1. Cayetano vs.

Monsod 201 SCRA 210 September 1991 Facts: Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of hairman of the C!M"#"C. Petitioner opposed the nomination be ause a$$e%ed$y Monsod does not posses required qua$ifi ation of ha&in% been en%a%ed in the pra ti e of $aw for at $east ten years. 'he 19() onstitution pro&ides in Se tion 1* Arti $e +,-C. 'here sha$$ be a Commission on "$e tions omposed of a Chairman and si/ Commissioners who sha$$ be natura$-born itizens of the Phi$ippines and* at the time of their appointment* at $east thirty-fi&e years of a%e* ho$ders of a o$$e%e de%ree* and must not ha&e been andidates for any e$e ti&e position in the immediate$y pre edin% e$e tions. 0owe&er* a ma1ority thereof* in $udin% the Chairman* sha$$ be members of the Phi$ippine 2ar who ha&e been en%a%ed in the pra ti e of $aw for at $east ten years. Issue: 3hether the respondent does not posses the required qua$ifi ation of ha&in% en%a%ed in the pra ti e of $aw for at $east ten years. Held: +n the ase of Phi$ippine #awyers Asso iation &s. A%ra&a* stated. 'he pra ti e of $aw is not $imited to the ondu t of ases or $iti%ation in ourt4 it embra es the preparation of p$eadin%s and other papers in ident to a tions and spe ia$ pro eedin%* the mana%ement of su h a tions and pro eedin%s on beha$f of $ients before 1ud%es and ourts* and in addition* on&eyin%. +n %enera$* a$$ ad&i e to $ients* and a$$ a tion ta5en for them in matters onne ted with the $aw in orporation ser&i es* assessment and ondemnation ser&i es* ontemp$atin% an appearan e before 1udi ia$ body* the fore $osure of mort%a%e* enfor ement of a reditor6s $aim in ban5rupt y and inso$&en y pro eedin%s* and ondu tin% pro eedin%s in atta hment* and in matters of estate and %uardianship ha&e been he$d to onstitute $aw pra ti e. Pra ti e of $aw means any a ti&ity* in or out ourt* whi h requires the app$i ation of $aw* $e%a$ pro edure* 5now$ed%e* trainin% and e/perien e. 'he ontention that Atty. Monsod does not posses the required qua$ifi ation of ha&in% en%a%ed in the pra ti e of $aw for at $east ten years is in orre t sin e Atty. Monsod6s past wor5 e/perien e as a $awyer-e onomist* a $awyer-mana%er* a $awyer-entrepreneur of industry* a $awyer-ne%otiator of ontra ts* and a $awyer-$e%is$ator of both ri h and the poor 7 &eri$y more than satisfy the onstitutiona$ requirement for the position of C!M"#"C hairman* 'he respondent has been en%a%ed in the pra ti e of $aw for at $east ten years does +n the &iew of the fore%oin%* the petition is 8+SM+SS"8. 2. BRILLANTES vs. Y RAC 192 SCRA 9:(* 1990 Facts: 'he President desi%nated Asso iate Commissioner ;ora as A tin% Chairman of the Commission on "$e tions* in p$a e of Chairman 0i$ario 2. 8a&ide* who had been named hairman of the fa t-findin% ommission to in&esti%ate the 8e ember 19(9 oup d6 etat attempt. 2ri$$antes ha$$en%ed the a t of the President as ontrary to the onstitutiona$ pro&ision that ensures the independen e the Commission on "$e tions as an independent onstitutiona$ body and the spe ifi pro&ision that <=+>n no ase sha$$ any Member =of the Commission on "$e tions> be appointed or desi%nated in a temporary or a tin% apa ity.? 2ri$$antes ontends that the hoi e of the A tin% Chairman of the Commission on "$e tions is an interna$ matter that shou$d be reso$&ed by the members themse$&es and that the intrusion of the President of the Phi$ippines &io$ates their independen e. 'he So$i itor @enera$ the desi%nation made by the President of the Phi$ippines shou$d therefore be sustained for reasons of <administrati&e e/pedien y*? to pre&ent disruption of the fun tions of the C!M"#"C. Issue: 3hether or not the President may desi%nate the A tin% Chairman of the C!M"#"C in the absen e of the re%u$ar Chairman.

Held: A!. 'he Constitution e/press$y des ribes a$$ the Constitutiona$Commissions as <independent.? 'hey are not under the ontro$ of the President of the Phi$ippines in the dis har%e of their respe ti&e fun tions. "a h of these Commissions ondu ts its own pro eedin%s under the app$i ab$e $aws and its own ru$es and in the e/er ise of its own dis retion. +ts de isions* orders and ru$in%s are sub1e t on$y to re&iew on ertiorari by this Court as pro&ided by the Constitution. 'he hoi e of a temporary hairman in the absen e of the re%u$ar hairman omes under that dis retion. 'hat dis retion annot be e/er ised for it* e&en with its onsent* by the President of the Phi$ippines. 'he $a 5 of a statutory ru$e o&erin% the situation at bar is no 1ustifi ation for the President of the Phi$ippines to fi$$ the &oid by e/tendin% the temporary desi%nation in fa&or of the respondent. 'he situation ou$d ha&e been hand$ed by the members of the Commission on "$e tions themse$&es without the parti ipation of the President* howe&er we$$-meanin%. +n the hoi e of the A tin% Chairman* the members of the Commission on "$e tions wou$d most $i5e$y ha&e been %uided by the seniority ru$e as they themse$&es wou$d ha&e appre iated it. +n any e&ent* that hoi e and the basis thereof were for them and not the President to ma5e. !. "n#ted $e%oc&at#c ''os#t#on vs Co%%#ss#on on Elect#ons Equal Protection Access to Media +n 19(1* the 2P proposed amendments to the 19)9 Constitution. 'he amendments were to be p$a ed to a p$ebis ite for the peop$e6s appro&a$. 'he ;"S &ote was bein% ad&an ed by B2# 7 Mar os6 Party. 3hi$e the A! &ote was bein% ad&an ed by CA+8!. 'o ensure parity and equa$ity* C!M"#"C issued Reso$utions 1DE)-1DE9 wF basi a$$y pro&ided that there be equa$ opportunity* equa$ time and equa$ spa e on media use for ampai%ns for both sides. !n 12 Mar 19(1* Mar os ampai%ned for the ;"S &ote &ia 'G and radio from 9.90pm to 11.90pm. 'he same was broad asted $i&e by 2E 'G stations and 2D( radio stations nationwide. CA+8! petitioned before the C!M"#"C that they be %ranted the same opportunity as Mar os has pursuant to Res6ns 1DE)-E9. C!M"#"C denied the demand. CA+8! assai$ed the denia$ as a denia$ of equa$ prote tion before the $aws. ISS"E: 3hether or not CA+8! was denied equa$ prote tion by &irtue of C!M"#"C6s denia$ of their request. HEL$: 'he SC ru$ed that CA+8! was not denied due pro ess nor were they not afforded equa$ prote tion. +t is the onsidered &iew of the SC that when Mar os ondu ted his Hpu$on%-pu$on%6 or onsu$tation with the peop$e on Mar h 12* 19(1* he did so in his apa ity as PresidentFPrime Minister of the Phi$ippines and not as the head of any po$iti a$ party. Cnder the Constitution* the HPrime Minister and the Cabinet sha$$ be responsib$e . . . for the pro%ram of %o&ernment and sha$$ determine the %uide$ines of nationa$ po$i y6. +n instan es where the head of state is at the same time the president of the po$iti a$ party that is in power* it does not ne essari$y fo$$ow that he spea5s with two &oi es when he dia$o%ues with the %o&erned. 'he president is a orded ertain pri&i$e%es that the opposition may not ha&e. Iurther* the SC annot ompe$ 'G stations and radio stations to %i&e CA+8! free air time as they are not party to this ase. CA+8! must sou%ht ontra t with these 'G stations and radio stations at their own e/pense. (. SANI$A$ vs. C MELEC 1)1 SCRA *2+ Facts. !n 29 ! tober 19(9* RA E)EE =A t pro&idin% for an or%ani a t for the Cordi$$era Autonomous Re%ion> was ena ted into $aw. 'he p$ebis ite was s hedu$ed 90 January 1990. 'he Come$e * by &irtue of the power &ested by the 19() Constitution* the !mnibus "$e tion Code =2P ((1>* RA E)EE and other pertinent e$e tion $aws* promu$%ated Reso$ution 21E)* to %o&ern the ondu t of the p$ebis ite on the said !r%ani A t for the Cordi$$era Autonomous Re%ion. Pab$ito G. Sanidad* a newspaper o$umnist of <!&er&iew? for the <2a%uio Mid$and
2

Courier? assai$ed the onstitutiona$ity of Se tion 19 =Prohibition on o$umnists* ommentators or announ ers> of the said reso$ution* whi h pro&ides <8urin% the p$ebis ite ampai%n period* on the day before and on p$ebis ite day* no mass media o$umnist* ommentator* announ er or persona$ity sha$$ use his o$umn or radio or te$e&ision time to ampai%n for or a%ainst the p$ebis ite issues.? Issue: 3hether o$umnists are prohibited from e/pressin% their opinions* or shou$d be under Come$e re%u$ation* durin% p$ebis ite periods. Held: Arti $e +,-C of the 19() Constitution that what was %ranted to the Come$e was the power to super&ise and re%u$ate the use and en1oyment of fran hises* permits or other %rants issued for the operation of transportation or other pub$i uti$ities* media of ommuni ation or information to the end that equa$ opportunity* time and spa e* and the ri%ht to rep$y* in $udin% reasonab$e* equa$ rates therefor* for pub$i information ampai%ns and forums amon% andidates are ensured. Aeither Arti $e +,-C of the Constitution nor Se tion 11-b* 2nd para%raph of RA EEDE =<a o$umnist* ommentator* announ er or persona$ity* who is a andidate for any e$e ti&e offi e is required to ta5e a $ea&e of absen e from his wor5 durin% the ampai%n period?> an be onstrued to mean that the Come$e has a$so been %ranted the ri%ht to super&ise and re%u$ate the e/er ise by media pra titioners themse$&es of their ri%ht to e/pression durin% p$ebis ite periods. Media pra titioners e/er isin% their freedom of e/pression durin% p$ebis ite periods are neither the fran hise ho$ders nor the andidates. +n fa t* there are no andidates in&o$&ed in a p$ebis ite. 'herefore* Se tion 19 of Come$e Reso$ution 21E) has no statutory basis. *. La,at#n vs C MELEC on -anua&y 22. 2/12 Political law HRETs Jurisdiction over Electoral Protests #azatin fi$ed the instant petition assai$in% the 1urisdi tion of the C!M"#"C to annu$ his pro $amation after he had ta5en his oath of offi e* assumed offi e* and dis har%ed the duties of Con%ressman of the 1st 8istri t of Pampan%a. #azatin $aims that the 0ouse of Representati&es "$e tora$ 'ribuna$ and not the C!M"#"C is the so$e 1ud%e of a$$ e$e tion ontests. 2uan* Jr.* and 'imbo$ =#azatin6s opposition>* a$$e%ed that the instant petition has be ome moot and a ademi be ause the assai$ed C!M"#"C Reso$ution had a$ready be ome fina$ and e/e utory when the SC issued a 'R! on ! tober E* 19(). +n the C!MM"A' of the So$-@en* he a$$e%es that the instant petition shou$d be %i&en due ourse be ause the pro $amation was &a$id. 'he 'e$e/ !rder issued by the C!M"#"C dire tin% the an&assin% board to pro $aim the winner if warranted under Se tion 2D: of the !mnibus "$e tion Code*? was in effe t a %rant of authority by the C!M"#"C to the an&assin% board* to pro $aim the winner. A Separate Comment was fi$ed by the C!M"#"C* a$$e%in% that the pro $amation of #azatin was i$$e%a$ and &oid be ause the board simp$y orre ted the returns ontested by #azatin without waitin% for the fina$ reso$utions of the petitions of andidates 'imbo$* 2uan* Jr.* and #azatin himse$f* a%ainst ertain e$e tion returns. ISS"E: 3hether or not the issue shou$d be p$a ed under the 0R"'6s 1urisdi tion. HEL$: 'he SC in a Reso$ution dated Ao&ember 1)* 19() reso$&ed to %i&e due ourse to the petition. 'he petition is impressed with merit be ause petitioner has been pro $aimed winner of the Con%ressiona$ e$e tions in the first distri t of Pampan%a* has ta5en his oath of offi e as su h* and assumed his duties as Con%ressman. Ior this Court to ta5e o%nizan e of the e$e tora$ protest a%ainst him wou$d be to usurp the fun tions of the 0ouse "$e tora$ 'ribuna$. 'he a$$e%ed in&a$idity of the pro $amation =whi h had been pre&ious$y ordered by the C!M"#"C itse$f> despite a$$e%ed irre%u$arities in onne tion therewith* and despite the penden y of the protests of the ri&a$ andidates* is a matter that is a$so addressed* onsiderin% the premises* to the sound 1ud%ment of the "$e tora$ 'ribuna$.

0. -A1IER vs. C MELEC Facts: 'he petitioner and the pri&ate respondent were andidates in Antique for the 2atasan% Pambansa in the May 19(D e$e tions. 'he former appeared to en1oy more popu$ar support but the $atter had the ad&anta%e of bein% the nominee of the B2# with a$$ its perquisites of power. !n thee&e of the e$e tions* the bitter ontest between the two ame to a head when se&era$ fo$$owers of the petitioner were ambushed and 5i$$ed* a$$e%ed$y by the $atter6s men. Se&en suspe ts* in $udin% respondent Pa ifi ador* are now fa in% tria$ for these murders. Con ei&ab$y* it intimidated &oters a%ainst supportin% the !pposition andidate or into supportin% the andidate of the ru$in% party. +t was in this atmosphere that the &otin% was he$d* and the post-e$e tion de&e$opments were to run true to form. !win% to what he $aimed were attempts to rai$road the pri&ate respondent6s pro $amation* the petitioner went to the Come$e to question the an&ass of the e$e tion returns. 0is omp$aints were dismissed and the pri&ate respondent was pro $aimed winner by the Se ond 8i&ision of the said body. 'he petitioner thereupon ame to this Court* ar%uin% that the pro $amation was &oid be ause made on$y by a di&ision and not by the Come$e en ban as required by the Constitution. Issue: 3hether or not the Se ond 8i&ision of the Come$e authorized to promu$%ate its de ision of Ju$y 29* 19(D* pro $aimin% the pri&ate respondent the winner in the e$e tion. Held: Arti $e ,++-C* Se tion 9* of the 19)9 Constitution pro&ides that. <'he C!M"#"C may sit en ban or in three di&isions. A$$ e$e tion ases may be heard and de ided by di&isions e/ ept ontests in&o$&in% members of the 2atasan% Pambansa* whi h sha$$ be heard and de ided en ban .? 2. FL RES vs. C MELEC 1)( SCRA ()( Facts: Petitioner Roque I$ores was de $ared by the board of an&assers as ha&in% the hi%hest number of &otes for 5a%awad on the Mar h 19(9 e$e tions* in 2aran%ay Pob$a ion* 'ayum* Abra* and thus pro $aimed punon% baran%ay in a ordan e with Se tion : of R.A. EE)9. 0owe&er* his e$e tion was protested by pri&ate respondent Rapisora* who p$a ed se ond in the e$e tion with one &ote $ess than the petitioner. 'he Muni ipa$ Cir uit'ria$ Court of 'ayum sustained Rapisora and insta$$ed him as punon% baran%ay in p$a e of the petitioner after dedu tin% two &otes as stray from the $atter6s tota$. I$ores appea$ed to the R'C* whi h affirmed the ha$$en%ed de ision in toto. 'he 1ud%e a%reed that the four &otes ast for <I$ores? on$y* without any distin%uishin% first name or initia$* shou$d a$$ ha&e been onsidered in&a$id instead of bein% di&ided equa$$y between the petitioner and Anasta io I$ores* another andidate for 5a%awad. 'he tota$ redited to the petitioner was orre t$y redu ed by 2* demotin% him to se ond p$a e. 'he petitioner went to the C!M"#"C* whi h dismissed his appea$ on the %round that it had no power to re&iew the de ision of the R'C* based onSe tion 9 of R.A. EE)9* that de isions of the R'C in a protest appea$ed to it from the muni ipa$ tria$ ourt in baran%ay e$e tions <on questions of fa t sha$$ be fina$ and non-appea$ab$e?. +n his petition for ertiorari* the C!M"#"C is fau$ted for not ta5in% o%nizan e of the petitioners appea$. Issue: 3hether or not the de isions of Muni ipa$ or Metropo$itan Courts in baran%ay e$e tion ontests are sub1e t to the e/ $usi&e appe$$ate 1urisdi tion of the C!M"#"C onsiderin% Se tion 9 of R.A. Ao. EE)9K Held: 'he dismissa$ of the appea$ is 1ustified* but on an entire$y different and more si%nifi ant %round* to wit* Arti $e +,-C* Se tion 2=2> of the Constitution* pro&idin% that the C!M"#"C
4

