM DECENA of Barangay 142, Pasay City, THE PRESIDENT
OF THE PAMBANSANG KATIPUNAN NG MGA SANGGUNIANG
KABATAAN, and ALL SK OFFICERS AND YOUTH OF THE LAND
SIMILARLY SITUATED and THEIR AGENTS AND
REPRESENTATIVES, G.R. No. 158830, August 10, 2004, PUNO,
J.:
POINT OF THE CASE:
028 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v HON. HENRY B. BASILLA,
SALVACION COLAMBOT, SPOUSES JAIME AND ADORACION
TAYONG and MELCHOR YANSON, G.R. Nos. 83938-40,
November 6, 1989, FELICIANO, J.:
Point of the Case: The acts of COMELEC’s deputies within the
lawful scope of their delegated authority are, in legal
contemplation, the acts of the COMELEC itself.
PJC 2019-2020
 ARTICLE IX CASES DIGEST – C. COMMISSION ON ELECTION
Facts. After the May 1987 congressional elections in Masbate,
complaints for violations of Section 261 of the Omnibus
Election Code (BP Blg. 881)277 were filed with the Office of the
Provincial Fiscal of Masbate against the spouses Jaime and
Adoracion Tayong for violation of Section 261, paragraph a-1,
for vote-buying; against Salvacion Colambot for violation of
Section 261, paragraph a-1, also for vote buying; and against
Melchor Yanson for violation of Section 261, paragraph p, for
carrying of deadly weapon. After preliminary investigation of
the aforequoted complaints, the Provincial Fiscal of Masbate
filed the appropriate cases in the Regional Trial Court of
Masbate. However, accused-respondent Judge Henry Basilla
motu proprio dismissed the 3 information filed by the Provincial
Fiscal. Basilia argued that the complaints should have been filed
with the COMELEC not with the fiscal pursuant to 1987
Constitution, Art IX-C, Sec. 2(6). Moreover, the judge found that
the COMELEC did not investigate the cases.
Issue. Whether or not the three information be dismissed on
the basis of 1987 Constitution, Art IX-C, Sec. 2(6)?
Held. No. While Section 265 of the Omnibus Election Code
vests “exclusive power” to conduct preliminary investigation of
election offenses and to prosecute the same upon the Comelec,
it at the same time authorizes the Comelec to avail itself of the
assistance of other prosecuting arms of the Government.
Section 2 of Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution clearly
envisage that the Comelec would not be compelled to carry out
all its functions directly and by itself alone. Further, the
concurrence of the President with the deputation by Comelec
of the prosecuting arms of the Government, was expressed in
general terms and in advance in Executive Order No. 134.
Registration of Parties and Organization
029 LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO v THE
COMMISION ON ELECTIONS and AGAPITO A. AQUINO, G.R.
No. 161265, February 24, 2004, TINGA, J.:
POINT OF THE CASE: Electoral process envisions one candidate
from a political party for each position and disunity and discord
amongst members of a political party should not be allowed.
030 JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., MATIAS v DEFENSOR, JR., RODOLFO
G. VALENCIA, DANILO E. SUAREZ, SOLOMON R. CHUNGALAO,
SALVACION ZALDIVAR-PEREZ, HARLIN CAST-ABAYON,
MELVIN G. MACUSI and ELEAZAR P. QUINTO v COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS, MANUEL A. ROXAS II, FRANKLIN M. DRILON
and J.R. NEREUS O. ACOSTA, G.R. No. 188920, February 16,
2010, ABAD, J.:
POINT OF THE CASE:
031 LUISK. LOKIN, JR. and TERESITA F. PLANAS v
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), CITIZENS’ BATTLE
AGAINST CORRUPTION PARTY LIST represented by VIRGINIA
S. JOSE SHERWIN N. TUGNA, and CINCHONA CRUZ-
GONZALES, G.R. No. 193808, June 26, 2012, SERENO, J.:
Point of the case: COMELEC has jurisdiction over cases
pertaining to party leadership and the nomination of party- list
representatives. The present dispute stemmed from an intra-
corporate matter, their submissions even recognize the
COMELEC’s constitutional power to enforce and administer all
laws relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative,
referendum, and recall.
5
Facts: Respondent CIBAC party-list is a multi-sectoral party
registered under Republic Act No. (R.A.) 7941, otherwise known
as the Party-List System Act. On 20 November 2009, two
different entities, both purporting to represent CIBAC,
submitted to the COMELEC a “Manifestation of Intent to
Participate in the Party-List System of Representation in the
May 10, 2010 Elections.” The first Manifestation was signed by
a certain Pia B. Derla, who claimed to be the party’s acting
secretary-general. At 1:30 p.m. of the same day, another
Manifestation was submitted by herein respondents Cinchona
Cruz-Gonzales and Virginia Jose as the party’s vice president
and secretary-general, respectively.
On 26 March 2010, Pia Derla submitted a second
Certificate of Nomination,10 which included petitioners Luis
Lokin, Jr. and Teresita Planas as party-list nominees. Derla
affixed to the certification her signature as “acting secretary-
general” of CIBAC. Claiming that the nomination of petitioners
Lokin, Jr. and Planas was unauthorized, respondents filed with
the COMELEC a “Petition to Expunge From The Records And/Or
For Disqualification,” seeking to nullify the Certificate filed by
Derla. Respondents contended that Derla had misrepresented
herself as “acting secretary-general,” when she was not even a
member of CIBAC; that the Certificate of Nomination and other
documents she submitted were unauthorized by the party and
therefore invalid; and that it was Villanueva who was duly
authorized to file the Certificate of Nomination on its behalf.
On appeal Lokin then assailed that COMELEC has no
jurisdiction on the case Lokin filed a petition for mandamus to
compel respondent COMELEC to proclaim him as the official
second nominee of CIBAC. Likewise, he filed another petition
for certiorari assailing Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804
alleging that it expanded Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941 by allowing
CIBAC to change its nominees.
Issue: Whether or not the authority of Secretary of CIBAC to file
the part’s Certificate of Nomination is an intra-corporate
matter, exclusively cognizable by special commercial courts,
and over which the COMELEC has no jurisdiction
Ruling: Yes, the COMELEC has jurisdiction over cases pertaining
to party leadership and the nomination of party-list
representatives. The present dispute stemmed from an intra-
corporate matter, their submissions even recognize the
COMELEC’s constitutional power to enforce and administer all
laws relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative,
referendum, and recall. More specifically, as one of its
constitutional functions, the COMELEC is also tasked to register,
after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, or
coalitions which, in addition to other requirements, must
present their platform or program of government.” Section 2,
Article IX-C of the Constitution, include the ascertainment of
the identity of the political party and its legitimate officers
responsible for its acts. The Court also declared that the
COMELEC’s power to register political parties necessarily
involved the determination of the persons who must act on its
behalf. Thus, the COMELEC may resolve an intra-party
leadership dispute, in a proper case brought before it, as an
incident of its power to register political parties.
Prosecution of Election Offenses
032 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v HONORABLE ENRIQUE B.
INTING, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH
38, DUMAGUETE CITY, AND OIC MAYOR DOMINADOR S.
PJC 2019-2020
 ARTICLE IX CASES DIGEST – C. COMMISSION ON ELECTION 6

