Election Law Case Digest Matrix 2

Election Law Case Digest Matrix Set 2 – Stef Macapagal

Article IX – Constitutional Commissions Section 7 Title Galido v. COMELEC GR No. 95346 18 January 1991  Padilla, J.

Facts Issue/s Perfe Perfect cto o Galid Galido o and and Satu Saturn rnin ino o W/N COMELEC’s decision may be Galeon Galeon were were both both candid candidates ates for  appealed. Mayor in the municipality of GarciaHernan Hernandez, dez, Bohol, Bohol, for in the 18 January 1988 elections. Galido was   procl proclaim aimed ed MayorMayor-ele elect ct by the Municipal Board of Canvassers.

Galeon Galeon filed filed an electi election on protes protestt   befor beforee the RTC of Bohol, Bohol, which upheld upheld Galido’s Galido’s proclamatio proclamation n who won won by a majo majori rity ty of 11 votes. votes. Galeon appealed to the COMELEC, which which revers reversed ed the decisio decision n and declared Galeon as the winner by a  plurality of 5 votes. The COMELEC held held that that 15 ballot ballotss in a precin precinct ct containing containing the initial initial “C” after the name “Galido” were marked ballots and are therefore invalid.

Salva v. Makalintal GR No. 132603 18 September 2000  Buena, J.

Galido filed a petition for certiorari and injunction with the SC but was dism dismis isse sed d due due to proc proced edur ural al infirmities. The MR was also denied with finality. Undaunted, Galido filed another another petition petition for certiorari certiorari and inju injunc ncti tion on and and a pray prayer er for for a restraining order which contains the same allegations as the previous case which which was dismis dismissed sed.. The court court issued the TRO. Galeon moved for  the dismissal of the case. Salva, et al, officials and residents of  W/N the trial court had jurisdiction to Bara Barang ngay ay San San Rafae Rafael, l, Cala Calaca, ca, enjo enjoin in the the COME COMELE LEC C from from Batangas filed a class suit against the implementing Resolution No. 2987. Sang Sanggu guni nian ang g Panl Panlal alaw awig igan an of  Batangas, Sangguniang Pambayan of  Calaca, Calaca, and the COMELE COMELEC C for  annulment of Ordinance No. 5 and Resolution No. 345, enacted by the Sang Sanggu guni nian ang g Panl Panlal alaw awig igan an of  Ba ta ta ng ngas, a nd nd COMELEC Resolution No. 2987.

Ruling YES. The fact that decisions, final orders, or rulings of the COMELEC in conte contest stss invo involv lvin ing g elec electi tive ve municipal municipal and barangay barangay offices are final, executory, and not appealable, does not preclude a recourse to the SC by way of a special civil action of  certiorari.

However, the Court finds no reason to overturn COMELEC’s decision. It did did not not comm commit it grav gravee abus abusee of  discret discretion ion amount amounting ing to lack lack or  exces excesss of juri jurisd sdic icti tion on when when it rendered the questioned decision.

Doctrine COMELEC COMELEC has exclusive exclusive original original  jurisdiction over all contests relating to the the elect electio ions ns,, retur returns ns,, and qualifications of all elective regional,  provincial, and city officials and has appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decide decided d by trial trial courts courts of genera generall   jurisdict jurisdiction ion or involving involving elective elective   barangay barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.

The function of a writ of certiorari is to keep an inferior court or tribunal within the bounds of its jurisdiction or to prevent prevent it from committing committing a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. COMELEC has the inherent power to decide an election contest on physical evidence, equity, law and justice, and apply established established jurispruden jurisprudence ce in s up up po po rt rt o f i ts ts f in ind in in gs gs a nd nd conclusions; the extent to which such   pre preced ceden ents ts appl apply y rest restss on its its discret discretion ion,, the exerci exercise se of which which should not be controlled unless such discret discretion ion has been been abused abused to the  prejudice of either party.

YES. Resolution Resolution No. 2987 which  provides for the rules and regulations governing the conduct of the required  plebiscite, was not issued pursuant to the COMELE COMELEC’s C’s quasiquasi-jud judici icial al functions but merely as an incident of  its inherent administrative functions over the conduct of plebiscites, thus, the the said said reso resolu luti tion on may may not not be deemed as a final order reviewable   by certior certiorari ari by this this Court. Court. Any

The power s ve st sted by the Consti Constitut tution ion and the law on the COMELEC may either be classified as those pertaining to its adjudicatory or quasi-judic quasi-judicial ial functions, functions, or those those which are inherently inherently administrat administrative ive and and some someti time mess mini minist steri erial al in character.