sha$$ <"/er ise e/ $usi&e ori%ina$1urisdi tion o&er a$$ ontests re$atin% to the e$e tions* returns and qua$ifi ations of a$$ e$e ti&e re%iona$* pro&in ia$* and ity offi ia$s* and appe$$ate 1urisdi tion o&er a$$ ontests in&o$&in% e$e ti&e muni ipa$ offi ia$s de ided by tria$ ourts of %enera$ 1urisdi tion* or in&o$&in% e$e ti&e baran%ay offi ia$s de ided by tria$ ourts of $imited 1urisdi tion?. Muni ipa$ orMetropo$itan Courts bein% ourts of $imited 1urisdi tion* their de isions in baran%ay e$e tion ontests are sub1e t to the e/ $usi&e appe$$ate 1urisdi tion of the C!M"#"C under the afore-quoted se tion. 0en e* the de ision rendered by the Muni ipa$ Cir uit 'ria$ Court* shou$d ha&e been appea$ed dire t$y to the C!M"#"C and not to the R'C. A ordin%$y*Se tion 9 of Rep. A t Ao. EE)9* insofar as it pro&ides that the de ision of the muni ipa$ or metropo$itan ourt in a baran%ay e$e tion ase shou$d be appea$ed to the R'C* must be de $ared un onstitutiona$. ). 3ALI$ vs. C MELEC 1+! SCRA 2) Facts: Petitioner @a$ido and pri&ate respondent @a$eon were andidates durin% the January 19(( $o a$ e$e tions for mayor of @ar ia-0ernandez* 2oho$. Petitioner was pro $aimed the du$y-e$e ted Mayor. Pri&ate respondent fi$ed an e$e tion protest before the R'C. After hearin%* the said ourt uphe$d the pro $amation of petitioner. Pri&ate respondent appea$ed the R'C de ision to the C!M"#"C. +ts Iirst 8i&ision re&ersed the R'C de ision and de $ared pri&ate respondent the du$y-e$e ted mayor. After the C!M"#"C en ban denied the petitioner6s motion for re onsideration and affirmed the de ision of its Iirst 8i&ision. 'he C!M"#"C he$d that the fifteen =1:> ba$$ots in the same pre in t ontainin% the initia$ <C? after the name <@a$ido? were mar5ed ba$$ots and* therefore* in&a$id. Cndaunted by his pre&ious fai$ed a tions the petitioner fi$ed the presentpetition for ertiorari and in1un tion before the Supreme Court and su eeded in %ettin% a temporary restrainin% order. +n his omment to thepetition* pri&ate respondent mo&ed for dismissa$* itin% Arti $e +, =C>* Se tion 2=2>* para%raph 2 of the 19() Constitution* that <Iina$ de isions* orders or ru$in%s of the C!M"#"C in e$e tion ontests in&o$&in% e$e ti&e muni ipa$ offi es are fina$ and e/e utory* and not appea$ab$e. Issue: 3hether or not a C!M"#"C de ision may* if it sets aside the tria$ ourt6s de ision in&o$&in% mar5ed ba$$ots* be brou%ht to the Supreme Court by a petition for ertiorari by the a%%rie&ed partyK Held: 'he fa t that de isions* fina$ orders or ru$in%s of the C!M"#"C in ontests in&o$&in% e$e ti&e muni ipa$ and baran%ay offi es are fina$* e/e utory and not appea$ab$e* does not pre $ude a re ourse to this Court by way of a spe ia$ i&i$ a tion of ertiorari. Cnder Arti $e +, =A>* Se tion ) of the Constitution* whi h petitioner ites* it is stated* <Cn$ess otherwise pro&ided by this Constitution or by $aw* any de ision* order* or ru$in% of ea h =Constitutiona$> Commission may be brou%ht to the Supreme Court on ertiorari by the a%%rie&ed party within thirty days from re eipt thereof.? 3e reso$&e this issue in fa&or of the petitioner. <3e do not* howe&er* be$ie&e that the respondent C!M"#"C ommitted %ra&e abuse of dis retion amountin% to $a 5 or e/ ess of 1urisdi tion in renderin% the questioned de ision. 'he C!M"#"C has the inherent power to de ide an e$e tion ontest on physi a$ e&iden e* equity* $aw and 1usti e* and app$y estab$ished1urispruden e* in support of its findin%s and on $usions4 and that the e/tent to whi h su h pre edents app$y rests on its dis retion* the e/er ise of whi h shou$d not be ontro$$ed un$ess su h dis retion has been abused to the pre1udi e of either party. ACC!R8+A@#;* the petition is 8+M+SSS"8. +. 3"E1ARA 1S. C MELEC 'he fa ts whi h %a&e rise to the present ontemptuous in ident are. 'he Commission on "$e tions* on May D* 19:)* after proper ne%otiations* awarded to the Aationa$ Shipyards L Stee$ Corporation =AASSC!>* the A me Stee$ Mf%. Co.* +n . =ACM">* and the Asiati Stee$
5

Mf%. Co.* +n . =AS+A'+C>* the ontra ts to manufa ture and supp$y the Commission 12*000* 11*000 and 11*000 ba$$ot bo/es at P1).ED* P1D.00 and P1).00 ea h* respe ti&e$y. !n May (* 19:)* both the AASSC! and the AS+A'+C si%ned with the Commission on "$e tions the orrespondin% ontra ts thereon. !n May 19* 19:)* the Commission an e$$ed the award to the ACM" for fai$ure of the $atter to si%n the ontra t within the desi%nated time and awarded to the AASSC! and the AS+A'+C* one-ha$f ea h* the 11*000 ba$$ot bo/es ori%ina$$y a$$oted to the ACM". 'he orrespondin% ontra ts thereon were si%ned on May 1E* 19:).'hen fo$$owed a series of petitions fi$ed by the ACM" for the re onsideration of the reso$ution of the Commission of May 19* 19:). 'he first of these petitions was fi$ed on May 1D* 19:) whi h* after hearin%* was denied by the Commission in its reso$ution of May 1E* 19:). 'he se ond petition was fi$ed on May 1E* 19:) and was denied on May 1)* 19:). 'he third petition was fi$ed on May 20* 19:)* and be ause of the seriousness of the %rounds a$$e%ed therein for the annu$ment of its pre&ious reso$utions* the Commission reso$&ed to ondu t a forma$ in&esti%ation on the matter orderin% the AASSC! and the AS+A'+C to fi$e their respe ti&e answers. 'hereafter* after these orporations had fi$ed their answers* the Commission he$d a forma$ hearin% thereon on May 2D* 19:). !n May 2(* 19:)* the ACM" fi$ed a memorandum on the points addu ed durin% the hearin%* and on June D* 19:)* the Commission issued its reso$ution denyin% the third motion for re onsideration. 'he arti $e si%ned by petitioner was pub$ished in the June 2* 19:) issue of the Sunday 'imes* a newspaper of nationwide ir u$ation. ISS"E:'he question to be determined is whether the Commission on "$e tions has the power and 1urisdi tion to ondu t ontempt pro eedin%s a%ainst petitioner with a &iew to imposin% upon him the ne essary dis ip$inary pena$ty in onne tion with the pub$i ation of an arti $e in the Sunday 'imes issue of June 2* 19:) whi h* a ordin% to the har%e* tended to interfere with and inf$uen e said Commission in the ad1udi ation of a ontro&ersy then pendin% determination and to de%rade and undermine the fun tion of the Commission and its members in the administration of a$$ $aws re$ati&e to the ondu t of e$e tions. HEL$:+t wou$d therefore appear that the Commission on "$e tions not on$y has the duty to enfor e and administer a$$ $aws re$ati&e to the ondu t of e$e tions but the power to try* hear and de ide any controversy that may be submitted to it in onne tion with the e$e tions. And as an in ident of this power* it may a$so punish for ontempt in those ases pro&ided for in Ru$e ED of the Ru$es of Court under the same pro edure and with the same pena$ties pro&ided therein. +n this sense* the Commission* a$thou%h it annot be $assified as a ourt of 1usti e within the meanin% of the Constitution =Se tion 19* Arti $e G+++>* for it is mere$y an independent administrati&e body ='he Aa iona$ista Party &s. Gera* (: Phi$.* 12E4 D) !ff. @az. 29):>* may howe&er e/er ise quasi-1udi ia$ fun tions in so far as ontro&ersies that by e/press pro&ision of the $aw ome under its 1urisdi tion. As to what questions may ome within this ate%ory* neither the Constitution nor the Re&ised "$e tion Code spe ifies. 'he former mere$y pro&ides that it sha$$ ome under its 1urisdi tion* sa&in% those in&o$&in% the ri%ht to &ote* all administrative questions affectin elections! includin t"e determination of t"e num#er and location of $ollin $laces! and t"e a$$ointment of election ins$ectors and ot"er election officials! whi$e the $atter is si$ent as to what questions may be brou%ht before it for determination. 2ut it is $ear that* to ome under its 1urisdi tion* the questions shou$d be ontro&ersia$ in nature and must refer to the enfor ement and administration of a$$ $aws re$ati&e to the ondu t of e$e tion. 'he diffi u$ty $ies in drawin% the demar ation $ine between a duty whi h inherent$y is administrati&e in hara ter and a fun tion whi h is 1usti iab$e and whi h wou$d therefore a$$ for 1udi ia$ a tion by the Commission. 2ut this mu h depends upon the fa tors that may inter&ene when a ontro&ersy shou$d arise. 1/. FILI4INAS EN3INEERIN3 1S. FERRER Come$e issued an in&itation to bid in preparation for the nationa$ e$e tions of 19E9. 'he in&itation a$$ed for the submission of sea$ed proposa$s for the manufa ture and de$i&ery of &otin% booths.

1) bidders submitted their bids. Ii$ipinas "n%ineerin% and A me Stee$ were 2 of those bidders. Come$e 2iddin% Committee re ommended that the Ii$ipinas bid be awarded. =+t re1e ted A me6s bid.> #ater howe&er* after an o u$ar inspe tion by the Come$e * the 2iddin% Cmte issued a reso$ution awardin% the ontra t to A me* after findin% that A me submitted the $owest bid. Come$e issued a pur hase order in fa&or of A me. !f ourse* Ii$ipinas ob1e ted and fi$ed an in1un tion a%ainst Come$e before the CI+ 7Mani$a = i&i$ ase> A me howe&er omp$ied with its ontra t fu$$y. 'he ase was dismissed by the $ower ourt* whi h Ii$ipinas appea$ed. 'he Come$e fi$ed a M'8 on the %round that the CI+ had no 1urisdi tion.

+SSC". 3hether the ourt has 1urisdi tion to ta5e o%nizan e of the Come$e dea$in% with the award of ontra tK ase in&o$&in% an order of

SC. A!. +t is the SC* not the $ower ourt =CI+> whi h has e/ $usi&e 1urisdi tion to re&iew on ertiorari* fina$ de isions* order or ru$in%s of Come$e * re$ati&e to the ondu t of e$e tions and enfor ement of e$e tion $aws. 2C'* in this ase* an order of Come$e awardin% a ontra t to a pri&ate party* as a resu$t of its hoi e amon% &arious proposa$s in response to in&itation to bid* 8!"S A!' ome within the pur&iew of fina$ order whi h is e/ $usi&e$y and dire t$y appea$ab$e to the SC &ia ertiorari. 3hat is ontemp$ated by the term <fina$ orders* ru$in%s and de isions of Come$e ? re&iewab$e by SC are those rendered in a tions or PR!C""8+A@S 2"I!R" C!M"#"C* and ta5en o%nizan e of by said body in the e/er ise of its A8JC8+CA'!R; !R MCAS+-JC8+C+A# ICAC'+!AS. Come$e 6s powers are $assified as those pertainin% to its ad1udi atory or quasi-1udi ia$ fun tions* and those whi h are inherent$y administrati&e in hara ter. 'he order of the Come$e %rantin% the award to A me as winnin% bidder* is A!' AA !R8"R R"A8"R"8 +A A #"@A# C!A'R!G"RS;. Come$e 6s reso$ution was not issued in pursuan e of its quasi-1udi ia$ fun tion but mere$y as an in ident of +'S +A0"R"A' A8M+A+S'RA'+G" ICAC'+!A o&er the ondu t of the e$e tion. 0en e* said reso$ution annot be deemed as a fina$ order re&iewab$e by the SC. 2ein% non-1udi ia$ in hara ter* no dire t and e/ $usi&e appea$ to the SC may $ie. Any question arisin% from said order may be we$$ ta5en in ordinary i&i$ a tion before 'R+A# C!CR'S. +n short* administrati&e de isions N R'C i&i$ a tion 3hi$e ad1udi atory F quasi-1udi ia$ de isions N SC ertiorari.

11. $E -ES"S vs. 4E 4LE

F THE 4HILI44INES

Facts: After the $o a$ e$e tions of January 1(* 19(0* Ananias 0ibo* defeated andidate of the Aa iona$ista Party for the offi e of mayor of theMuni ipa$ity of Casi%uran* Sorso%on fi$ed with the C!M"#"C a omp$aint har%in% petitioner Ro%e$io de Jesus* then C!M"#"C re%istrar of Casi%uran* with &io$ation of the 19)( "$e tion Code. Asst. Iis a$s Manue$ @eno&a and 8e$fin 'aro%* in their apa ity as deputized 'anodbayanprose utors* ondu ted an
7

in&esti%ation. A prima fa ie ase a%ainst petitioner for &io$ation of se tion (9 and subse tions O/P and OmmP of Se tion 1)( of the "$e tion Code of 19)( was found to e/ist. 'he fo$$owin% information* was fi$ed before the Sandi%anbayan. Petitioner fi$ed a motion to quash the information* ontendin% that neither the 'anodbayan nor the Sandi%anbayan has the authority to in&esti%ate* prose ute and try the offense. +n its opposition* the prose ution maintained the 'anodbayan6s e/ $usi&e authority to in&esti%ate and prose ute offenses ommitted by pub$i offi ers and emp$oyees in re$ation to their offi e* and onsequent$y* the Sandi%anbayan6s 1urisdi tion to try and de ide the har%es a%ainst petitioner. Issue: 3hether or not the 'anodbayan and the Sandi%anbayan ha&e the power to in&esti%ate* prose ute* and try e$e tion offenses ommitted by a pub$i offi er in re$ation to his offi e. Held: 'he e&ident onstitutiona$ intendment in bestowin% the power to enfor e and administer a$$ $aws re$ati&e to the ondu t of e$e tion and the on omittant authority to in&esti%ate and prose ute e$e tion offenses to the C!M"#"C is to insure the free* order$y and honest ondu t of e$e tions* fai$ure of whi h wou$d resu$t in the frustration of the true wi$$ of the peop$e and ma5e a mere id$e eremony of the sa red ri%ht and duty of e&ery qua$ified itizen to &ote. 'o di&est the C!M"#"C of the authority to in&esti%ate and prose ute offenses ommitted by pub$i offi ia$s in re$ation to their offi e wou$d thus serious$y impair its effe ti&eness in a hie&in% this $ear onstitutiona$ mandate. Irom a arefu$ s rutiny of the onstitutiona$ pro&isions re$ied upon by the Sandi%anbayan* 3e per ei&e neither e/p$i it nor imp$i it %rant to it and its prose utin% arm* the 'anodbayan* of the authority to in&esti%ate* prose ute and hear e$e tion offenses ommitted bypub$i offi ers in re$ation to their offi e* as ontradistin%uished from the $ear and ate%ori a$ bestowa$ of said authority and 1urisdi tion upon the C!M"#"C and the ourts of first instan e under Se tions 1(2 and 1(D* respe ti&e$y* of the "$e tion Code of 19)(.

12. C R4"5 vs. TAN $BAYAN Facts: Petitioners were members of the Citizens "$e tion Committee of Caba* #a Cnion in the January 90* 19(0 e$e tions4 petitioner "pifanio Casti$$e1os was 8ire tor of the 2ureau of 8omesti 'rade and petitioner "d%ar Casti$$e1os was then a andidate and $ater e$e ted mayor in the same e$e tion. Pri&ate respondent "steban Man%aser* an independent andidate for &i e-mayor of the same muni ipa$ity sent a $etter to President Mar os har%in% the petitioners with &io$ation of the 19)( "$e tion Code* spe ifi a$$y for e$e tioneerin% and F or ampai%nin% inside the &otin% enters durin% the e$e tion. Re%iona$ "$e tion 8ire tor of San Iernando* #a Cnion* ondu ted a forma$ in&esti%ation and on September 29* 19(1* submitted its report re ommendin% to the Come$e the dismissa$ of the omp$aint. Pri&ate respondent Man%aser forma$$y withdrew his har%es fi$ed with the Come$e statin% his intention to refi$e it with the 'anodbayan. !n Ao&ember 2E* 19(1 the Come$e dismissed the omp$aint for insuffi ien y of e&iden e. Subsequent$y the assistant pro&in ia$ fis a$ started a pre$iminary in&esti%ation of a omp$aint fi$ed by Man%aser with the 'anodbayan a%ainst the same parties and on the same har%es pre&ious$y dismissed by the Come$e . 'he 'anodbayan asserted e/ $usi&e authority to prose ute the ase* stated in a $etter to the Come$e Chairman that a $awyer of the Come$e if not proper$y deputized as a 'anodbayan prose utor has not authority to ondu t pre$iminary in&esti%ation s and prose ute offenses ommitted by Come$e offi ia$s in re$ation to their offi e.

Issue: 3hether or not the 'anodbayan has e/ $usi&e 1urisdi tion to in&esti%ate and prose ute e$e tion offenses. Held: Come$e * not the 'anodbayan* or Sandi%anbayan* has e/ $usi&e 1urisdi tion to in&esti%ate and prose ute e$e tion offenses ommitted by a pri&ate indi&idua$ or pub$i offi er or emp$oyee. Aature of the offense* not the persona$ity of the offender* is important. 1!. 4E 4LE 1S BASILLA 1)9 SCRA () 1(. 4E 4LE vs. INTIN3 Facts: Mrs. "ditha 2arba fi$ed a $etter- omp$aint a%ainst !+C-Mayor8ominador Re%a$ado of 'an1ay* Ae%ros !rienta$ with the C!M"#"C for a$$e%ed$y transferrin% her* a permanent Aursin% Attendant* @rade +* in the offi e of the Muni ipa$ Mayor to a &ery remote baran%ay and without obtainin% prior permission or $earan e from C!M"#"C as required by $aw. After a pre$iminary in&esti%ation of 2arba6s omp$aint* Atty. #ituanas found a prima fa ie ase. 0en e* on September 2E* 19((* he fi$ed with the respondent tria$ ourt a rimina$ ase for &io$ation of se tion 2E1* Par. =h>* !mnibus "$e tion Code a%ainst the !+C-Mayor. +n an !rder dated September 90* 19((* the respondent ourt issued a warrant of arrest a%ainst the a used !+C Mayor. 0owe&er* in an order dated ! tober 9* 19(( and before the a used ou$d be arrested* the tria$ ourt set aside its September 90* 19(( order on the %round that Atty. #ituanas is not authorized to determine probab$e ause pursuant to Se tion 2* Arti $e +++ of the 19() Constitution. 'he tria$ ourt$ater on quashed the information. 0en e* this petition. Issue: 8oes a pre$iminary in&esti%ation ondu ted by a Pro&in ia$ "$e tion Super&isor in&o$&in% e$e tion offenses ha&e to be oursed throu%h the Pro&in ia$ Prose utor* before the Re%iona$ 'ria$ Court may ta5e o%nizan e of the in&esti%ation and determine whether or not probab$e ause e/istsK Held: 'he 19() Constitution empowers the C!M"#"C to ondu t pre$iminary in&esti%ations in ases in&o$&in% e$e tion offenses for the purpose of he$pin% the Jud%e determine probab$e ause and for fi$in% an information in ourt. 'his power is e/ $usi&e with C!M"#"C. 'he e&ident onstitutiona$ intendment in bestowin% this power to the C!M"#"C is toinsure the free* order$y and honest ondu t of e$e tions* fai$ure of whi h wou$d resu$t in the frustration of the true wi$$ of the peop$e and ma5e a mere id$e eremony of the sa red ri%ht and duty of e&ery qua$ified itizen to &ote. 'o di&est the C!M"#"C of the authority to in&esti%ate and prose ute offenses ommitted by pub$i offi ia$s in re$ation to their offi e wou$d thus serious$y impair its effe ti&eness in a hie&in% this $ear onstitutiona$ mandate. 2earin% these prin ip$es in mind* it is apparent that the respondent tria$ ourt mis onstrued the onstitutiona$ pro&ision when it quashed the information fi$ed by the Pro&in ia$ "$e tion Super&isor. 1*. MA6"ERRA 1S B RRA 1* SCRA 2 71+0*8 + n t h i s p e t i t i o n * M a q u e r a s e e 5 t h a t t h e R A D D 2 1 requirin% a$$ andidates for nationa$* pro&in ia$ ity an d m u n i i p a $ o f f i e s t o p o s t a s u r e t y b o n d equi&a$ent to sa$ary or emo$uments to whi h he is a andidate. 'he Court %ranted the petition as it is in onsistent with the nature and essen e of the Repub$i an system ordained in our Constitution and the prin ip$e of so ia$ 1usti e under$yin% the same for said po$iti a$ system is premised upon the tent that so&erei%nty resides in the peop$e and a$$ %o&ernment authority e m a n a t e s f r o m t h e m a n d t h i s i n t u r n i m p $ i e s ne essari$y that the
9

ri%ht to &ote and to be &oted for sha$$ not be dependent upon the wea$th of the indi&idua$ on erned* whereas so ia$ 1usti e presupposes equa$ opportunity for a$$* ri h and poor a$i5e and that a ordin%$y no person sha$$ by reason o f p o & e r t y* b e d e n i e d t h e h a n e t o b e e $ e t e d t o pub$i offi e.