REGALADO, JR., G.R. No. 88919 July 25, ,1990, GUTIERREZ,

JR., J.:

Point of the case: The Constitution empowers the COMELEC to

conduct preliminary investigations in cases involving election
offenses for the purpose of helping the Judge determine
probable cause and for filing an information in court.

Facts. Mrs. Barba filed a letter-complaint against OIC-Mayor

Regalado of Tanjay, Negros Oriental with the COMELEC for
allegedly transferring her, a permanent Nursing Attendant,
Grade I, in the office of the Municipal Mayor to a very remote
barangay and without obtaining prior permission or clearance
from COMELEC as required by law. After a preliminary
investigation of Barba’s complaint, Atty. Lituanas found a prima
facie case. Hence, on September 26, 1988, he filed with the
respondent trial court a criminal case for violation of section
261, Par. (h), Omnibus Election Code against the OIC-Mayor. In
an Order dated September 30, 1988, the respondent court
issued a warrant of arrest against the accused OIC Mayor.
However, in an order dated October 3, 1988 and before the
accused could be arrested, the trial court set aside its
September 30, 1988 order on the ground that Atty. Lituanas is
not authorized to determine probable cause pursuant to
Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The trial court
later on quashed the information. Hence, this petition.

Issue. Whether or not a preliminary investigation conducted by

a Provincial Election Supervisor involving election offenses have
to be coursed through the Provincial Prosecutor, before the
Regional Trial Court may take cognizance of the investigation
and determine whether or not probable cause exists?

Held. No. The Constitution empowers the COMELEC to conduct

preliminary investigations in cases involving election offenses
for the purpose of helping the Judge determine probable cause
and for filing an information in court. This power is exclusive
with COMELEC. 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 will 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.
Bearing these principles in mind, it is apparent that the
respondent trial court misconstrued the constitutional
provision when it quashed the information filed by the
Provincial Election Supervisor.

066 LIBERAL PARTY v COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,

NACIONALISTA PARTY, represented by its President Manuel
B. Villar and NATIONALIST PEOPLE'S COALITION, allegedly
represented by its Chairman Faustino S. Dy, Jr., G.R. No.
191771, May 6, 2010, BRION, J.:

POINT OF THE CASE:

PJC 2019-2020