1

Election Law Case Digest Matrix Set 2 – Stef Macapagal

question pertaining to the validity of  said resolution resolution may well be taken in an ordinary civil action before the trial courts.

Ordi Ordina nanc ncee No. No. 5 decl declar ared ed the the abolition of Barangay San Rafael and its merger with Barangay Dacanlao, and and accor accordi ding ngly ly inst instru ruct cted ed the the COMELEC COMELEC to conduct conduct the required   plebi plebisci scite. te. Resolu Resolutio tion n No. 345 affirmed the effectivity of Ordinance   No. 5, overriding the veto exercised   by by the the Gove Govern rnor or of Bata Batang ngas. as. COMELEC Resolution No. 2987, on the other hand, provided for the rules and and regu regula lati tion onss gove govern rnin ing g the the conduct conduct of the required plebiscite plebiscite scheduled on 28 February 1998, to decide the issue of the abolition of  Barangay Barangay San Rafael and its merger  with Barangay Dacanlao.

Bernardo v. Abalos GR No. 137266 5 December 2001 Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.

The trial court denied the motion for  the the issu issuan ance ce of a TRO TRO and/ and/or  or    preliminary preliminary injunction injunction for lack of    jurisdict jurisdiction. ion. According to it, any  petition or action questioning an act, resol resolut utio ion, n, or deci decisi sion on of the the COMELEC must be brought before the SC. Anto Antoni nio o Bern Bernar ardo do,, et al file filed d a criminal complaint against Benjamin Abalos, Abalos, Sr. and Jr., and others others for  vote vote buying buying in violat violation ion of the Omni Omnibu buss Elect Electio ion n Code Code.. They They alleged that the Abaloses sponsored an outing outing for the public public school school teachers teachers who were also registered registered voters and members of the Board of  Election Inspectors in Mandaluyong City City,, seve several ral week weekss befo before re the the elections were to take place. Abalos Sr. also allegedly delivered a speech   promising promising the said teachers hazard   pay pay and and an incr increa ease se in thei their  r  allowances of a total of P3,000.00. The COMELEC issued a resolution resolution dism dismis issi sing ng the the comp compla lain intt for  for  insufficiency of evidence to establish a prima facie case. The petitioners petitioners then filed a petition petition for certiorari certiorari with the SC for the nullification of 

W/N petitioners’ petitioners’ failure to file the required required motion motion for reconsiderat reconsideration ion with the COMELEC is fatal to their  cause.

YES. Petitioners’ failure to file the required required motion motion for reconsiderat reconsideration ion utterly utterly disregarded disregarded the COMELEC COMELEC Rules intended to achieve an orderly,   just, just, expeditious expeditious and inexpensive inexpensive determ determina inatio tion n and dispos dispositi ition on of  every action and proceeding brought   before the Commissio Commission. n. A petition petition for certiorari can only be resorted to if there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Having failed to file file the the requ requir ired ed moti motion on for  reconsiderat reconsideration ion of the challenged challenged Resolu Resolutio tion, n, petiti petitione oners’ rs’ instan instantt   petiti petition on is certain certainly ly premat premature ure.. Significant Significantly, ly, they have not raised any plausible reason for their direct recourse to this Court.

A petition for certiorari can only be resorted to if there is no appeal, or  any plain, plain, speedy speedy,, and adequat adequatee remedy in the ordinary course of law.

2

Election Law Case Digest Matrix Set 2 – Stef Macapagal

the COMELEC’s Resolution, citing that it was issued with apparent grave abuse of discretion. The petition was filed filed withou withoutt first first submit submittin ting g a motion motion for reconsiderat reconsideration ion with the COMELEC.

c. The COMELEC

Sec. 2. Powers of the C OMELEC Carlos v. Angeles GR No. 142907 29 November 2000  Pardo, J.

Jose Jose Carlos Carlos and Antoni Antonio o Serapi Serapio o were candidates candidates for the position position of  mayo mayorr of the the muni munici cipa pali lity ty of  Valenzuela, Metro Manila during the 11 May 1998 elections.

W/N Judge Angeles committed grave abus abusee of disc discret retio ion n when when she she declared declared Serapio as the duly elected mayor of Valenzuela despite the fact that she found that Carlos obtained 17,007 17,007 valid votes higher than the valid votes of Serapio.