10. A5NAR 1S. C MELEC @R Q (9(20* May 2:* 1990 %&onstitutional 'aw Alien! 'oss of &iti(ens"i$) IAC'S. +n the ase at bar* petitioner ha$$en%ed respondent6s ri%ht to ho$d pub$i offi e on the %round that the $atter was an a$ien. Respondent maintains that he is a son of a Ii$ipino* was a ho$der of a &a$id subsistin% passport* a ontinuous resident of the Phi$ippines and a re%istered &oter sin e 19E:. 0e was* howe&er* a$so a ho$der of an a$ien re%istration ertifi ate. +SSC". 3hether or not respondent is an a$ien. 0"#8. Ao* be ause by &irtue of his bein% a son of a Ii$ipino* it is presumed that he was a Ii$ipino and remained Ii$ipino unti$ proof ou$d be shown that he had renoun ed or $ost his Phi$ippine itizenship. +n addition* possession of an a$ien re%istration ertifi ate una ompanied by proof of performan e of a ts whereby Phi$ippine itizenship had been $ost is not adequate proof of $oss of itizenship.

12. SANCHE5. vs. C MELEC Ia ts. Candidate San hez fi$ed a petition prayin% that Come$e after due hearin%* be dire ted to ondu t a re ount of the &otes ast in the 19()senatoria$ e$e tions to determine the true number of &otes to be redited to him and prayed further for a restrainin% order dire tin% the Come$e to withho$d the pro $amation of the $ast four =D> winnin% senatoria$ andidates on the %round that &otes intended for him were de $ared as astray &otes be ause of the sameness of his surname with that of disqua$ified andidate @i$ San hez* whose name had not been rossed out from the Come$e e$e tion returns and other e$e tion forms. !n Ju$y 1E* 19()* the Come$e * by a &ote of four to three* promu$%ated its de ision dismissin% petitioner San hez6 petition for re ount. !n Ju$y 2D* 19()* howe&er* respondent Come$e * by a &ote of fi&e to two* re&ersed its order of dismissa$ and %ranted San hez6 petition for re ount andFor re-appre iation of ba$$ots. Issue: 3hether his petition for re ount andFor re-appre iation of ba$$ots fi$ed with the Come$e may be onsidered a summary pre-pro $amation ontro&ersy or an e$e tion protest. Held: 'he Court ru$es that San hez6 petition for re ount andFor re-appre iation of the ba$$ots ast in the senatoria$ e$e tions does not present a proper issue for a summary prepro $amation ontro&ersy. 'he s ope of pre-pro $amation ontro&ersy is $imited to the issues enumerated under se . 2D9 of the !mnibus "$e tion Code. 'he enumeration therein of the issues that may be raised in pre-pro $amation ontro&ersy* is restri ti&e and e/ $usi&e. +n the absen e of any $ear showin% or proof that the e$e tion returns an&assed are in omp$ete or ontain materia$ defe ts =se . 29D>* appear to ha&e been tampered with* fa$sified or prepared under duress =se . 29:> andFor ontain dis repan ies in the &otes redited to any andidate* the differen e of whi h affe ts the resu$t of the e$e tion =se . 29E>* whi h are the on$y instan es where a
10

pre-pro $amation re ount maybe resorted to* %ranted the preser&ation of the inte%rity of the ba$$ot bo/ and its ontents* San hez6 petition must fai$.'he omp$ete e$e tion returns whose authenti ity is not in question* must be prima fa ie onsidered &a$id for the purpose of an&assin% the same and pro $amation of the winnin% andidates. 'he $aw and pub$i po$i y mandate that a$$ pre-pro $amation ontro&ersies sha$$ be heard summari$y by the Commission after due noti e and hearin% and 1ust as summari$y de ided.

1). BA"TISTA vs. CASTR 2/0 SCRA !/*.1++2 Facts. 2oth petitioner 2autista and respondent Mi%ue$ were andidates for the position of 2aran%ay Captain of 2r%y. 'ea hers Gi$$a%e "ast* Muezon City in the baran%ay e$e tions he$d on May 1)* 19(2. After an&ass* 2autista was pro $aimed as the winner with a p$ura$ity of two &otes. Mi%ue$ fi$ed an e$e tion protest. 'he City Court of Muezon City ru$ed that both andidates re ei&ed the same number of &otes. Cpon appea$* the CI+ of Riza$ de $ared Mi%ue$ as the winner and set aside 2autista6s pro $amation. 'he $atter fi$ed a petition to the Supreme Court a$$e%in% that respondent 1ud%e ommitted mista5es in his appre iation of the ontested ba$$ots. Issue: 3hether or not there was error in the appre iation of ba$$ots. Held: 'he presen e of an arrow in the ontested ba$$ots with the words <and party? was meant to identify the &oter* and su h writin%s were not a identa$. As a ru$e* a &oter must write on the ba$$ot on$y the names of andidates &oted for the offi es appearin% thereon. Certain e/ eptions were pro&ided for in the Re&ised "$e tion Code* su h as the prefi/es <Sr.*? <Mr.*? and the $i5e and the suffi/es su h as <hi1o*? <Jr.*? et . wi$$ not in&a$idate the ba$$ot. +nitia$s* ni 5names or appe$$ation of affe tion and friendship wi$$ not in&a$idate the ba$$ot* if a ompanied by the name or surname of the andidate* and abo&e a$$* if they were not used as a means to identify the &oter. Respondent ourt orre t$y in&a$idated the ba$$ot wherein the name of the andidate was written se&en times. 'he writin% of a name more than twi e on the ba$$ot is onsidered to be intentiona$ and ser&es no other purpose than to identify the ba$$ot. 1+. FRANCISC 211 SCRA !1* I. CHA1E5 vs. C MMISSI N N ELECTI NS

Facts: !n May :* 1992* this Court issued a Reso$ution in @R Ao. 10D)0D* disqua$ifyin% Me$ hor Cha&ez* pri&ate respondent therein* from runnin% forthe !ffi e of Senator in the May 11* 1992 e$e tions. Petitioner fi$ed an ur%ent motion with the Come$e prayin% that it =1> disseminate throu%h the fastest a&ai$ab$e means this Court6s Reso$ution dated May :* 1992 to a$$ re%iona$ e$e tion dire tors* pro&in ia$ e$e tion super&isors* ity andmuni ipa$ e$e tion re%istrars* boards of e$e tion inspe tors* the si/ =E> a redited po$iti a$ parties and the %enera$ pub$i 4 and =2> order said e$e tion offi ia$s to de$ete the name of Me$ hor Cha&ez as printed in the ertified $ist of andidates ta$$y sheets* e$e tion returns and to ount a$$ &otes ast for the disqua$ified Me$ hor* Cha&ez in fa&or of Iran is o +.Cha&ez. !n May (* 1992* the Come$e issued Res. Ao. 92-1922 whi h reso$&ed to de$ete the name of Me$ hor Cha&ez from the $ist of qua$ified andidates. 0owe&er* it fai$ed to order the reditin% of a$$ <Cha&ez? &otes in fa&or of petitioner as we$$ as the an e$$ation of Me$ hor Cha&ez6 name in the $ist of qua$ified andidates. Issue: 3hether or not the $aw a$$ows pre-pro $amation ontro&ersy in&o$&in% the e$e tion of the members of the Senate.
11

Held: A simp$e readin% of the petition wou$d readi$y show that petitioner has no ause of a tion* the ontro&ersy presented bein% one in the nature of a pre-pro $amation. 3hi$e the Commission has e/ $usi&e 1urisdi tion o&er pre-pro $amation ontro&ersies in&o$&in% $o a$ e$e ti&e offi ia$s =Se . 2D2* !mnibus "$e tion Code>* ne&erthe$ess* prepro $amation ases are not a$$owed in e$e tionsfor President* Gi e-President* Senator and Member of the 0ouse of Representati&es. Se . 1: of Repub$i A t )1EE pro&ides. <Ior purposes of the e$e tions for President* Gi e-President* Senator and Member of the 0ouse of Representati&es* no pre-pro $amation ases sha$$ be a$$owed on matters re$atin% to the preparation* transmission* re eipt* ustody and appre iation of the e$e tion returns or the ertifi ate of an&ass* as the ase may be. 0owe&er* this does not pre $ude the authority of the appropriate an&assin% body motu propio or upon written omp$aint of an interested person to orre t manifest errors in the ertifi ate of an&ass or e$e tion returns before it.

2/. LFAT vs. C MELEC 1/! SCRA 2(1. 1+)1 Facts: 8urin% the January 90* 19(0 $o a$ e$e tions* petitioner !$fato and the other petitioners were the offi ia$ Aationa$ista Party =AP> andidates for Mayor and San%%unian 2ayan* respe ti&e$y* of 'anauan* 2atan%as. !n the other hand* #irio was the offi ia$ andidate of the Bi$usan% 2a%on% #ipunan =B2#> fo Mayor of said town. 'hree =9> days after the e$e tions* pri&ate respondent #irio* to%ether with the andidates in his ti 5et* fi$ed with C!M"#"C a petition for suspension of the an&ass and pro $amation of winnin% andidates for the e$e ti&e positions of 'anauan* a$$e%in% disenfran hisement of &oters* terrorism* fa5e +86s of &oters and f$yin% &oters. 2ased on the resu$t of an&ass of &otes* !$fato and the rest of the petitioners were pro $aimed as the du$y e$e ted Mayor and San%%unian members. #irio fi$ed a supp$ementa$ petition prayin% for the annu$ment of petitioner !$fato6s pro $amation itin% fa5e &oters and massi&e disenfran hisement whi h affe ts the &ery inte%rity of the e$e tion returns. 0e a$so fi$ed an e$e tion protest a%ainst !$fato in the CI+ of 2atan%as itin% fa5e &oters* fa5e &oter6s identifi ation ards* f$yin% &oters* substitute &oters and massi&e disenfran hisement. !$fato assumed the offi e of Mayor. 'he C!M"#"C issued a Reso$ution dismissin% #irio6s petition and reinstatin% thepro $amation made by the M2C of respondent !$fato and the entire ti 5et* without pre1udi e to other $e%a$ remedies under the "$e tion Code. Issue: 3hether the C!M"#"C has 1urisdi tion o&er the pre-pro $amationContro&ersy fi$ed by #irioK Held: 'he Supreme Court ri$ed in the affirmati&e itin% pre&ious ru$in%s of the Court. 'he C!M"#"C has the power and authority to inquire into the a$$e%ation of fa5e &oters* with fa5e +86s in a pre-pro $amation ontro&ersy in order to determine the authenti ity or inte%rity of e$e tion returns or whether su h e$e tion returns faithfu$$y re ord that on$y re%istered or %enuine &oters were a$$owed to &ote. Cnder the e$e tion Code* the C!M"#C is the so$e 1ud%e of a$$ pro $amation ontro&ersies. 'he C!M"#"C has &ast powers under the "$e tion Code in onsonan e with its primordia$ tas5 of insurin% free* order$y and honest e$e tions. 'he Court dismissed the petition for re&iew fi$ed by #irio and dire ted the C!M"#"C to pro eed with dispat h on the pre-pro $amation ontro&ersy =petition for suspension of an&ass and pro $amation of winnin% andidates>. 'he ourt noted that the C!M"#"C Reso$ution onsidered the pro $amation made in fa&or of !$fato and his ti 5et as temporary in nature as it was made sub1e t to the fina$ out ome of the pre-pro $amation ase. 21. LA3"MBAY 1S C MELEC 1E SCRA 1):
12

22. $IMA4 R

1. HRET

FACTS:'his is a petition brou%ht by Con%ressman 8imaporo see5in% to nu$$ify the twin Reso$utions of the 0R"' whi h denied his Motion for 'e hni a$ "&a$uation of the 'humbmar5s and Si%natures Affi/ed in the Goters Re%istration Re ords and Motion for Re onsideration of Reso$ution 8enyin% the Motion for 'e hni a$ "/amination of Gotin% Re ords. Pursuant to the 199( 0R"' Ru$es Con%ressiona$ andidate Man%otara Petition of Protest =Ad Caute$am> see5in% the te hni a$ e/amination of the si%natures and thumb the protested pre in ts of the muni ipa$ity of Su$tan Aa%a 8imaporo =SA8>. Man%otara a$$e%ed that the massi&e substitution of &oters and other e$e tora$ irre%u$arities perpetrated by 8imaporo6s supporters wi$$ be un o&ered and pro&en. Irom this and other premises* he on $uded that he is the du$y-e$e ted representati&e of the 2nd 8istri t of #anao de$ Aorte. Aotin% that <the 'ribuna$ annot e&a$uate the questioned ba$$ots be ause there are no ba$$ots but on$y e$e tion do uments to onsider? 0R"' %ranted Man%otaraRs motion and permitted the $atter to en%a%e an e/pert to assist him in prose ution of the ase* A2+ ondu ted the te hni a$ e/amination. ISS"E:1. 3FA 8imaporo was depri&ed by 0R"' of "qua$ Prote tion when the $atter denied his motion for te hni a$ e/amination. 2. 3FA 8imaporo was depri&ed of pro edura$ due pro ess or the ri%ht to present s ientifi e&iden e to show the massi&e substitute &otin% ommitted in ounter protested pre in ts. R"LIN3: 1. Resolut#on o9 HRET d#d not o99end e:ual '&otect#on clause. E:ual '&otect#on s#%'ly %eans t;at all 'e&sons and t;#n<s s#%#la&ly s#tuated %ust =e t&eated al#>e =ot; as to t;e &#<;ts con9e&&ed and t;e l#a=#l#t#es #%'osed. It 9ollo?s t;at t;e e@#stence o9 a val#d andsu=stant#al d#st#nct#on Aust#9#es d#ve&<ent t&eat%ent. A ordin% to 8imaporo sin e the ba$$ot bo/es sub1e t of his petition and that of Man%otara were both una&ai$ab$e for re&ision* his motion* $i5e Man%otara6s* shou$d be %ranted. 'he ar%ument fai$s to ta5e into a ount the distin tions e/tant in Man%otara6s protest &is-S-&is 8imaporo6s ounter-protest whi h &a$idate the %rant of Man%otara6s motion and the denia$ of 8imaporo6s. Iirst. 'he e$e tion resu$ts in SA8 were the so$e sub1e ts of Man%otara6s protest. 'he opposite is true with re%ard to 8imaporo6s ounter-protest as he ontested the e$e tion resu$ts in a$$ muni ipa$ities but SA8. Si%nifi ant$y* the resu$ts of the te hni a$ e/amination of the e$e tion re ords of SA8 are determinati&e of the fina$ out ome of the e$e tion protest a%ainst 8imaporo. 'he same annot be said of the pre in ts sub1e t of 8imaporo6s motion. It s;ould =e e%';as#,ed t;at t;e <&ant o9 a %ot#on 9o& tec;n#cal e@a%#nat#on #s su=Aect to t;e sound d#sc&et#on o9 t;e HRET. In t;#s case. t;e T&#=unal dee%ed #t use9ul #n t;e conduct o9 t;e &ev#s#on '&oceed#n<s to <&ant Man<ota&aBs %ot#on 9o& tec;n#cal e@a%#nat#on. Conve&sely. #t 9ound $#%a'o&oBs %ot#on un'e&suas#ve and acco&d#n<ly den#ed t;e sa%e. In so do#n<. t;e HRET %e&ely acted ?#t;#n t;e =ounds o9 #ts Const#tut#onallyC<&anted Au&#sd#ct#on. A9te& all. t;e Const#tut#on con9e&s 9ull aut;o&#ty on t;e electo&al t&#=unals o9 t;e House o9 Re'&esentat#ves and t;e Senate as t;e sole Aud<es o9 all contests &elat#n< to t;e elect#on. &etu&ns. and :ual#9#cat#ons o9 t;e#& &es'ect#ve %e%=e&s. Suc; Au&#sd#ct#on #s o&#<#nal and e@clus#ve. 2. Anent 8imaporo6s ontention that the assai$ed Reso$utions denied him the ri%ht to pro edura$ due pro ess and to present e&iden e to substantiate his $aim of massi&e substitute &otin% ommitted in the ounter-protested pre in ts* suffi e it to state that the 0R"' itse$f may as ertain the &a$idity of 8imaporo6s a$$e%ations without resort to te hni a$ e/amination. 'o this end* the 'ribuna$ de $ared that the ba$$ots* e$e tion do uments and other e$e tion parapherna$ia are sti$$ sub1e t to its s rutiny in the appre iation of e&iden e.

13

+t shou$d be noted that the re ords are rep$ete with e&iden e* do umentary and testimonia$* presented by 8imaporo. 8imaporo6s a$$e%ation of denia$ of due pro ess is an indefensib$e pretense. 'he instant petition is 8+SM+SS"8 for $a 5 of merit.

2!. ES4I$ L 1S C MELEC D)2 SCRA 9(0

2(. H FER 1S HRET 8"C+S+!A SAN$ 1ALC3"TIERRE5. J.: Procedural rules in election cases are desi ned to ac"ieve not only a correct #ut also an expeditiousdetermination of t"e $o$ular will of t"e electorate* 1 +nfortunately! t"e inter$retation of said rules #y t"e $etitioner "as $rolon ed t"e termination of t"e instant case . 2efore us is a petition for ertiorari under Ru$e E: of the 199) Ru$es of Ci&i$ Pro edure* as amended* assai$in% the Reso$utions2 dated Mar h 2)* 2009 and May (* 2009 rendered by the 0ouse of Representati&es "$e tora$ 'ribuna$ in 0R"' Case Ao. 01-00E* entit$ed T ,ulce Ann -* Hofer vs* .elma A* &a#ilao.T 'he ante edents of the present petition are as fo$$ows. 8u$ e Ann B. 0ofer* herein petitioner* and 2e$ma A. Cabi$ao* herein respondent* were on%ressiona$ andidates in the $one on%ressiona$ distri t of Uamboan%a Sibu%ay9 durin% the May 1D* 2001 nationa$ and $o a$ e$e tions. !n May 1(* 2001* respondent was pro $aimed the du$y e$e ted on%ressiona$ representati&e with a tota$ of ::*)D0 &otes* as a%ainst petitioner6s D9*:EE* or a mar%in of 12*1)D &otes. C$aimin% that massi&e &ote buyin%* tamperin% of e$e tion returns and other irre%u$arities were ommitted in E)1 pre in ts durin% the &otin%* ountin% of &otes and an&assin% of e$e tion returns* petitioner* on May 2(* 2001* fi$ed with the 0ouse of Representati&es "$e tora$ 'ribuna$ =0R"'> an e$e tion protest* do 5eted as 0R"' Case Ao. 01-00E. After the issues were 1oined* the ase was set for pre$iminary onferen e on September 19* 2001. Subsequent$y or on Ju$y 22* 2002* the re&ision pro eedin% of ontested ba$$ots* pursuant to Se tion 9: of the 199( 0R"' Ru$es* as amended* ommen ed with the identifi ation by petitioner of the tota$ ontested pre in ts. !n Au%ust 1* 2002* the re&ision of the ba$$ots for D(1 pi$ot ontested pre in ts was omp$eted. 'he Report of the Can&ass 2oard Ser&i e on the resu$ts of the re&ision shows a redu tion of &otes for petitioner and respondent* thus. Gotes Re&ision Protestant 1(*19( before Gotes Re&ision 1)*)99 after C$aims 1*09D @ain =V> #oss =-> 999 =->
14

Protestee

29*)99

29*D92

1*D2:

901 =->

8urin% the pre$iminary onferen e* both parties* throu%h their respe ti&e ounse$* a%reed on the fo$$owin% dates of hearin%. ! tober 1:* 1E* 29* 90* Ao&ember :* E and 1(* 2002 at 9.90 o6 $o 5 in the mornin% and 1.90 o6 $o 5 in the afternoon. 'he 0earin% Commissioner informed them that they ou$d set su eedin% dates $ater. 0owe&er* the hearin%s set on ! tober 1:* 1E* 90 and Ao&ember : and E* 2002 were an e$$ed at the instan e of petitioner. !n$y the hearin% on ! tober 29* 2002 too5 p$a e. !n Iebruary 12* 2009* respondent fi$ed a motion to dismiss the protest for petitioner6s fai$ure to prose ute for an unreasonab$e period of time. +n a Reso$ution dated Mar h 2)* 2009* the 0R"' %ranted the motion and dismissed petitioner6s e$e tion protest* ratio inatin% thus. T3e find the $on% de$ay in the prose ution of this e$e tion protest to be ine/ usab$e. A perusa$ of the re ords re&ea$ that out of the se&en =)> hearin% dates set by protestant for the re eption of her e&iden e* si/ =E> settin%s were postponed throu%h her instan e. !n$y one hearin% on the 29th of ! tober 2002 pro eeded* in whi h hearin% the protestant presented do umentary e&iden e onsistin% of e$e tion do uments. +t may be stressed that protestant* despite the $apse of more than si/ =E> months* re 5oned from ! tober 1:* 2002* has not yet omp$eted the presentation of her e&iden e. 0a&in% e/hausted the period of twenty =20> days and ha&in% been %ranted an e/tension of ten =10> days without presentin% a$$ her e&iden e* protestant is deemed to ha&e s$ept on her ri%ht. 0er fai$ure to ta5e ne essary steps to prose ute this ase 1ustify its dismissa$. /// Ru$e :9 of the 199( 0R"' Ru$es $ays down the period a$$otted to ea h party in the presentation of his e&iden e* thus. HRC#" :9. Time 'imit for Presentation of Evidence . - "a h party is %i&en a period of twenty =20> wor5in% days* preferab$y su essi&e* to omp$ete the presentation of his e&iden e* in $udin% the forma$ offer thereof. 'his period sha$$ be%in to run from the first date set for the presentation of the party6s e&iden e* either before the 'ribuna$ or before a 0earin% Commissioner. !n e ommen ed* presentation of the e&iden e-in- hief sha$$ ontinue e&ery wor5in% day unti$ omp$eted or unti$ the period %ranted for su h purpose is e/hausted. Cpon motion based on meritorious %rounds* the 'ribuna$ may %rant a ten-day e/tension of the period herein fi/ed. 'he hearin% for any parti u$ar day or days may be postponed or an e$$ed upon the request of the party presentin% e&iden e* $rovided! "owever/ that the de$ay aused by su h postponement or an e$$ation sha$$ be har%ed to said party6s period for presentin% e&iden e.6 Simp$y stated* ea h party is %i&en a $imited period of twenty =20> days in the presentation of his e&iden e* in $udin% the forma$ offer thereof. 'his requirement in the presentation of e&iden e is prompted by the nature of e$e tion ontest* whi h shou$d be de ided as soon as pra ti ab$e. 'he period of 20 days %i&en to ea h of the parties may be e/tended by the 'ribuna$ upon meritorious %rounds and on motion of the party on erned. 'his time $imit pres ribed by the Ru$es in the presentation of e&iden e ontemp$ates not on$y a tua$ period spent in presentin% before the 'ribuna$* but a$so the period used in the ta5in% of deposition of the witnesses under Ru$e E1 of the 199( 0R"' Ru$es.T
15

Petitioner then fi$ed with the 0R"' a motion for re onsideration but was denied in a Reso$ution dated May (* 2009. 0en e* this petition for ertiorari. Petitioner ontends that the 0R"' a ted with %ra&e abuse of dis retion in dismissin% her protest on mere te hni a$ities* thus* depri&in% her of her ri%ht to due pro ess. 'he So$i itor @enera$* in his omment* maintains that the 0R"' did not %ra&e$y abuse its dis retion in dismissin% petitioner6s protest onsiderin% that she fai$ed to prose ute it within the period a$$owed by the ru$es. Petitioner in&o5es our ru$in% in Arao vs* &0ME'E&D that Tthe hoi e of the peop$e to represent them may not be bar%ained away by sheer ne%$i%en e of a party* no& de9eated =y tec;n#cal &ules o9 '&ocedu&e.T 3hat she is sayin% is that the $aws %o&ernin% e$e tion ontests* espe ia$$y appre iation of ba$$ots and returns* must be $ibera$$y interpreted to the end that the wi$$ of the e$e torate in the hoi e of pub$i offi ia$s may not be defeated by te hni a$ infirmities. 3e are not on&in ed. 'he e$e tion protest fi$ed by petitioner is a serious har%e whi h* if true* ou$d unseat protestee as Representati&e of her distri t. 0en e* the obser&an e of the 0R"' Ru$es in on1un tion with our own Ru$es of Court* must be ta5en serious$y. Se tion :9 of the 199( 0R"' Ru$es* quoted ear$ier* is e/p$i it. Cnfortunate$y* petitioner did not omp$y with it. +n fa t* despite the $apse of si/ =E> months =startin% ! tober 1:* 2002 7 initia$ date of hearin%>* she fai$ed to present her e&iden e. Su h ina tion shows her utter $a 5 of interest to prose ute her ase. +n .alta(ar vs* &ommission of Elections*: we he$d. T2y their &ery nature and %i&en the pub$i interest in&o$&ed in the determination of the resu$ts of an e$e tion* the ontro&ersies arisin% from the an&ass must be reso$&ed s$eedily* otherwise the wi$$ of the e$e torate wou$d be frustrated. And the de$ay brou%ht about by the ta ti s resorted to by petitioner is pre ise$y the &ery e&i$ sou%ht to be pre&ented by e$e tion statutes and ontro$$in% ase $aw on the matter.T 3e thus find that the 0R"' did not ommit %ra&e abuse of dis retion in dismissin% petitioner6s e$e tion protest. +f at a$$* she has on$y herse$f to b$ame for her predi ament. DHEREF RE* the petition is $ISMISSE$. Ao pronoun ement as to osts. S R$ERE$.

2*. -"LIAN

vs C MELEC

16

T;#s &esolves t;e 'et#t#on 9o& certiorari. 9#led =y Est&el#ta ENen<F -ul#ano 7'et#t#one&8. see>#n< to set as#de t;e &de& o9 t;e Co%%#ss#on on Elect#ons En Banc7C MELEC En Banc8 dated Fe=&ua&y 1/. 2//* ?;#c; a99#&%ed t;e Resolut#on dated cto=e& 1!. 2//( o9 t;e C MELEC 2 N$ $#v#s#on d#s%#ss#n< t;e '&eC '&ocla%at#on cont&ove&sy 9#led =y 'et#t#one& Est&el#ta ENenen<F -ul#ano. A thorou%h s rutiny of the re ords re&ea$s that the narration of the ante edent fa ts set forth in the C!M"#"C 2nd 8i&ision Reso$ution is undisputed4 hen e* portions thereof are reprodu ed hereunder.

'he fa tua$ a$$e%ations of both parties re&ea$ that Cotabato City has a tota$ of fi&e hundred se&enty-se&en =:))> $ustered po$$in% pre in ts distributed amon% thirty-se&en =9)>baran%ays4 that the first City 2oard of Can&assers haired by Atty. ;o%ie Martirizar on&ened on May 10* 200D and ondu ted its pro eedin%s unti$ May 1E* 200D4 that on May 12* 200D* howe&er* petitioner fi$ed an e1 $arte petition to rep$a e membership of the first C2!C and was %ranted by the Commission4 that the se ond C2!C was haired by Atty. Jubi$ Surmieda and ondu ted an&assin% pro eedin%s from May 1E to 22* 200D4 that petitioner a$so sou%ht the transfer of the an&assin% from the Session 0a$$ of the San%%unian% Pan$un%sod to the Eth +8 amp*Awan%* Ma%uindanao4 that the Surmieda 2oard a$so fai$ed to finish the an&assin% and was rep$a ed by another C2!C haired by Atty. #intan% 2edo$* whi h ondu ted the an&assin% from May 2D to May 29* 200D4 that this an&assin% was interrupted by another petition fi$ed by Ju$iano prayin% for the transfer of the an&assin% from Awan%* Ma%uindanao to the Come$e main offi e in Mani$a* whi h was a%ain %ranted by the Commission4 that the new &enue of the an&assin% was he$d at the Session 0a$$ of the Come$e main offi e in Mani$a4 that a noti e was issued on May 29* 200D by the 2edo$ 2oard statin% that the resumption of an&assin% in Mani$a wi$$ be on <3ednesday* June 2* 200D* at 2.00 o6 $o 5 in the afternoon?4 that despite the noti e* the2edo$ 2oard resumed its an&assin% on June 1* 200D at 1.D: p.m. at the Come$e Session 0a$$* promu$%ated its ru$in%s on a$$ ontested returns* denyin% a$$ petitions for e/ $usion from an&ass of the ontested returns* an&assed the e$e tion returns* then entered and ta$$ied into the statement of &otes the fi%ures and pro $aimed the winnin% andidates4 that t;e Bedol Boa&d '&ocla#%ed &es'ondent Se%a as t;e duly elected Mayo& o9 Cota=ato C#ty4 that 'et#t#one& 9#led on -une 2. 2//( a consol#dated 'et#t#on to null#9y canvass '&oceed#n<s andGo& '&ocla%at#on unde&ta>en =y t;e CB C on -une 1. 2//(. Petitioner raised the fo$$owin% issues as a %round to nu$$ify respondent6s pro $amation* to wit. 1. Petitioner was never notified of t"e new and advanced sc"edule of t"e resum$tion of canvassin in t"e &omelec Main 0ffice! Manila! "ence! t"e $roceedin s was ille al4

2*

T"ere are 345 contested election returns w"ic" $etitioner alle ed to #e s$urious and manufactured! and will adversely affect t"e result of t"e election if t"e res$ective votes of t"e $arties #e deducted from t"e final tally/
17

6*

7n relation to issue num#er 2! &.0& s"ould "ave sus$ended t"e $roclamation as $rescri#ed in 8ection 69! $ar* f of Resolution :o* 999; of t"e &ommission/

<*

T"ere are =< election returns included #y t"e &.0& in t"e canvassin #ut w"ic" were not $art of t"e inventory conducted #y t"e 8urmieda .oard4O1P %Em$"asis su$$lied)

'he C!M"#"C 2nd 8i&ision issued its Reso$ution dated ! tober 19* 200D ru$in% that. / / / the a$$e%ations of the petitioner in re$ation to the 10( returns annot be proper$y reso$&ed in this pre-pro $amation ontro&ersy as it wou$d require the Commission to %o beyond the fa e of the e$e tion returns* in order to find out that the same were rea$$y manufa tured and spurious. Iurthermore* upon perusa$ of the returns* 3e find the same to be in order. 'his findin% is* howe&er* without pre1udi e to the fi$in% of the proper e$e tion protest in order that a thorou%h e&a$uation of the returns wi$$ be ondu ted* whi h may in $ude the e/amination of the si%natures of the 2oard of "$e tion inspe tors.? O2P 3ith re%ard to the a$$e%ed $a 5 of noti e to petitioner of the June 1* 200D an&assin%* the C!M"#"C 2nd 8i&ision he$d that petitioner shou$d be deemed notified of the June 1* 200D an&assin% be ause durin% said pro eedin%s* one of petitioner6s ounse$* Atty. Ja&ines* was present a$on% with petitioner6s wat hers. 'hus* the dispositi&e portion* to wit. DHEREF RE* premises onsidered* the present pre-pro $amation ontro&ersy prayin% for the nu$$ifi ation of the pro $amation of respondent Mus$imin Sema is hereby$ISMISSE$ for $a 5 of merit* without pre1udi e* howe&er* to the fi$in% of the proper e$e tion protest. O9P !n ! tober 29* 200D* petitioner fi$ed a motion for re onsideration. !n January 1)* 200:* she fi$ed her own Affida&it of 8isa&owa$* statin% that she ne&er en%a%ed the $e%a$ ser&i es of Atty. Rona$d Ja&ines =Anne/ <0?>ODP and the Affida&it of Atty. Rona$d Ja&ines* orroboratin% petitioner6s statement in her affida&it =Anne/ <+?>. O:P Petitioner6s motion for re onsideration was e$e&ated to the C!M"#"C En .anc and Commissioner Rufino S.2. Ja&ier was assi%ned as $onente. A Reso$ution under the $onencia of said Commissioner was issued on Iebruary 10* 200:* the dispositi&e portion of whi h reads as fo$$ows. 30"R"I!R"* premises onsidered* the Motion for Re onsideration is hereby @RAA'"8. 'he Reso$ution of the Commission =Se ond 8i&ision> promu$%ated $ast ! tober 19* 200D is R"G"RS"8 and S"' AS+8". 'he pro $amation of Respondent Mus$imin Sema is AAAC##"8 as the pro eedin%s attendant thereto is i$$e%a$. 'he "$e tion Re ords and Statisti s 8i&ision is hereby dire ted to ondu t an e/amination whether or not the one hundred ei%ht =10(> e$e tion returns in&o$&ed in this ase are* as $aimed by the petitioner* written by one. 'he e/amination must be done within ten =10> days from re eipt hereof and the "RS8 shou$d submit its report to the Commission en #anc on the matter within ten =10> days from termination of the e/amination. 'hereafter* the Commission en #anc sha$$ immediate$y e&a$uate the report and set the ase for hearin% if there is a need therefore. Iorthwith*
18

we sha$$ issue a Reso$ution on the issue of e/ $usion of the ontested e$e tion returns. +n the meantime* the &i e-mayor sha$$ temporari$y assume the position of Mayor of Cotabato City.OEP 0owe&er* on$y three membersO)P of the C!M"#"C En .anc &oted in fa&or of %rantin% the Motion for Re onsideration* three membersO(P dissented* and oneO9Pmember too5 no part. Se tion E* Ru$e 1( of the Come$e Ru$es of Pro edure pro&ides. Se . E. Pro edure if !pinion is "qua$$y 8i&ided. 7 3hen the Commission en ban is equa$$y di&ided in opinion* or the ne essary ma1ority annot be had* the ase sha$$ be reheard* and if on rehearin% no de ision is rea hed* the a tion or pro eedin% sha$$ be dismissed if ori%ina$$y ommen ed in the Commission4 in appea$ed ases* the 1ud%ment or order appea$ed from sha$$ stand affirmed4 and in a$$ in identa$ matters* the petition or motion sha$$ be denied. After <re- onsu$tation?* the members hose to maintain their &otes. Cpon fai$in% to obtain a ma1ority &ote on the Reso$ution dated Iebruary 10* 200:* the C!M"#"C En .anc issued the !rder a$so dated Iebruary 10* 200:* the dispositi&e portion of whi h reads as fo$$ows. 4REMISES C NSI$ERE$* after due re- onsu$tation of the resu$ts of the en ban &otin% whi h remains to be 9.9.1* pursuant to Se . E* Ru$e 1( of the Come$e Ru$es of Pro edure* the reso$ution of the Se ond 8i&ision sub1e t of the Motion for Re onsideration is hereby AFFIRME$.