YES. The trial court committed grave Articl Articlee VIII, VIII, Sectio Section n 5(1) 5(1) of the abuse of discretion amounting to lack  Constitut Constitution: ion: “The Supreme Supreme Court or excess of jurisdiction in rendering shall have the following powers: (1) its decision proclaiming Serapio the Exercise Exercise original original jurisdicti jurisdiction on over  duly elected mayor of Valenzuela on cases affecting affecting ambassadors ambassadors,, other  the basis of its percepti perception on of the   public public ministers ministers and consuls, consuls, and On 21 May 1998, 1998, the Municipa Municipall voice of the people of Valenzuela, Valenzuela, over over peti petiti tion onss for for cert certio iora rari ri,, Board of Canvassers proclaimed Jose even without a majority majority or plurality plurality   pro prohi hibi biti tion on,, mand mandam amus us,, quo quo Carlos as the duly elected mayor of  vote votess cast cast in his his favo favor. r. In fact fact,, warranto, and habeas corpus.” Valenzu Valenzuela, ela, having having obtain obtained ed the without without a single single vote in his favor as highest number of votes. On 21 June the trial court discarded all the votes. An electi election on means means “the “the choice choice or  1998, Serapio filed with the RTC of  Thus, the decision is not supported selecti selection on of candid candidate atess to public public Vale Valenz nzue uela la an elec electi tion on prot protes estt  by the highest number of valid votes office by popular vote” through the challenging challenging the results. Due to the cast in his favor. This violated the use of the ballot, ballot, and the elective elective inhibition of all the RTC judges in righ rightt to due due proc proces esss of law law of  offici officials als of which which are determ determine ined d Valenzuela, the case was assigned to  petitioner who was not heard on the through the will of the electorate. the RTC of Caloocan, presided presided by issue of failure of election, an issue Judge Angeles. that that was not raised raised by Serapi Serapio. o. A An election is the embodiment of the decisio decision n is void for lack lack of due   popular popular will, the expression expression of the Carlos Carlos filed filed a motion motion to dismis dismiss, s,   proces processs if, as a result, result, a party party is sovereign power of the people. whic which h was denie denied. d. Carl Carlos os then then deprived of the opportunity of being elevated the order to the COMELEC heard. Elect Electio ion, n, in the the cont contex extt of the the on peti petiti tion on for for certi certior orari ari and Cons Consti titu tuti tion on,, may may refe referr to the the   pro prohi hibi biti tion on,, whic which h rema remain inss W/N W/N the the Supr Suprem emee Cour Courtt has has YES. The Supreme Court is vested conduct conduct of the polls, including including the unresolved.  jurisdiction to review, by petition for  with original jurisdiction jurisdiction to issue issue listing of voters, the holding of the certiorari, the decision of the RTC in writs of certiorari, certiorari, prohibition prohibition and electoral electoral campaign, campaign, and the casting The trial court, in its decision, decision, set an election protest case involving an mandamus against the decision of the and counting of votes. The winner is aside the final tally of valid votes elec electi tive ve muni munici cipa pall offi offici cial al RTC in the election protest before it, the candidat candidatee who has obtain obtained ed a  because of the finding of “significant considering that it has no appellate regardless of whether it has appellate majority majority or plurality plurality of valid votes   badges badges of fraud.” fraud.” It then declared  jurisdiction over such decision.   juris jurisdic dictio tion n over over such such decisi decision, on, cast in the election. that that there there was enough enough patter pattern n of  according according to Article VIII, Section fraud in the conduct of the election 5(1) 5(1) of the the 1987 1987 Cons Consti titu tuti tion on.. In case case of protest, protest, a revisi revision on or  for mayor in Valenzuela, and stated Relative Relative to the appeal that Carlos Carlos recoun recountt of the ballots ballots cast cast for the that the said fraud was attributable to filed with the COMELEC, the same candid candidate atess decide decidess the electi election on Carlos Carlos who had control control over over the would not bar the present action as  protest case. The candidate receiving election election paraphernali paraphernaliaa and the basic an except exception ion to the rule becaus becausee the highest number or plurality plurality of 