S! !R8"R"8.O10P 0en e* petitioner fi$ed the present petition for ertiorari raisin% the fo$$owin% issues. 30"'0"R !R A!' '0" #ACB !I A!'+C" 2; '0" 2"8!# 2!AR8 '! P"'+'+!A"R AA8F!R P"'+'+!A"R6S C!CAS"# !A '0" R"SCMP'+!A !I CAAGASS !A JCA" 1* 200D '! '0" 'RAASI"RR"8 G"AC" A' '0" S"SS+!A 0A## !I '0" MA+A !II+C" !I PC2#+C R"SP!A8"A' +A +A'RAMCR!S* MAA+#A 3AS CCR"8 2; '0" PR"S"AC" !I P"'+'+!A"R6S 3A'C0"R AA8 A'';. R!AA#8 2. JAG+A"S* 30! APP"AR"8 AS C!CAS"# I!R BAPFPMP C!A@R"SS+!AA# CAA8+8A'" 2A+ U"A; @. 8+#AA@A#"A AA8 BAPFPAP Osi P S"AA'!R+A# CAA8+8A'" 8+8A@"A P. 8+#AA@A#"A4 and

30"'0"R !R A!' PC2#+C R"SP!A8"A' 0AS '0" P!3"R '! =i> 8"'"RM+A" AC'0"A'+C+'; !I "#"C'+!A R"'CRAS4 =ii> +AG"S'+@A'" 2";!A8 '0" R"'CRAS4 AA8 =iii> A8!P' M"AAS AA8 M"'0!8S '! ASC"R'A+A AC'0"A'+C+'; !I "#"C'+!A R"'CRAS.

Respondent* on the other hand* ar%ues that the petition shou$d be dismissed outri%ht be ause petitioner fai$ed to a$$e%e %ra&e abuse of dis retion ommitted by the C!M"#"C En .anc and its 2nd 8i&ision.

+ndeed* it is we$$ sett$ed that <un$ess the C!M"#"C is shown to ha&e ommitted %ra&e abuse of dis retion* its de ision wi$$ not be interfered with by this Court.? O11P Considerin%* thou%h* that the Reso$ution of C!M"#"C 2 nd 8i&ision dated ! tober 19* 200D was affirmed
19

mere$y be ause the &otin% of the C!M"#"C En .anc on the Reso$ution dated Iebruary 10* 200: penned by Commissioner Rufino S.2. Ja&ier =whi h re&ersed and set aside the Reso$ution dated ! tober 19* 200D>* was equa$$y di&ided* this Court is ompe$$ed to $oo5 deeper into this ase. Se tion E* Ru$e 1( of the Come$e Ru$es of Pro edure spe ifi a$$y states that if the opinion of the Come$e "n 2an is equa$$y di&ided* the ase sha$$ be &e;ea&d. 'he Court notes* howe&er* that the !rder of the Come$e En .anc dated Iebruary 10* 200: $ear$y stated that what was ondu ted was a mere <re- onsu$tation.? A <re- onsu$tation? is definite$y not the same as a <rehearin%?. A onsu$tation is a <de$iberation of persons on some sub1e t4? O12P hen e* a reonsu$tation means a se ond de$iberation of persons on some sub1e t. Rehearin% is defined as a <se ond onsideration of ause for purpose of a$$in% to ourt6s or administrati&e board6s attention any error* omission* or o&ersi%ht in first onsideration. A &et&#al o9 #ssues '&esu%es not#ce to 'a&t#es ent#tled t;e&eto and o''o&tun#ty 9o& t;e% to =e ;ea&d?O19P ="mphasis supp$ied>. 2ut as he$d in 8amalio v* &ourt 0f A$$eals*O1DP A forma$ or tria$-type hearin% is not at a$$ times and in a$$ instan es essentia$. 'he requirements are satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonab$e opportunity to e/p$ain their side of the ontro&ersy at hand.

'hus* a rehearin% $ear$y presupposes the parti ipation of the opposin% parties for the purpose of presentin% additiona$ e&iden e* if any* and further $arifyin% and amp$ifyin% their ar%uments4 whereas* a re- onsu$tation in&o$&es a re-e&a$uation of the issues and ar%uments a$ready on hand on$y by the members of the tribuna$* without the parti ipation of the parties. +n .elac v* &omelec*O1:P when the &otin% of the Come$e En .anc on therein petitioner6s motion for re onsideration was equa$$y di&ided* the Come$e En .ancfirst issued an order settin% the ase for hearin% and a$$owed the parties to submit their respe ti&e memoranda before &otin% anew on therein petitioner6s motion for re onsideration. 'his shou$d ha&e been the proper way for the Come$e En .anc to a t on herein petitioner6s motion for re onsideration when the first &otin% was equa$$y di&ided. +ts own Ru$es of Pro edure a$$s for a rehearin% where the parties wou$d ha&e the opportunity to stren%then their respe ti&e positions or ar%uments and on&in e the members of the Come$e En .anc of the merit of their ase. 'hus* when the Come$e En .anc fai$ed to %i&e petitioner the rehearin% required by theCome$e Ru$es of Pro edure* said body a ted with %ra&e abuse of dis retion. IN 1IED F THE F RE3 IN3* the petition is 3RANTE$. 'he ase is REMAN$E$ to the C!M"#"C En .anc. 'he C!M"#"C En .anc is R$ERE$ to ondu t forthwith the &e;ea&#n< required under the C!M"#"C Ru$es of Pro edure and render the appropriate de ision thereon. S! !R8"R"8.

20. L"CMAN 1S C MELEC $ECISI N

A"STRIACMARTINE5. J.:
20

Petitioner 2airansa$am #aut #u man and pri&ate respondent Mosama M. Pandi were mayora$ty andidates in Poona-2ayabao* #anao de$ Sur* durin% the May 10* 200D e$e tions. 8urin% the an&assin% of &otes* pri&ate respondent ob1e ted to the in $usion of ten e$e tion returns* a$thou%h on$y si/ of these are sub1e ts of the present ontro&ersy* to wit. O1P Pre in t Aumber 1A "$e tion Aumber 0120109D Returns !b1e tionFs 1> 'he e$e tion returns is ob&ious$y manufa tured andFor fa$sified 2> +t is not authenti 9> +t ontains a$terations 12FC 9A (A 01201091 0120109: 01201099 1> !b&ious$y manufa tured 1> !b&ious$y manufa tured 2> +n omp$ete 1> !b&ious$y manufa tured andFor fa$sified 2> +n omp$ete (2F(C 0120110E 1> 'he e$e tion returns is ob&ious$y manufa tured 2> +t is in omp$ete* it $a 5s statisti a$ data 1DAF1D2 0120109E 1> !b&ious$y manufa tured

'he Muni ipa$ 2oard of Can&assers =2oard> o&erru$ed pri&ate respondent6s ob1e tions on the disputed returns*O2P and pro $aimed petitioner as the winnin% andidate* as shown in the Certifi ate of Can&ass of Gotes and Pro $amation of the 3innin% Candidates for Muni ipa$ !ffi es* si%ned on May 19* 200D. O9P Petitioner won o&er pri&ate respondent by a mar%in of 1E &otes. Pri&ate respondent fi$ed with Commission on "$e tions =C!M"#"C> an appea$ from the ru$in% of the 2oard* do 5eted as SPC 0D-1(D* a$$e%in% massi&e fraud and irre%u$arities in the ondu t of the e$e tions* e* ** for e* threat and intimidation were emp$oyed on the &oters* doub$e &otin%* substitution of &oters* snat hin% of ba$$ots* paddin% of ba$$ots and e/isten e of f$yin% &oters.ODP Pri&ate respondent a$so ontended that the ontested e$e tion returns shou$d ha&e been e/ $uded from the an&ass* and that the 2oard was pre ipitate in pro $aimin% petitioner as the winnin% andidate* as pri&ate respondent has manifested on re ord that he is intendin% to appea$ the 2oard6s ru$in%. O:P Pri&ate respondent admits that the e/ $usion of the ontested returns is a %round for e$e tion protest* but he a$so ar%ues that the C!M"#"C may %o beyond the fa e of the returns to determine whether the e$e tions in the pre in ts in&o$&ed are a sham. Pri&ate respondent a$so fi$ed a motion to annu$ pro $amation andFor to suspend the effe ts of pro $amation $endente lite.OEP Petitioner fi$ed his Comment andFor Answer to the appea$* ar%uin% that the %rounds re$ied upon by pri&ate respondent are not proper in a pre-pro $amation ontro&ersy but in an e$e tion protest. Petitioner a$so ar%ues that her pro $amation is &a$id4 the petition is defe ti&e for fai$ure to in $ude indispensab$e parties4 and that pri&ate respondent fai$ed to inform the 2oard that he is appea$in% its ru$in%* as required by Se tion 20 of Repub$i A t Ao. )1EE* or 'he "$e tora$ Reforms #aw of 1991.O)P !n June 1E* 200D* a hearin% on the appea$ was he$d* wherein ounse$ for petitioner and pri&ate respondent* and se&era$ 2oard of "$e tion +nspe tors of Poona-2ayabao appeared*
21

and Ms. Monera P. Ma adato* Po$$ C$er5 of Pre in t 9A was a$$ed to the witness stand. O(P Presidin% Commissioner Resurre ion U. 2orra* for the Iirst 8i&ision* then issued an order on the same date* requirin% the parties to submit their simu$taneous memoranda. O9P !n September 90* 200D* the C!M"#"C6s Iirst 8i&ision issued the assai$ed order* with the fo$$owin% dispositi&e portion. +n order therefore to reso$&e the issues raised in this Appea$ the Commission =I+RS' 8+G+S+!A> hereby !R8"RS the do ument e/aminers of the Commission on "$e tions to ondu t an e/amination of the #ist of Goters with Gotin% Re ord of the pre in ts in&o$&ed in this ase as we$$ as the GRRs pertainin% to the ontested pre in ts in the Muni ipa$ity of Poonabayabao to determine whether or not a tua$ &otin% by the du$y re%istered &oters of said pre in ts were ondu ted durin% the e$e tions of May 10* 200D4 Considerin% that we ha&e annu$$ed the pro $amation of 2A+RAMSA#AM =si > #AC' #CCMAA as du$y e$e ted mayor of Poonabayabao* #anao de$ Sur* it is hereby ordered that the Gi eMayor of said Muni ipa$ity assumed =si > the position pursuant to the pro&isions of the #o a$ @o&ernment Code* unti$ the fina$ reso$ution of this petition. S! !R8"R"8.O10P Commissioner Gir%i$io !. @ar i$$ano dissented to the ma1ority opinion on the %round that the petition in&o$&es issues proper to an e$e tion protest and not a pre-pro $amation ontro&ersy. O11P Petitioner mo&ed to re onsider the assai$ed !rder* and in an !rder dated ! tober 19* 200D* Commissioner 2orra ordered and ertified the motion for re onsideration to the Commission en ban .O12P 'hereafter* the Commission en ban * in an !rder dated ! tober 1D* 200D* issued a temporary restrainin% order and a status quo ante order* dire tin% the parties to maintain the status pre&ai$in% before the issuan e of the September 90* 200D Reso$ution. !n 8e ember 1D* 200D* the C!M"#"C en ban issued the assai$ed Reso$ution denyin% petitioner6s motion for $a 5 of merit.O19P 'he dispositi&e portion of said Reso$ution reads. 30"R"I!R"* in &iew of the fore%oin%* the Commission = en #anc> R"S!#G"8* as it hereby R"S!#G"S to 8"A; the Motion for Re onsideration for $a 5 of merit. 'he !rder of the Commission =Iirst 8i&ision> dated 90 September 200D is hereby AII+RM"8. A ordin%$y* in imp$ementation of the dire ti&e therein* the do ument e/aminers of the Commission on "$e tions are hereby ordered to ondu t an e/amination of the #ist of Goters with Gotin% Re ord of the pre in ts in&o$&ed in this ase as we$$ as the GRRs pertainin% to the ontested pre in ts in the Muni ipa$ity of Poonabayabao to determine whether or not a tua$ &otin% by the du$y re%istered &oters of said pre in ts were ondu ted durin% the e$e tions of May 10* 200D* and thereafter submit a report thereon. 'he 'emporary Restrainin% !rderF8tatus >uo Ante !rder dated 1D ! tober 200D is hereby $ifted. S! !R8"R"8.O1DP !n 8e ember 1)* 200D* Commissioner Meho$ Sadain issued a &onstancia protestin% his $a 5 of parti ipation in the En .anc Reso$ution. Commissioner Sadain stated that a$thou%h he was out on offi ia$ business at the time the Reso$ution was routed to his offi e* he shou$d ha&e been a$$owed to &ote thereon* or at $east* informed of the ur%en y of its promu$%ation so that he may ast his &ote or a$$ow its promu$%ation without his si%nature. O1:P Petitioner then fi$ed the present spe ia$ i&i$ a tion for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the issuan e of temporary restrainin% orderFpre$iminary in1un tion* based on the fo$$owin% %rounds.

22

P+.'7& RE8P0:,E:T A&TE, ?7TH0+T! 7: E@&E88 0R ?7TH ARABE A.+8E 0C ,78&RET70: 7: A::+''7:A THE PR0&'AMAT70: 0C THE PET7T70:ER* P+.'7& RE8P0:,E:T A&TE, 7: E@&E88 0R ?7TH ARABE A.+8E 0C ,78&RET70: 7: 0R,ER7:A THE ,0&+ME:T E@AM7:ER8 T0 E@AM7:E THE '78T 0C B0TER8 ?7TH B0T7:A RE&0R,8 A:, THE BRRs* P+.'7& RE8P0:,E:T A&TE, ?7TH0+T! 7: E@&E88 0R ?7TH ARABE 0C ,78&RET70: %sic) 7: TA-7:A &0A:7DA:&E 0C THE APPEA' ?7TH0+T THE 7:,78PE:8A.'E PART7E8 7MP'EA,E, A:, ?7TH0+T THE MA:,AT0RE RE>+7REME:T8 0C 8E&T70: 24! RA F399 &0MP'7E,* P+.'7& RE8P0:,E:T A&TE, ?7TH0+T J+R78,7&T70: 7: TA-7:A &0A:7DA:&E 0C THE M0T70: T0 RE&0:87,ER THE &HA''E:AE, 7:TER'0&+T0RE 0R,ER 0C 8EPTEM.ER 64! 244<*O1EP 'he pi&ota$ issue in this ase is whether the appea$ from the 2oard of Can&assers to the C!M"#"C =Iirst 8i&ision> inter1e ted by pri&ate respondent ma5es a ase for a prepro $amation ontro&ersy. Se tion 2D1 of the !mnibus "$e tion Code defines a pre-pro $amation ontro&ersy as <any question pertainin% to or affe tin% the pro eedin%s of the board of an&assers whi h may be raised by any andidate or by any re%istered po$iti a$ party or oa$ition of po$iti a$ parties before the board or dire t$y with the Commission* or any matter raised under Se tions 299* 29D* 29: and 29E in re$ation to the preparation* transmission* re eipt* ustody and appre iation of the e$e tion returns.? Cnder Se tion 2D9 of the same Code* the issues that may be raised in a prepro $amation ontro&ersy* are as fo$$ows. S"C. 2D9. 7ssues t"at may #e raised in $reG$roclamation controversy . - 'he fo$$owin% sha$$ be proper issues that may be raised in a pre-pro $amation ontro&ersy. =a> +$$e%a$ omposition or pro eedin%s of the board of an&assers4

=b> 'he an&assed e$e tion returns are in omp$ete* ontain materia$ defe ts* appear to be tampered with or fa$sified* or ontain dis repan ies in the same returns or in other authenti opies thereof as mentioned in Se tions 299* 29D* 29:* and 29E of this Code4 = > 'he e$e tion returns were prepared under duress* threats* oer ion* or intimidation* or they are ob&ious$y manufa tured or not authenti 4 and =d> 3hen substitute or fraudu$ent returns in ontro&erted po$$in% p$a es were an&assed* the resu$ts of whi h materia$$y affe ted the standin% of the a%%rie&ed andidate or andidates. 'he fore%oin% enumeration is restri ti&e and e/ $usi&e. O1)P +n the present ase* the ob1e tions initia$$y raised by pri&ate respondent before the Muni ipa$ 2oard of Can&assers were proper in a pre-pro $amation ontro&ersy* i*e** the e$e tion returns is ob&ious$y manufa tured andFor fa$sified* it is not authenti * it ontains a$terations. 0owe&er* in his appea$ to the C!M"#"C* he further a$$e%ed that the e$e tions he$d in the pre in ts $ustered in the Pooni #omabao Centra$ "$ementary were tainted with massi&e e$e tion irre%u$arities. A ordin% to pri&ate respondent* there were <massi&e substitution of &oters* snat hin% of ba$$ots from the &oters by peop$e identified with the #u man who fi$$ed them up a%ainst the wi$$ of the &oters* for e or oer ion* threats* intimidation* astin% of &otes by doub$e re%istrants in the same pre in ts =doub$e entry>* and f$yin% &oters W?O1(P Pri&ate respondent a$so a$$e%ed that the ountin% of &otes on May 11* 200D* were not prepared simu$taneous$y with the appre iation of the ba$$otsF ountin% of &otes* in &io$ation of Se tion DD of C!M"#"C Reso$ution Ao. EEE) =Mar h 1E* 200D>. A$so* pri&ate
23

respondent6s wat hers were threatened by petitioner6s wat hers* for in% them to $ea&e the ountin% room* and that the 2oard of "$e tion +nspe tors mere$y opied the entries on the ta$$y boards and re ords of &otes made by petitioner6s wat hers. Iina$$y* pri&ate respondent a$$e%ed that the denia$ to his ob1e tions to the ontested e$e tion returns were not made by the Muni ipa$ 2oard of Can&assers in the pres ribed form* and that despite his manifestation that he wi$$ appea$ the 2oard6s ru$in% on the returns* it pro eeded with petitioner6s pro $amation.O19P !b&ious$y* the fore%oin% a$$e%ations pertain not on$y to the preparation* transmission* re eipt* ustody and appre iation of the e$e tion returns* but to the ondu t of the e$e tions as we$$. Pre-pro $amation ontro&ersies are $imited to ha$$en%es dire ted a%ainst the 2oard of Can&assers and pro eedin%s before said 2oard re$atin% to parti u$ar e$e tion returns to whi h pri&ate respondent shou$d ha&e made spe ifi &erba$ ob1e tions subsequent$y redu ed to writin%. A pre-pro $amation ontro&ersy is $imited to an e/amination of the e$e tion returns on their fa e. As a ru$e* the C!M"#"C is $imited to an e/amination of the e$e tion returns on their fa e.O20P +t is beyond the C!M"#"C6s 1urisdi tion to %o beyond the fa e of the returns or in&esti%ate e$e tion irre%u$arities.O21P 'he pro eedin%s in a pre-pro $amation ontro&ersy are summary in nature. O22P Re eption of e&iden e aliunde* su h as the #ist of Goters with Gotin% Re ord and the GRRs* is pros ribed.O29P +ssues su h as fraud or terrorism attendant to the e$e tion pro ess* the reso$ution of whi h wou$d ompe$ or ne essitate the C!M"#"C to pier e the &ei$ of e$e tion returns whi h appear to be $rima facie re%u$ar* on their fa e* are anathema to a prepro $amation ontro&ersy. Su h issues shou$d be posed and reso$&ed in a re%u$ar e$e tion protest* whi h is within the ori%ina$ 1urisdi tion of the Re%iona$ 'ria$ Court =R'C>. O2DP +n a re%u$ar e$e tion protest* the parties may $iti%ate a$$ the $e%a$ and fa tua$ issues raised by them inasmu h detai$ as they may deem ne essary or appropriate. O2:P +n Maca#a o vs* &0ME'E&*O2EP the Court reiterated. 'hat the paddin% of the #ist of Goters may onstitute fraud* or that the 2oard of "$e tion +nspe tors may ha&e fraudu$ent$y onspired in its preparation* wou$d not be a &a$id basis for a pre-pro $amation ontro&ersy either. Ior* whene&er irre%u$arities* su h as fraud* are asserted* the proper ourse of a tion is an e$e tion protest. Su h irre%u$arities as fraud* &ote-buyin% and terrorism are proper %rounds in an e$e tion ontest but may not as a ru$e be in&o5ed to de $are a fai$ure of e$e tion and to disenfran hise the %reater number of the e$e torate throu%h the misdeeds* pre ise$y* of on$y a re$ati&e few. !therwise* e$e tions wi$$ ne&er be arried out with the resu$tant disenfran hisement of the inno ent &oters* for the $osers wi$$ a$ways ry fraud and terrorism = AA, vs* &0ME'E&* @.R. Ao. )(902* May 2E* 19()* 1:0 SCRA EE:>. 0en e* as orre t$y ar%ued by petitioner* pri&ate respondent6s ause of a tion before the C!M"#"C is proper for an e$e tion protest and not a pre-pro $amation ontro&ersy* and the C!M"#"C ommitted %ra&e abuse of dis retion in entertainin% pri&ate respondent6s petitionFappea$. Consequent$y* a$$ subsequent a tions by the C!M"#"C in re$ation to pri&ate respondent6s appea$ are nu$$ and &oid* and orre tib$e by the present spe ia$ i&i$ a tion for certiorari. Io$$owin% the disposition of the Court in Maca#a o vs* &0ME'E&*O2)P the dismissa$ of pri&ate respondent6s petitionFappea$ before the C!M"#"C is without pre1udi e to the fi$in% of a re%u$ar e$e tion protest before the proper R'C* the period for the fi$in% of whi h is deemed suspended by the fi$in% of pri&ate respondent6s petitionFappea$. +n $i%ht of the fore%oin% ru$in%* the Court need not de$&e on the other issues posed by petitioner as these ne essari$y ha&e been rendered moot and a ademi O2(P thereby. DHEREF RE* the petition is @RAA'"8. 'he assai$ed !rder dated September 90* 200D of the Iirst 8i&ision and Reso$ution "n 2an dated 8e ember 1D* 200D are S"' AS+8" on
24

%round of $a 5 of 1urisdi tion. Pri&ate respondent6s appea$ to the Iirst 8i&ision and the appea$ to the C!M"#"C "n 2an are 8+SM+SS"8* without pre1udi e to the fi$in% of a re%u$ar e$e tion protest* the period for the fi$in% of whi h is deemed suspended by the fi$in% of the petition before the C!M"#"C unti$ the fina$ity of herein de ision. 'he pro $amation of petitioner by the Muni ipa$ 2oard of Can&assers is maintained and petitioner shou$d be a$$owed to assume her offi e as mayor of Poona-2ayabao* #anao de$ Sur. S R$ERE$.

22.

LAN LAN 1S C MELEC N

$ECISI 3ARCIA. J.:

Comin% to this Court via this &erified petition for ertiorari* prohibition and mandamus under Ru$e E: of the Ru$es of Court* with prayer for in1un ti&e re$ief* petitioner Robert ". !$ano$an ur%es us to nu$$ify and set aside the en #anc &de&O1P dated Se'te%=e& ). 2//( o9 &es'ondent Co%%#ss#on on Elect#ons 7C MELEC8 in EAC No. 01C2//! denyin% his motion for re onsideration of an ear$ier Resolut#onO2P dated Ma&c; !1. 2//( of the Commission6s Se ond 8i&ision* the nu$$ifi ation of whi h* a$on% with said 8i&ision6s other in identa$ issuan es* are $i5ewise sou%ht in this re ourse. 'he fa tua$ ante edents are* as fo$$ows. Petitioner Ro=e&to E. lanolan =!$ano$an> and pri&ate respondent Celso A. T#,on 7T#,on8 were amon% the andidates for the position of punong barangay of .aran ay )E-A* 2u ana* 8a&ao City in the Ju$y 1:* 2002 #aran ay e$e tions. After the &otin% e/er ise and an&ass* !$ano$an was pro $aimed the winnin% andidate* ha&in% %arnered a tota$ of (.22) &otes as a%ainst the (.20) &otes for 'izon* the se ond p$a er* or a mar%in of ten 71/8 votes. 'izon attributed his $oss to anoma$ies a$$e%ed$y perpetrated by* amon% others* the hairperson* po$$ $er5s and members of the 2oard of "$e tion +nspe tors =2"+>. A ordin%$y* on Ju$y 2:* 2002* he fi$ed before the Muni ipa$ 'ria$ Court in Cities =M'CC>* 8a&ao City an e$e tion protest*O9P do 5eted as Elect#on Case No. )((C3C2//2* whi h was e&entua$$y raff$ed to 2ran h ) of the ourt. +n it* 'izon prayed for the re&ision of ba$$ots ast in se&enty =)2> two pre in ts $o ated at 2u ana "$ementary S hoo$ and thereafter the nu$$ifi ation of !$ano$an6s pro $amation and his ='izon6s> pro $amation as the e$e ted $unon #aran ay of .aran ay )EA* 2u ana* 8a&ao City. +nasmu h as !$ano$an6s answer with ounter-protest was be$ated$y fi$ed* the M'CC wou$d* as stated in its de ision* infra* enter a %enera$ denia$ for him. Subsequent de&e$opments saw the onstitution by the M'CC of a 9-man re&ision ommittee whi h* after ondu tin% a re&ision and re ountin% of ba$$ots in the ontested pre in ts* submitted a Re&ision Committee Report dated September 19* 2002. ODP 8urin% the protest pro eedin%s* it was obser&ed that the ba$$ots used in two =2> of the ontested pre in ts* i*e** Pre in ts Ao. :9(-A and E0(-A* were without C!M"#"C watermar5s and other se urity features. +n fa t* pa%e EO:P of the re&ision report ontained the fo$$owin% entries. <2> +n pre in t :9(A with a tota$ number of :E &otes for !#AA!#AA and 29 for '+U!A was e/ $uded from the re ountin% on the fo$$owin% %rounds.

25

1> 2>

'hat the o$or of the ba$$ots is different from the ba$$ots whi h were a$ready re ounted ta5en from the pre&ious bo/es4 'hat upon e/amination* the ba$$ots in this pre in t do not ha&e se urity ode shadow whi$e in the other ba$$ots whi h were a$ready re ounted from the pre&ious ba$$ot bo/es ha&e their se urity ode shadow?.

+n the same pro eedin%s* the 2"+ hairman of Pre in t Ao. :9(-A* 2eni%no Si$&osa* admitted to re ei&in% from the 8a&ao City 'reasurer6s !ffi e the e$e tion parapherna$ia for that pre in t the day before a tua$ &otin% and then brin%in% home the same to his residen e. OEP !n 8e ember 1(* 2002* the M'CC rendered 1ud%ment O)P dismissin% 'izon6s e$e tion protest main$y on the stren%th of the fo$$owin% premises. +n the ase of Mar e$ino #ibanan &s. 0ouse of Representati&es "$e tora$ 'ribuna$ and Jose Ramirez* @.R. Ao. 129)(9* 8e ember 22* 199)* the ourt affirmed the ru$in% of the 'ribuna$ in . . . 0R"' Case Ao. 9:-020 to the effe t that a ba$$ot without 2"+ hairman6s si%nature at the ba 5 is &a$id and not spurious* pro&ided that it bears any of these other authenti atin% mar5s* to wit. =a> the C!M"#"C watermar5 =b> in ases where the C!M"#"C watermar5s are b$urred or not readi$y apparent* the presen e of b$ue and red fibers in the ba$$ot. +n the instant a tion* petitioner Oi.e.*'izonP fai$ed to show on&in in% proof that the absen e of the C!M"#"C watermar5s parti u$ar$y on ba$$ots be$on%in% to Pre in t :)(-A Oshou$d ha&e been Pre in t :9(-AP rendered the same in&a$id. Aonethe$ess* e&en if the C!M"#"C watermar5s are not &isib$e to the na5ed eye* the ba$$ots under this pre in t bore the initia$ of the 2"+ hairman at the ba 5 of the same. As he$d* it is on$y when none of these mar5s appears e/tant that the ba$$ot an be onsidered spurious and sub1e t to re1e tion. /// /// ///

'he a$$e%ation in the Petition . . . whi h refers to anoma$ous ondu t of the Chairman of the 2"+ of Pre in t :9(-A . . . in the person of 2en Si$&osa was unsubstantiated. 'he ourt is on&in ed the a$$e%ed anoma$y did not e/ist. =3ords in bra 5et added>. +n time* 'izon appea$ed to the C!M"#"C whereat his re ourse was do 5eted as EAC No. 01C2//!. !n Ma&c; !1. 2//(* the Se ond 8i&ision of the C!M"#"C issued a Resolut#on* settin% aside the appea$ed de ision of the M'CC and de $arin% 'izon* as protestantappe$$ant thereat* <t"e duly elected Punon .aran ay of .aran ay F9GA! .ucana! ,avao &ity in t"e July 3=! 2442 #aran ay elections "avin o#tained a total of <!223 votes as a ainst t"e $rotesteeGa$$ellees <!3;9 or a mar in of 2= votes ?. 'he Se ond 8i&ision ratio inated.
O(P

!n the other hand* a ursory readin% of the questioned de ision of the ourt a quo re&ea$s f$aws andFor short omin%s that mi$itate a%ainst the &a$idity of the findin%s and on $usions ontained in said de ision. Predi ated therefrom* we find it ne essary to disabuse the minds of the parties anent their ontentious a$$e%ations by e/aminin% and appre iatin% the ba$$ots and a$$ e$e tion do uments the resu$ts hereunder dis ussed. Petitioner !$ano$an re ei&ed a opy of the reso$ution on A'&#l 1(. 2//(. 'wo days thereafter* A'&#l 10* he fi$ed* &ia re%istered mai$* a Mot#on 9o& Recons#de&at#on .O9P Ior his part* pri&ate respondent 'izon sou%ht* in an ear$ier motion* O10P the e/e ution of the aforementioned Mar h 91* 200D Reso$ution of the C!M"#"C6s Se ond 8i&ision. Pursuant to an !rder of Apri$ 2E* 200D* O11P the Se ond 8i&ision e$e&ated !$ano$an6s Motion for Re onsideration =MR>* to%ether with the ase re ords* to the C!M"#"C en #anc* notin% that <only seven %F) sets of t"e said MR were filed and t"at no $ayment of t"e required motion fee was made #y movant .? +n the same !rder* the Se ond 8i&ision $i5ewise e$e&ated to the en ban 'izon6s motion for e/e ution pendin% appea$.
26

2are$y a wee5 after* or on May D* 200D* petitioner !$ano$an submitted a manifestationO12P en $osin% therewith a posta$ money order in the amount of P:00.00 to o&er the required $e%a$ fees for his Motion for Re onsideration. +n the herein assai$ed &de& dated Se'te%=e& ). 2//( *O19P the C!M"#"C en #anc denied the desired re onsideration on a ount of !$ano$an6s* as mo&ant therein* fai$ure to pay the motion fee and to submit the required number of opies of his motion for re onsideration. +n the same !rder* the C!M"#"C en #anc dire ted the Se ond 8i&ision6s ommission $er5 to immediate$y issue an Ent&y o9 -ud<%ent and the Chief of the Judi ia$ Re ords 8i&ision to remand to the M'CC the re ords of the ase* statin% in this re%ard the fo$$owin%. Considerin% that there is no &a$id motion Ofor re onsiderationP to spea5 of* the pro&ision of Se tion 19 = >* Ru$e 1( of the C!M"#"C Ru$es of Pro edure app$ies* to wit. HSe . 19. Iina$ity of 8e isions or Reso$ution. 7 /// = > "nless a %ot#on 9o& &econs#de&at#on #s seasona=ly 9#led. a dec#s#on o& &esolut#on o9 a $#v#s#on s;all =eco%e 9#nal and e@ecuto&y a9te& t;e la'se o9 9#ve 7*8 days #n S'ec#al act#ons and S'ec#al cases and a9te& 9#9teen 71*8 days #n all ot;e& act#ons o& '&oceed#n<s. 9ollo?#n< #ts '&o%ul<at#on .6 hen e* the Reso$ution promu$%ated by this Commission =Se ond 8i&ision> on Mar h 91* 200D* opy of whi h was re ei&ed by protestee-appe$$ee6s ounse$ on Apri$ 1D* 200D* had be ome fina$ and e/e utory on Apri$ 1:* 200D. =+ta$i s and under$inin% in the ori%ina$>. After the de reed issuan e of Ent&y o9 -ud<%ent* the C!M"#"C6s Spe ia$ Se ond 8i&ision* a tin% on 'izon6s ear$ier motion to e/e ute the questioned Ma&c; !1. 2//( Resolut#on of the 8i&ision* dire ted* in its !rder of September 1E* 200D* O1DP the issuan e of the orrespondin% writ* whi h the di&ision $er5 did issue on e&en date. O1:P 0en e* petitioner !$ano$an6s present re ourse* $aimin% in %ist* that the C!M"#"C en #anc a ted in %ra&e abuse of dis retion amountin% to $a 5 or in e/ ess of 1urisdi tion in 7 1. denyin% his motion for re onsideration of the Mar h 91* 200D Reso$ution of the Se ond 8i&ision on %rounds of non-payment of $e%a$ fees and non-submission of the required opies of the motion4 and 2. de $arin% the same Reso$ution as fina$ and e/e utory on Apri$ 1:* 200D* or fifteen =1:> from its promu$%ation on Mar h 91* 200D* on the theory that his motion for re onsideration of su h reso$ution is* for a$$ intents and purposes* not fi$ed. Petitioner !$ano$an a$so imputes %ra&e abuse of dis retion on the part of the Se ond 8i&ision in re&ersin% the M'CC de ision and in orderin% the issuan e of a writ of e/e ution that e&entua$$y $ed to the imp$ementation of its =Se ond 8i&ision6s> Mar h 91* 200D Reso$ution. +n the Court6s en #anc Reso$ution of Ao&ember 9* 200D* we dire ted the parties obser&e the status quo pre&ai$in% before the issuan e of the assai$ed reso$ution and order the C!M"#"C.O1EP +n omp$ian e with this in1un tion* the 8epartment of the +nterior and #o @o&ernment too5 the ne essary measures whi h e&entua$$y enab$ed petitioner !$ano$an a tua$$y assume the offi e of $unon #aran ay on 8e ember E* 200D. to of a$ to

+t is petitioner6s posture in this re ourse that the twin requirements on payment of fee for motion for re onsideration and the submission of the ne essary number of opies of su h motion are not 1urisdi tiona$ a&eat* but parta5e of the nature of mere te hni a$ ru$es whi h shou$d not be made to pre&ai$ o&er the o$$e ti&e wi$$ of the &oters of 2aran%ay )E-A* 2u ana* 8a&ao City. +t is* he adds* thus %ra&e$y abusi&e of dis retion on the part of the C!M"#"C en ban to predi ate its assai$ed denia$ a tion on non- omp$ian e with su h te hni a$ requirements. 3e are not persuaded.
27

'he term < rave a#use of discretion?* in its 1uridi a$ sense* onnotes* as 'itton Mills 7nc* 7nc* vs* Aalleon Trader! 7nc**O1)P and a host of other ases tea h* apri ious* despoti * oppressi&e or whimsi a$ e/er ise of 1ud%ment as is equi&a$ent to $a 5 of 1urisdi tion. 'he abuse must be of su h de%ree as to amount to an e&asion of positi&e duty or a &irtua$ refusa$ to perform a duty en1oined by $aw* as where the power is e/er ised in an arbitrary and apri ious manner by reason of passion and hosti$ity. O1(P 'he word <ca$ricious?* usua$$y used in tandem with the term < ar#itrary?* on&eys the notion of wi$$fu$ and unreasonin% a tion. 'hus* when see5in% the orre ti&e hand of certiorari* a $ear showin% of apri e and arbitrariness in the e/er ise of dis retion is imperati&e. As it were* the C!M"#"C en #anc* in issuin% its assai$ed &de& dated Se'te%=e& ). 2//(*O19P did no more than fo$$ow its own ru$es issued pursuant to no $ess than to its onstitutiona$ mandate to promu$%ate <its rules of $rocedure to e1$edite dis$osition of election cases?O20P as we$$ as to issue < its own rules concernin $leadin s and $ractice #efore it or #efore any of its offices * * * * ?O21P 'he ru$es on payment of $e%a$ fees and submission of p$eadin%s are embodied in the C!M"#"C Ru$es of Pro edure* spe ifi a$$y Sect#on 2798 o9 Rule (/ and Sect#on 1. Rule 2* thereof* pertinent$y pro&idin%* respe ti&e$y* as fo$$ows. Ru$e D0* Se tion )=f>. <Se . ). Le<al Fees. 7 'he fo$$owin% $e%a$ fees sha$$ be har%ed and o$$e ted. /// /// /// de ision* order or

=f> Ior fi$in% of a motion for re onsideration on a reso$ution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P:00.00 =as amended> Ru$e )* Se tion 1.