3

Election Law Case Digest Matrix Set 2 – Stef Macapagal

services services in the community community such as the supply of electricity. It then went on to rule that the perpetuation perpetuation of  fraud had undoubtedl undoubtedly y suppressed suppressed the true will of the the electo electorat ratee of  Valenzuela and substituted it with the will of Carlos. Carlos. Notwithst Notwithstanding anding the  plurality of votes in favor of Carlos, th e t ri ri al al c ou ou rt rt s et et a si sid e h is is  proclamation by the Municipal Board of Canvassers and declared Serapio as the the duly duly elec electe ted d mayo mayorr of  Valenzuela. Carlos filed a notice of  appeal from the decision of the trial court to the COMELEC, then filed a  petition with the SC for certiorari and   prohibitio prohibition, n, seeking seeking to annul the decision of the RTC.

under under the circum circumsta stance nces, s, appeal appeal would not be a speedy and adequate adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The exception is sparingly allowed in situ situat atio ions ns where where the the abus abusee of  discret discretion ion is not only grave grave and whimsi whimsical cal but also also palpab palpable le and   patent patent,, and the invali invalidit dity y of the assailed act is shown on its face.

votes shall be proclaimed the winner. Even if the candidate receiving receiving the majo majori rity ty vote votess is inel inelig igib ible le or  disqualified, the candidate receiving the next highest number of votes or  the second placer, cannot be declared elected. A defeat defeated ed candida candidate te cannot cannot be deemed elected elected to the office. The right right to hold hold an electi elective ve office office is rooted rooted on electo electoral ral mandat mandate, e, not  perceived entitlement to the office. To declare a failure failure of election, election, two conditions must first occur: first, no voti voting ng has has take taken n plac placee in the the  precincts concerned on the date fixed  by law or, even if there were voting, the election nevertheless resulted in a failure to elect; and second, the votes not cast would affect the results of  the election. Obiter: The sea of suspicion has no shore, and the court that embarks upon it is without rudder or compass.

Sec. 3. En Banc Sessions Sarmiento v. COMELEC GR Nos. 105628, 105628, 105725, 105727, 105730, 105730, 105771, 105771, 105778, 105778, 105797, 105797, 105919, & 105977 6 August 1992  Davide, Jr., J.

COMELEC COMELEC resolved a number number of  cases en banc regarding the appeals for inclusion and exclusion of certain election election returns returns and certificates certificates of  canvass, as well as the composition of a Municipal Board of Canvassers. Petitioner Petitionerss aver that the resolution resolutionss were were issued issued with grave grave abuse abuse of  discretion discretion because the COMELEC COMELEC took cognizance of and decided the appeals appeals without without first referring them to any of its Divisions.

W/N the COMELEC COMELEC should have heard the appeals en banc.

  NO. NO. Electi Election on cases cases includ includee prepre- Section 3, Subdivision C, Article IX  proclamati  proclamation on controversi controversies, es, and all of the 1987 Constitution: such cases must first be heard by and “The Commission on Elections may deci decide ded d by a Divi Divisi sion on of the the sit en banc or in two Divisions, Divisions, and Commi Commissi ssion. on. The Commis Commissio sion, n, shal shalll prom promul ulga gate te its its rule ruless of  sitting en banc, banc, does does not have the   pro proced cedur uree in orde orderr to expe expedi dite te authority to hear and decide the same disp dispos osit itio ion n of elect electio ion n case cases, s, at first instance. In the COMELEC incl includ udin ing g prepre-pr proc ocla lama mati tion on Rules of Procedure, pre-proclamation controversies. All such election cases cases are classified as Special Cases shal shalll be hear heard d and and deci decide ded d in and, and, in comp compli lian ance ce with with the the division, division, provided that motions for  Constitution, the 2 Divisions of the reconsideration of decisions shall be Commi Commissi ssion on are vested vested with with the decided by the Commission en banc. banc. authority authority to hear and decide decide these Special Cases. Indisputabl Indisputably, y, then, the COMELEC COMELEC

4

Election Law Case Digest Matrix Set 2 – Stef Macapagal

Canicosa v. COMELEC GR No. 120318 5 December 1997  Bellosillo, J.

Ricar Ricardo do “Boy “Boy”” Cani Canico cosa sa and and Severino Lajara were candidates for  Mayor in Calamba, Calamba, Laguna during during the 8 May 1995 elections. Lajara was  proclaimed winner by the Municipal Board of Canvassers. On 15 May Canicosa filed with the COMELE COMELEC C a Petiti Petition on to Declare Declare Failure Failure of Election Election and to Declare   Null Null and Void the Canvass Canvass and Proclam Proclamati ation on becaus becausee of allege alleged d widespread widespread frauds and anomalies. anomalies. However, However, the COMELEC COMELEC en banc dismissed the petition on the ground that the allegation allegationss therein therein did not   justi justify fy a declar declarati ation on of failure failure of  election.