<Se . 1. F#l#n< o9 4lead#n<s. 7 "&ery p$eadin%* motion and other papers must be fi$ed in ten =10> $e%ib$e opies. ///*?. Comp$ementin% the aforequoted Se tion )=f> of Ru$e D0 is the su eedin% Se tion 1( of the same Ru$e* pres ribin% the C!M"#"C6s option in ase of non-payment of pres ribed fees* thus. <Se . 1(. NonC'ay%ent o9 '&esc&#=ed 9ees. 7 +f the fees abo&e pres ribed are not paid* the Commission may refuse to ta5e a tion unti$ they are paid and may dismiss the a tion or pro eedin%.? Petitioner6s $ament that what the C!M"#"C en #anc did was impro&identia$ as it ou$d ha&e mere$y refused to a t on his motion for re onsideration unti$ the required fees were paid* whi$e understandab$e* is untenab$e. Rodillas vs* &ommission on Elections O22P su in t$y e/p$ains why. Petitioner annot in&o5e to his aid the pro&ision of Se tion 1(* Ru$e D0 of the C!M"#"C Ru$es of Pro edure for the simp$e reason that under said Ru$e* the C!M"#"C is pre ise$y %i&en the dis retion* in a ase where the pres ribed fees are not paid* to either refuse to ta5e a tion on the ase unti$ the fees are paid* or to dismiss the a tion or pro eedin%. 'he C!M"#"C* unfortunate$y for petitioner* hose to e/er ise the se ond option. 'he C!M"#"C* therefore* did not ommit an abuse of dis retion in dismissin% the appea$. Consequent to the C!M"#"C6s en #anc !rder de $arin% its Se ond 8i&ision6s Reso$ution of Mar h 91* 200D fina$ and e/e utory* the assai$ed issuan e by the $atter of the orrespondin% writ of e/e ution to imp$ement said reso$ution an be sustained as orre t and doubt$ess within its 1urisdi tion. A ordin%$y* petitioner is not entit$ed to a writ of ertiorari*

28

ertiorari bein% $imited to reso$&in% on$y errors of 1urisdi tion4 it is not a remedy to orre t errors of 1ud%ment*O29P if su h be the ase. +n a$$* this Court finds that the C!M"#"C en #anc ommitted no error in denyin%* for reasons stated in its assai$ed &de& dated Se'te%=e& ). 2//(* petitioner6s motion for re onsideration of the Se ond 8i&ision6s Reso$ution of Mar h 91* 200D. @i&en the fore%oin% premises* there is hard$y any need to de$&e into the question of whether %ra&e abuse of dis retion attended the issuan e by the C!M"#"C of an Ent&y o9 -ud<%ent on the assai$ed Se ond 8i&ision6s Mar h 91* 200D Reso$ution that $ed to the issuan e of the orrespondin% writ of e/e ution. Su h issue has been rendered moot and a ademi by this disposition. An issue be omes moot and a ademi when it eases to present a 1ustifiab$e ontro&ersy so that a determination thereof wou$d be without pra ti a$ use and &a$ue.O2DP +n su h ases* there is no a tua$ substantia$ re$ief to whi h a petitioner wou$d be entit$ed to and whi h wou$d be ne%ated by the dismissa$ of the petition. O2:P DHEREF RE* the petition is 8+SM+SS"8. A ordin%$y* the status quo ante order issued by this Court on Ao&ember 9* 200D is hereby R"CA##"8. S R$ERE$.

2).

N3 1S ALE3RE

IAC'S. A$e%re fi$ed with the C!M"#"C Pro&in ia$ !ffi e a Petition to 8isqua$ify* 8eny 8ue Courseand Can e$ the Certifi ate of Candida y of Iran is !n%. 'he petition to disqua$ify was predi ated onthe three- onse uti&e term ru$e. Iran is ha&in%* a ordin% to A$e%re* ran in the May 199:* 199(* andMay 2001 mayora$ty e$e tions and ha&e assumed offi e as Mayor and dis har%ed the duties thereof for three onse uti&e fu$$ terms orrespondin% to those e$e tions.'he Iirst 8i&ision of C!M"#"C rendered on Mar h 91* 200D a reso$ution dismissin% the said petitionof A$e%re* rationa$izin% that Iran is mi%ht ha&e indeed fu$$y ser&ed the mayora$ terms of 199: to 199(4199( to 2001 and 2001 to 200D but the mayora$ term howe&er* from 199( to 2001 annot be onsideredhis be ause he was not du$y e$e ted thereto. 'he R'C of 8aet* Camarines Aorte 2ran h D1 has &oided his e$e tion for the 199( term when it he$d* in its de ision that A$e%re was the T$e%a$$y e$e ted Mayor inthe 199( mayora$ty e$e tion in San Gi ente* Camarines Aorte.T+SSC". 3hether or not !n%6s assumption of offi e as Mayor of San Gi ente* Camarines Aorte for themayora$ty term 199( to 2001 be onsidered as fu$$ ser&i e for the purpose of the three-term $imit ru$e.0"#8. Affirmati&e. !n% is disqua$ified as e&en if the C!M"#"C had de $ared A$e%re to be the $e%a$$ye$e ted mayor in the 199( e$e tions* it was without effe t as the de $aration on$y too5 p$a e AI'"R thee/piration of the ontested offi e.

2+. 4a%aton< vs C MELEC Facts: - Petitioner Re&. "$$y Ge$ez Pamaton% fi$ed his Certifi ate of Candida y for President on 8e ember 1)* 2009. - Respondent Commission on "$e tions =C!M"#"C> refused to %i&e due ourse to petitioner6s Certifi ate of Candida y in its Reso$ution Ao. E::( dated January 1)* 200D. - 'he de ision of C!M"#"C was not unanimous sin e Commissioners #uz&iminda @. 'an an% o and Meho$ B. Sadain &oted to in $ude petitioner as they be$ie&ed he had parties or mo&ements to ba 5 up his andida y. - !n January 1:* 200D* petitioner mo&ed for re onsideration of Reso$ution Ao. E::(.

29

- 'he C!M"#"C* a tin% on petitioner6s Motion for Re onsideration and on simi$ar motions fi$ed by other aspirants for nationa$ e$e ti&e positions* denied the same under the ae%is of !mnibus Reso$ution Ao. EE0D dated Iebruary 11* 200D. - 'he petitioner fi$ed a Petition Ior 3rit of Certiorari see5in% to re&erse the reso$utions whi h were a$$e%ed$y rendered in &io$ation of his ri%ht to <equa$ a ess to opportunities for pub$i ser&i e? under Se tion 2E* Arti $e ++ of the 19(). - Petitioner ar%ues that the C!M"#"C indire t$y amended the onstitutiona$ pro&isions on the e$e tora$ pro ess and $imited the power of the so&erei%n peop$e to hoose their $eaders.

Issue: 3hether or not the petitioner an in&o5e the Constitutiona$ Pro&ision Arti $e ++* Se tion 2E.

Held:

'he <equa$ a ess? pro&ision is a subsumed part of Arti $e ++ of the Constitution* entit$ed <8e $aration of Prin ip$es and State Po$i ies.? 'he pro&isions under the Arti $e are %enera$$y onsidered not se$f-e/e utin%* and there is no p$ausib$e reason for a ordin% a different treatment to the <equa$ a ess? pro&ision. #i5e the rest of the po$i ies enumerated in Arti $e ++* the pro&ision does not ontain any 1udi ia$$y enfor eab$e onstitutiona$ ri%ht but mere$y spe ifies a %uide$ine for $e%is$ati&e or e/e uti&e a tion. 'he disre%ard of the pro&ision does not %i&e rise to any ause of a tion before the ourts. C$ear$y* therefore* petitioner6s re$ian e on the equa$ a the Constitution is misp$a ed. ess $ause in Se tion 2E* Arti $e ++ of

'he !mnibus "$e tion Code and C!M"#"C Reso$ution Ao. ED:2 are o%nizant of the ompe$$in% State interest to ensure order$y and redib$e e$e tions by e/ isin% impediments thereto* su h as nuisan e andida ies that distra t and detra t from the $ar%er purpose. 'he C!M"#"C is mandated by the Constitution with the administration of e$e tions and endowed with onsiderab$e $atitude in adoptin% means and methods that wi$$ ensure the promotion of free* order$y and honest e$e tions. 'he question of whether a andidate is a nuisan e andidate or not is both $e%a$ and fa tua$. 'he basis of the fa tua$ determination is not before this Court. 'hus* the remand of this ase for the re eption of further e&iden e is in order. A word of aution is in order. 3hat is at sta5e is petitioner6s aspiration and offer to ser&e in the %o&ernment. +t deser&es not a ursory treatment but a hearin% whi h onforms to the requirements of due pro ess. As to petitioner6s atta 5s on the &a$idity of the form for the ertifi ate of andida y* suffi e it to say that the form stri t$y omp$ies with Se tion )D of the !mnibus "$e tion Code. 'his pro&ision spe ifi a$$y enumerates what a ertifi ate of andida y shou$d ontain* with the required information tendin% to show that the andidate possesses the minimum qua$ifi ations for the position aspired for as estab$ished by the Constitution and other e$e tion $aws. +A G+"3 !I '0" I!R"@!+A@* C!M"#"C Case Ao. SPP =MP> Ao. 0D-001 is hereby remanded to the C!M"#"C for the re eption of further e&iden e* to determine the question on whether petitioner "$$y Ge$ez #ao Pamaton% is a nuisan e andidate as ontemp$ated in Se tion E9 of the !mnibus "$e tion Code.

30

'he C!M"#"C is dire ted to ho$d and omp$ete the re eption of e&iden e and report its findin%s to this Court with de$iberate dispat h. !/. R CES vs HRET +f there is a ri%ht* there must be a remedy is an o$d $e%a$ ada%e. 'he ase at bar pro&ides the perfe t settin% for the app$i ation of this ada%e whi h is a demand for simp$e 1usti e. 'he fa ts wi$$ show how the respondent6s ri%ht to run for a pub$i offi e has been frustrated by uns rupu$ous offi ia$s in har%e of the san tity of our e$e tora$ pro ess. Petitioner Mi$es Ro es =Ro es> and former Con%ressman 0arry An% Pin% =Mr. An% Pin%> fi$ed their respe ti&e ertifi ates of andida y =C!Cs> for the position of Representati&e for the 9rd Con%ressiona$ 8istri t of Mani$a in the May 200D e$e tions. !n January :* 200D* a &e<#ste&ed vote& of Mani$a named A$e1andro @omez questioned Mr. An% Pin%6s andida y before the C!M"#"C throu%h a petition to deny due ourse or an e$ his C!C.H1I 'he petition a$$e%ed that Mr. An% Pin% misrepresented himse$f to be a natura$-born itizen* hen e was disqua$ified for the position. A tin% for the C!M"#"C Iirst 8i&ision* Commissioner 1#&<#l#o . 3a&c#ll#ano issued an order on A'&#l !/. 2//( s hedu$in% the '&o%ul<at#on of its reso$ution on May *. 2//(. H2I 'wo days =e9o&e the s hedu$ed promu$%ation or on May !. 2//(* Mr. An% Pin% fi$ed with the C!M"#"C a Sworn 8e $aration of 3ithdrawa$ of his C!C. H!I 'he ne/t day* May (. 2//(* the @enera$ Counse$ for the Aationa$ist Peop$es Coa$ition* the po$iti a$ party of Mr. An% Pin%* sou%ht that Mr. An% Pin%6s wife* Ma. Uenaida An% Pin% =Mrs. An% Pin%>* substitute for him. H(I Mr. An% Pin% a$so fi$ed a motion to an e$ the s hedu$ed promu$%ation and dismiss the petition to deny due ourse or an e$ his C!C on the same date. H*I !n May *. 2//(* Commissioner Resurre ion U. 2orra de9e&&ed t;e '&o%ul<at#on 9o& lac> o9 :uo&u% as ;e ?as t;e sole Co%%#ss#one& #n attendance.H0I $es'#te all t;ese develo'%ents. the C!M"#"C Iirst 8i&ision* t;&ou<; Co%%#ss#one&s Ru9#no S.B. -av#e&. Resu&&ecc#on 5. Bo&&a. and 1#&<#l#o . 3a&c#ll#ano. issued a &esolut#on <&ant#n< t;e 'et#t#on to deny due cou&se to Mr. An% Pin%6s C!C and orderin% the 2oard of "$e tion +nspe tors of Mani$a not to ount any &ote ast in his fa&or.H2I +t ru$ed that the &esolut#on whi h was o&#<#nally sc;eduled 9o& '&o%ul<at#on by Commissioner @ar i$$iano on May *. 2//( was#nstead '&o%ul<ated on A'&#l !/. 2//(. t;e sa%e date t;at t;e not#ce o9 '&o%ul<at#on ?as #ssued. H)I 'he reso$ution was ser&ed on Mr. An% Pin%6s ounse$ on May ). 2//(.H+I Compoundin% the woes of Mr. An% Pin%* and des'#te t;e de9e&%ent o9 t;e '&o%ul<at#on =y Co%%#ss#one& Bo&&a at a ;ea&#n< on May *. 2//(. the C!M"#"C Iirst 8i&ision issued on t;e sa%e date an o&de& deny#n< Mr. An% Pin%6s %ot#on to d#s%#ss. +t he$d that the motion to dismiss was fi$ed a9te& theE'&o%ul<at#onF of the A'&#l !/. 2//( &esolut#on %rantin% the petition to deny due ourse to Mr. An% Pin%6s C!C. H1/I !n May 9* 200D* and =e9o&e t;e e@'#&at#on o9 t;e 9#veCday &e<le%enta&y 'e&#od *H11I Mr. An% Pin% mo&ed for re onsideration of the Apri$ 90* 200D reso$ution and the ase was e$e&ated to the C!M"#"C en #anc.H12I D;#le t;e case ?as st#ll ?#t; t;e C MELEC F#&st $#v#s#on * or on May (* 200D* the C!M"#"C en banc issued Resolut#on No. 0)2!. decla&#n< %oot M&. An< 4#n<Bs A99#dav#t o9 D#t;d&a?al. deny#n< due cou&se to t;e su=st#tute C C o9 M&s. An< 4#n< and o&de&#n< t;e Re<#onal Elect#on $#&ecto& to delete M&. An< 4#n<Bs na%e 9&o% t;e ce&t#9#ed l#st o9 cand#dates.H1!I Amon% the si%natories to the Reso$ution were Co%%#ss#one&s -av#e&. Bo&&a. and 3a&c#ll#ano o9 t;e C MELEC F#&st $#v#s#on before whi h the petition to deny due ourse ?as st#ll 'end#n<.H1(I Mr. An% Pin% had no 5now$ed%e of the reso$ution.

31

Ra in% a%ainst time or on May 11* 200D* the spouses An% Pin% &e'a#&ed to t;#s Cou&t and fi$ed a 'et#t#on 9o& certiorari with prayer for temporary restrainin% order* status quo order andFor writ of pre$iminary in1un tion do 5eted as @.R. Ao. 1E92:9* assai$in% C!M"#"C Reso$ution Ao. E(29.H1*I 'he ne/t day or on May 12* 200D* this Court issued a reso$ution requirin% Ro es to omment and denied the issuan e of an order suspendin% the pro $amation.H10I !n the elect#on day #tsel9* the Man#la C#ty Boa&d o9 Canvasse&s reso$&ed not to an&ass the &otes for Mr. or Mrs. An% Pin% c#t#n< C MELEC Resolut#on No. 0)2!. H12I !n May 1:* 200D* after ountin% on$y 0.!(2 &otes out of the 1*/.!)2 &e<#ste&ed vote&s #n t;e d#st&#ct* it pro $aimed Ro es winner.H1)I 'he spouses An% Pin% appea$ed the 2oard reso$ution to the C!M"#"C en #ancH1+I and fi$ed a petition to annu$ the pro $amation H2/I but these were dismissed by C!M"#"C6s Reso$ution Ao. )2:) and !mnibus !rder of Ju$y E* 200D.H21I !n May 19* 200D* Ro es fi$ed his Comment to the petition of spouses An% Pin% with this Court.H22I !n May 2:* 200D* this Court required the spouses An% Pin% to fi$e their onso$idated rep$y to the Comment.H2!I !n May 2D* 200D* Mrs. An% Pin% fi$ed an Elect#on 4&otest Ad Cautelam with the 0ouse of Representati&es "$e tora$ 'ribuna$ =0R"'>* whi h was do 5eted as 0R"' Case Ao. 0D-00D.H2(I +n her e$e tion protest* Mrs. An% Pin% a$$e%ed* amon% others* that C!M"#"C Reso$ution Ao. E(29 was a <%$arin% ase of depri&ation? of Mr. and Mrs. An% Pin%6s ri%ht to <e$e&ate SPC 0D-22D to the Commission en #anc? and that the C!M"#"C6s Apri$ 90* 200D reso$ution was irre%u$ar$y promu$%ated. Ro es fi$ed his answer a$$e%in%* amon% others* that the 0R"' has no 1urisdi tion o&er the ase.H2*I !n Ju$y 1E* 200D* the spouses An% Pin% fi$ed their onso$idated rep$y with this Court. !n Ju$y 2)* 200D* we required Mrs. An% Pin% to show ause why the petition in @.R. Ao. 1E92:9 shou$d not be dismissed in &iew of the fi$in% and penden y of 0R"' Case Ao. 0D00D.H22I +n her Comp$ian e fi$ed on Ju$y 90* 200D* Mrs. An% Pin% e/p$ained that the issue of whether the C!M"#"C %ra&e$y abused its dis retion in issuin% the C!M"#"C Reso$ution Ao. E(29 may be &enti$ated as one of the issues to be sett$ed in the 0R"' "$e tion Protest sin e the non- an&assin% of the <An% Pin% &otes? and the pro $amation of petitioner Ro es were founded on C!M"#"C Reso$ution Ao. E(29 and were raised as the prin ipa$ issues in the 0R"' "$e tion Protest. 'his notwithstandin%* the spouses An% Pin% manifested that they wi$$ <submit to any disposa$ whi h this 0onorab$e Court may find appropriate under the abo&e ir umstan es? and <wou$d defer and wi$$ a ept any orderFreso$ution of the 0onorab$e Court that wou$d reso$&e to dismiss the instant petitionF ontro&ersy* =ut allo?#n< t;e% to 'u&sue and concent&ate t;e#& t#%e and e99o&t #n t;e a=oveC%ent#oned Ad Cautela HRET Elect#on 4&otest Case. ?;#c; t;ey #ntend to conve&t to a RE3"LAR 4R TEST case. #n suc; an event.FH2)I
H20I