W/N a COMELEC division should have first heard the petition petition before deciding on it en banc on a motion for reconsideration.

en banc acted without jurisdiction, or  with grave abuse of discretion, when it resolved the appeals of petitioners in the Special Special Cases without without first referring them to any of its Divisions. Said resolutions resolutions are, therefore, therefore, null and void and must must be set aside. aside. Howeve However, r, Sectio Section n 16 of RA 7166 7166   provides provides that all pre-proclam pre-proclamation ation cases cases pendin pending g before before it shall shall be deemed terminated at the beginning of the term of the office involved. involved. Since the terms of office involved in the Special Special Cases subject subject of the  petitions  petitions have already already commenced, commenced, these cases have been rendered moot and academic, and must be dismissed withou withoutt prejud prejudice ice to the filing filing of    pet petit itio ione ners rs of regu regula larr elect electio ion n  protests.   NO. Section 3, Article IX-C applies There are only three instances where only when the COMELEC acts in the a failure of election may be declared: exercise of its adjudicatory or quasinamely:   judicial judicial functions functions and not when it (a) The election in any merely e xe xe rc rcises pur el ely  polling place has not been administrative functions. Moreover, held on the date fixed on it is expressly provided in Rule 27, account account of force majeure, majeure, Section 7 of the COMELEC Rules of  violence, terrorism, fraud, Procedure that any party dissatisfied or other analogous causes; with with the the ruli ruling ng of the the board board of  (b) The elec tition in any canvass canvassers ers shall have have a right right to   polli polling ng place place has been been appeal to the COMELEC COMELEC en banc. suspended before the hour  Questions Questions as to whether whether elections elections fixe fixed d by law law for for the the have been held or whether certain closing closing of the the voting voting on r et eturns were fa ls lsified or   account account of force majeure, majeure, manufactured manufactured and therefore therefore should should violence, terrorism, fraud,  be excluded from the canvass do not or other analogous causes; invo involv lvee the the righ rightt to vote vote.. Such Such or  questions questions are properly within the (c ) Af te te r the voting and admin adminis istr trat ativ ivee juri jurisd sdic icti tion on of  during the preparation and COMELE COMELEC, C, hence, hence, may be acted acted tran transm smis issi sion on of the the upon directly by the COMELEC en election returns or in the banc without having to pass through c us ust od ody or c an anv as ass any of its divisions. thereo thereof, f, such such electi election on results in a failure to elect on acco accoun untt of forc forcee ma je je ur ur e, e, v io io le le nc nc e, e, terrorism, fraud, or other  analogous causes.

5

Election Law Case Digest Matrix Set 2 – Stef Macapagal

The The ques questi tion on of incl inclus usio ion n or  exclus exclusion ion from the list list of voters voters involves the right to vote which is not within within the power and authority authority of  COME COMELE LEC C to rule rule upon upon.. The The determination of whether one has the right to vote is a justiciabl justiciablee issue   properly properly cognizable cognizable by our regular  courts. It is only in the the exerc exercis isee of its its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers that the COMELEC is mandated to hear hear and and deci decide de cases cases firs firstt by Division and then, upon motion for  reconsiderati reconsideration, on, by the COMELEC COMELEC en banc banc.. This is when it is  jurisdictional. The COMELEC exercises direct and immediate immediate supervisio supervision n and control control over national national and local officials or  employees, employees, including members of  any national or local law enforcement agency and instrument instrumentality ality of the gove govern rnme ment nt requi required red by law law to  perform duties relative to the conduct of electi elections ons.. Its power to direct direct supervision and control includes the  power to review, modify, or set aside any act of such national national and local offici officials als.. It exerci exercises ses immedi immediate ate supervision over the members of the   boards boards of election election inspectors inspectors and canvassers. canvassers. Its statutory statutory power of  supervision and control includes the  power to revise, reverse, or set aside the action of the boards, as well as to do what the boards should have done, even even if questi questions ons relati relative ve thereto thereto have not been elevated to it by an aggriev aggrieved ed party, party, for such such power  power  includes the authority to initiate motu  proprio or by itself itself such steps or  actions actions as may be required required pursuant to law.

6