!n Au%ust 10* 200D* t;#s Cou&t d#s%#ssed 3.R. No. 10!2*+ #n v#e? o9 t;e 'end#n< HRET '&otest fi$ed by Mrs. An% Pin%.H2+I 'he reso$ution e&entua$$y be ame fina$ and e/e utory.H!/I 'hereafter* Mrs. An% Pin% fi$ed in the 0R"' a %ot#on to conve&t t;e ad cautelam '&otest to a &e<ula& '&otest. 'he 0R"' %ranted the motion on September 9* 200D.H!1I +n the 0R"'* Ro es fi$ed a motion to dismiss the protest* assai$in% in the main the 'e&sonal#ty of Mrs. An% Pin% to fi$e the protest. +t a$so raised the fo$$owin% issues. =1> whether the 0R"' has 1urisdi tion to re&iew C!M"#"C Reso$ution Ao. E(294 =2> whether Mrs. An% Pin% an &a$id$y substitute for Mr. An% Pin%4 =9> whether the protest may be reso$&ed by mere an&ass of e$e tion returns4 =D> whether the pro eedin% is a <protest? onsiderin% that it questions pro eedin%s he$d before the Mani$a City 2oard of Can&assers4 =:> whether Mrs. An% Pin% ou$d $aim any ri%ht to the ba$$ots ast onsiderin% she was not $isted in the ertified $ist of C!M"#"C andidates4 =E> whether the petition is suffi ient in form
32

and substan e despite fai$in% to state the spe ifi pre in ts protested4 and =)> whether forum shoppin% was ommitted. After e/tensi&e ora$ ar%uments* the 0R"' den#ed RocesBs %ot#on to d#s%#ss on Mar h 9* 200:. +t ru$ed that Mrs. An% Pin% was a '&o'e& 'a&ty to fi$e the protest a%ainst Ro es sin e. =1> there was no fina$ C!M"#"C reso$ution disqua$ifyin% or denyin% due ourse to the C!C of Mr. An% Pin%* thus her substitution for the $atter was $e%a$$y permissib$e under the !mnibus "$e tion Code4H!2I =2> she was one of the andidates &oted for durin% e$e tion day in the 9rd 8istri t of Mani$a4H!!Iand =9> t;e C MELEC &de& o9 May *. 2//( ?as o9 :uest#ona=le val#d#ty for the reason that. =a> it was issued in &io$ation of its Apri$ 90* 200D reso$ution settin% the promu$%ation for May :* 200D and despite the fa t that the re ords had not yet rea hed the C!M"#"C en #anc4H!(I and =b> there was no prior noti e and hearin% in &io$ation of Se tion )( of the !mnibus "$e tion Code. H!*I Ro es6s motion for re onsideration of the 0R"' order was denied on Mar h 21* 200:. Ro es then fi$ed the '&esent 'et#t#on for certiorari assai$in% the two pre edin% reso$utions of the 0R"'. H!0I 'he #ssues 9o& &esolut#on are. =1> whether or not the 0R"' ommitted %ra&e abuse of dis retion amountin% to $a 5 or e/ ess of 1urisdi tion when it ru$ed that Mrs. An% Pin% is a proper party to fi$e the e$e tion protest despite the denia$ in due ourse and an e$$ation of her C!C under C!M"#"C Reso$ution Ao. E(294 and =2> whether or not 0R"' has 1urisdi tion to re&iew a reso$ution or order of the C!M"#"C andFor de $are the same as &oid and disre%ard or set it aside. A9te& seve&al %ont;s o& on A'&#l 2). 2//*. the C!M"#"C en banc issued a reso$ution denyin% Mr. An% Pin%6s motion for re onsideration of the C!M"#"C6s Apri$ 90* 200D reso$ution for bein% moot and a ademi due to the petitioner6s pro $amation* Mr. An% Pin%6s withdrawa$ of his andida y and Mrs. An% Pin%6s attempt to substitute for her husband.
H!2I

De ;old t;at t;e HRET d#d not co%%#t <&ave a=use o9 d#sc&et#on amountin% to $a 5 or e/ ess of 1urisdi tion when it denied the petitioner6s motion to dismiss for the fo$$owin% reasons. F#&st. 'he 0R"' is the sole Aud<e of a$$ ontests re$atin% to the e$e tion* returns* and qua$ifi ations of the members of the 0ouse of Representati&es H!)I and has the power to promu$%ate pro edura$ ru$es to %o&ern pro eedin%s brou%ht before it. H!+I 'his e/ $usi&e 1urisdi tion in $udes the power to determine whether it has the authority to hear and determine the ontro&ersy presented* and the ri%ht to de ide whether that state of fa ts e/ists whi h onfers 1urisdi tion* as we$$ as a$$ other matters whi h arise in the ase $e%itimate$y before it.H(/I A ordin%$y* #t ;as t;e 'o?e& to ;ea& and dete&%#ne. o& #n:u#&e #nto. t;e :uest#on o9 #ts o?n Au&#sd#ct#on. =ot; as to 'a&t#es and as to su=Aect %atte&. and to dec#de all :uest#ons. ?;et;e& o9 la? o& 9act. t;e dec#s#on o9 ?;#c; #s necessa&y to dete&%#ne t;e :uest#on o9 Au&#sd#ct#on. H(1I !ne of the three essentia$ e$ements of 1urisdi tion is that '&o'e& 'a&t#es must be present.H(2I Consequent$y* t;e HRET %e&ely e@e&c#sed #ts e@clus#ve Au&#sd#ct#on ?;en #t &uled t;at M&s. An< 4#n< ?as a '&o'e& 'a&ty to contest t;e elect#on o9 Roces. Second. 'here is no dispute that to support his motion to dismiss* Roces o99e&ed as ev#dence t;e C MELEC &esolut#ons deny#n< due cou&se to M&s. An< 4#n<Bs C C. +n doin% so* Ro es submitted to the 0R"' the admissibi$ity and &a$idity of these reso$utions and the 0R"' annot be fau$ted in re&iewin% the said reso$utions espe ia$$y 9o& t;e 'u&'ose of determinin% whether Ro es was ab$e to dis har%e his burden of pro&in% that Mrs. An% Pin% is not the proper party to assai$ his e$e tion. +n passin% upon the C!M"#"C reso$utions espe ia$$y for that purpose* it annot be said that the 0R"' usurped the 1urisdi tion of the C!M"#"C.

33

!n the merits of the 0R"' ru$in%* we ho$d that the 0R"' did not abuse its dis retion in ho$din% that Mrs. An% Pin% is a proper party to ontest the e$e tion of Ro es. Cnder C!M"#"C ru$es* the pro edure of promu$%ation of a de ision or reso$ution is as fo$$ows. S"C'+!A :. Promul ation. X 'he promu$%ation of a de ision or reso$ution of the Commission or a 8i&ision sha$$ be made on a date pre&ious$y fi/ed* of whi h noti e sha$$ be ser&ed in ad&an e upon the parties or their attorneys persona$$y or by re%istered mai$ or by te$e%ram. H(!I 4&o%ul<at#on is important be ause it determines when the &e<le%enta&y 'e&#od =e<#ns to toll. +n the ase at bar* Co%%#ss#one& 3a&c#ll#ano fi/ed the promu$%ation of its reso$ution whether to %i&e due ourse to the andida y of Mr. An% Pin% on May :* 200D. Ior %yste&#ous &easons* the C!M"#"C Iirst 8i&ision of Commissioner @ar i$$ano did not '&o%ul<ate t;e &esolut#on on May *. 2//( in a ordan e with its noti e of promu$%ation. In v#olat#on o9 t;e a=ovec#ted &ule. and des'#te t;e de9e&%ent o9 t;e '&o%ul<at#on =y Co%%#ss#one& Bo&&a to a date to =e set =y t;e C MELEC F#&st $#v#s#on. the reso$ution was deemed <promu$%ated? by the C!M"#"C on A'&#l !/. 2//( when it was fi$ed with the $er5 of ourt. 'he A'&#l !/. 2//( C!M"#"C reso$ution was re ei&ed by Mr. An% Pin%6s ounse$ on$y on May ). 2//(.H((I T;e %yste&#ous A'&#l !/. 2//( &esolut#on ?as t;e&ea9te& used to &un &ou<;s;od ove& t;e &#<;ts o9 t;e An< 4#n<s. 'hus* on May :* 200D* the C!M"#"C Iirst 8i&ision of Commissioner @ar i$$iano denied Mr. An% Pin%6s motion to dismiss. A$$e%ed$y* Mr. An% Pin%6s motion was fi$ed after the Apri$ 90* 200Dreso$ution. 'o ma5e matters worse* the C!M"#"C en #anc usu&'ed t;e Au&#sd#ct#on o9 t;e C MELEC F#&st $#v#s#on ?;en #t #ssued Resolut#on No. 0)2! on May ). 2//( whi h ordered the de$etion of Mr. An% Pin%6s name from the Certified #ist of Candidates and denied the spouses An% Pin%6s motions to withdraw and substitute despite the fa t that. =1> the re%$ementary period of Mr. An% Pin% to appea$ had not yet e@'#&edJ and =2> Mr. An% Pin% had 9#led a %ot#on 9o& &econs#de&at#on of the pre edin% order on May 1/. 2//( ?#t;#n t;e 9#veCday &e<le%enta&y 'e&#od . No?;e&e #s #t '&ov#ded #n t;e la? t;at t;e C MELEC en banc ;as t;e 'o?e& to assu%e Au&#sd#ct#on motu proprio ove& a 'et#t#on to deny due cou&se 'end#n< =e9o&e a d#v#s#on o9 t;e Co%%#ss#on. 8iametri a$$y opposed thereto are the pro&isions of the Constitution and C!M"#"C Ru$es of Pro edure whi h pro&ide that %ot#ons 9o& &econs#de&at#on of the C!M"#"C di&ision6s de isions* reso$utions* orders or ru$in%s %ust 9#&st =e 9#led #n t;e $#v#s#ons =e9o&e t;e Co%%#ss#on en banc %ay ta>e co<n#,ance t;e&eo9* vi(*. S"C'+!A 9. 'he Commission on "$e tions may sit en #anc or in two di&isions* and sha$$ promu$%ate its ru$es of pro edure in order to e/pedite disposition of e$e tion ases* in $udin% pre-pro $amation ontro&ersies. All suc; elect#on cases s;all =e ;ea&d and dec#ded #n d#v#s#on. '&ov#ded t;at %ot#ons 9o& &econs#de&at#on o9 dec#s#ons s;all =e dec#ded =y t;e Co%%#ss#on en banc.H(*I S"C'+!A 9. T"e &ommission 8ittin in ,ivisions* X T;e Co%%#ss#on s;all s#t #n t?o 728 $#v#s#ons to ;ea& and dec#de protests or petitions in ordinary a tions* s'ec#al act#ons* spe ia$ ases* pro&isiona$ remedies* ontempt and spe ia$ pro eedin%s e/ ept in a reditation of itizensR arms of the Commission.ODEP S"C'+!A :. How Motion for Reconsideration ,is$osed 0f* X "'on t;e 9#l#n< o9 a %ot#on to &econs#de& a dec#s#on. &esolut#on. o&de& o& &ul#n< o9 a $#v#s#on. the C$er5 of Court on erned sha$$* within twenty-four =2D> hours from the fi$in% thereof* notify the Presidin% Commissioner. T;e latte& s;all ?#t;#n t?o 728 days t;e&ea9te& ce&t#9y t;e case to t;e Co%%#ss#on en banc.

34

S"C'+!A E. ,uty of &lerH of &ourt of &ommission to &alendar Motion for Resolution* X T;e Cle&> o9 Cou&t conce&ned s;all calenda& t;e %ot#on 9o& &econs#de&at#on 9o& t;e &esolut#on o9 t;e Co%%#ss#on en banc ?#t;#n ten 71/8 days 9&o% t;e ce&t#9#cat#on t;e&eo9. ="mphases supp$ied>H(2I 'his '&e%atu&e C!M"#"C Reso$ution Ao. E(29 ?as t;en used on May 12. 2//(. or on the e$e tion day itse$f* by the Mani$a City 2oard of Can&assers as the basis of its reso$ution not to canvass t;e votes for Mr. or Mrs. An% Pin%. +t then pro $aimed Ro es the winner despite ha&in% ounted on$y 0.!(2 &otes out of the1*/.!)2 &e<#ste&ed vote&s o9 t;e d#st&#ct.H()I Io$$owin% these ;#<;ly sus'ect &esolut#ons* Ro es was pro $aimed winner on May 1:* 200D. A$$ to$d* it annot be denied that the e99ect of C!M"#"C en #anc Reso$ution Ao. E(29 was to e@ecute t;e A'&#l !/. 2//( &esolut#on o9 #ts F#&st $#v#s#on ?;#c;. at t;at t#%e. ;ad not yet =eco%e 9#nal and e@ecuto&y. 'hese irre%u$arities annot be swept away by the be$ated C!M"#"C en #ancs A'&#l 2). 2//* reso$ution denyin% Mr. An% Pin%6s motion for re onsideration dated May 10* 200D.H(+I +t is ar%ued that Mrs. An% Pin%6s motions for re onsideration and appea$s Ecu&edF whate&er defe ts o urred at the C!M"#"C. Citin% T.H. 1alde&a%a K Sons. Inc. v. $&#lon*H*/I Ro es points to the petition for certiorari fi$ed with this Court on May 11* 200D by Mrs. An% Pin% assai$in% C!M"#"C Reso$ution Ao. E(29 and her a quies en e to any <appropriate a tion ta5en =by the Court> in $udin% the dismissa$ of the abo&e petition.? Contrary to Ro es6s posture* 1alde&a%aand its 5in required that the a%%rie&ed party be %i&en an o''o&tun#ty to =e ;ea&d. In t;e case at =a&* it ou%ht to be emphasized that the pri&ate respondent wassyste%at#cally den#ed t;e o''o&tun#ty to =e ;ea&d . T;e &esolut#on o9 t;e C MELECBs F#&st $#v#s#on ?as %ade =e9o&e #ts '&#o&#ly set date o9 '&o%ul<at#on. dee%ed 9#nal and e@ecuto&y =y t;e C MELEC en banc #n Resolut#on No. 0)2! =e9o&e e@'#&y o9 t;e &e<le%enta&y 'e&#od. and e@ecuted =y t;e Man#la C#ty Boa&d o9 Canvasse&s. 'he petition for certiorari fi$ed by Mrs. An% Pin% ha$$en%ed these reso$utions and could not ;ave cu&ed t;ese =latant v#olat#ons o9 ;e& &#<;t to due '&ocess. In t&ut;. t;#s Cou&t &e9e&&ed t;e case o9 M&s. An< 4#n< to t;e HRET ?;e&e s;e ;as 9#led a '&otest ad cautelam. 'here is no iota of doubt that the C!M"#"C6s reso$utions are vo#d ab initio for &io$atin% Mrs. An% Pin%6s onstitutiona$ ri%ht to due pro ess. Jud%ments entered in a pro eedin% fai$in% to omp$y with pro edura$ due pro ess are &oid* as is one entered by a ourt a tin% in a manner in onsistent with due pro ess. H*1I A &oid 1ud%ment is defined as one that* 9&o% #ts #nce't#on. #s a co%'lete null#ty and ?#t;out le<al e99ect . A &oid 1ud%ment is not entit$ed to the respe t a orded to* and is attended by none of the onsequen es of* a &a$id ad1udi ation. +ndeed* a vo#d Aud<%ent need not =e &eco<n#,ed =y anyone. =ut %ay =e ent#&ely d#s&e<a&ded o& decla&ed #no'e&at#ve =y any t&#=unal #n ?;#c; e99ect #s sou<;t to =e <#ven to #t. +t has no $e%a$ or bindin% for e or effi a y for any purpose or at any p$a e. +t annot affe t* impair* or reate ri%hts* nor an any ri%hts be based on it. A$$ pro eedin%s founded on the &oid 1ud%ment are themse$&es re%arded as in&a$id and ineffe ti&e for any purpose.H*2I Aeed$ess to stress* the 0R"' did not ommit %ra&e abuse of dis retion in assumin% 1urisdi tion o&er the e$e tion protest as the C!M"#"C Reso$ution dated Apri$ 90* 200D* !rder of May :* 200D* and Reso$ution Ao. E(29 were vo#d ab initio. T;#&d. Petitioner ontends that the 0R"' annot re&iew de isions of the C!M"#"C and that C!M"#"C de isions* orders* or ru$in%s may be so$e$y re&iewed by the Supreme Court on certiorari by the a%%rie&ed party within thirty days from re eipt of a opy thereof. H*!I +t is true that %enera$$y* the method of assai$in% a 1ud%ment or order of the C!M"#"C is via petition for certiorari.H*(I As aforestated* howe&er* it was petitioner who submitted these reso$utions to the 0R"' as proofs that Mrs. An% Pin% was not a proper party. T;ese sa%e &esolut#ons ?e&e collate&ally attac>ed =y M&s. An< 4#n< =e9o&e t;e HRET ?;en s;e alle<ed t;at t;ese v#olated ;e& &#<;t to due '&ocess. H**I A vo#d Aud<%ent o& &esolut#on may be impea hed throu%h collate&al attac>.H*0I A d#&ect attac> on a 1ud%ment or
35

reso$ution is defined as an attempt to a&oid or orre t it in some manner pro&ided by $aw* in a pro eedin% instituted for that &ery purpose* in the same a tion and in the same tribuna$. Con&erse$y* a collate&al attac> is an attempt to impea h the 1ud%ment or reso$ution by matters dehors the re ord* before a tribuna$ other than the one in whi h it was rendered* in an a tion other than that in whi h it was rendered4 an atte%'t to avo#d. de9eat. o& evade #t. o& deny #ts 9o&ce and e99ect. #n so%e #nc#dental '&oceed#n< not '&ov#ded =y la? 9o& t;e e@'&ess 'u&'ose o9 attac>#n< #tJ any '&oceed#n< ?;#c; #s not #nst#tuted 9o& t;e e@'&ess 'u&'ose o9 annull#n<. co&&ect#n<. o& %od#9y#n< suc; dec&ee 4 an ob1e tion* in identa$$y raised in the ourse of the pro eedin%* whi h presents an issue o$$atera$ to the issues made by the p$eadin%s.H*2I 'he ru$e that a &oid 1ud%ment or de ree is sub1e t to o$$atera$ atta 5 at any time is based upon a ourtRs inherent authority to e/pun%e &oid a ts from its re ords. H*)I 'he &oid reso$utions of the C!M"#"C* espe ia$$y the Apri$ 90* 200D reso$ution issued by its Iirst 8i&ision* annot oust the 0R"' of its 1urisdi tion o&er the ase at bar. Fou&t;. 3e hasten to add that 1ud%ments* orders and reso$utions shou$d on$y be de $ared &oid in the %ost e@ce't#onal c#&cu%stances due to detrimenta$ effe ts on the do trine of fina$ity of 1ud%ments. 'he ir umstan es of this ase* howe&er* are un#:ue in that the pri&ate respondent was den#ed due '&ocess and was9o&ced to see5 1usti e in the 0R"'. +n fa t* it was this Court that &e9e&&ed the pri&ate respondent to the 0R"' when it d#s%#ssed the $atter6s petition in @.R. Ao. 1E92:9 on t;e <&ound o9 t;e 'endency o9 HRET Case No. /(C//(. 'o %rant the petition now wou$d e99ect#vely 9o&eclose the pri&ate respondent6s a ess to any remedy despite &io$ation of her ri%ht to due pro ess. IN 1IED DHERE F. the petition is dismissed. 'he temporary restrainin% order pre&ious$y issued by the Court is $ifted.

36