ABDULGAFAR PUNGUTAN,

PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF SULU.

FACTS: COMELEC excluded from the canvass for the election of delegates in the lone district
of the province of Sulu the returns from Siasi, Tapul, Parang and Luuk for being spurious or
manufactured returns and therefore considered as no returns at all. That was the effect of
massive violence, terrorism and fraud. Unless set aside then, petitioner Abdulgafar Pungutan,
who otherwise would have been entitled to the last remaining seat for delegates to the
Constitutional Convention would lose out to respondent Benjamin Abubakar. Petitioner
ISSUE: WON the Commission exceeded its constitutional power by encroaching on terrain
properly judicial, the right to vote being involved.
HELD: There is no merit to the contention that respondent Commission is devoid of power to
disregard and annul the alleged returns for being spurious or manufactured. The COMELEC has
a clear duty to stigmatize the alleged returns. In the discharge of its functions, it should be
allowed considerable latitude in devising means and methods that will insure the
accomplishment of the great objective for which it was created -- free, orderly and honest
elections.
If pursuant to Administrative Law, the findings of fact of administrative organs created by
ordinary legislation will not be disturbed by courts of justice, except when there is absolutely
no evidence or no substantial evidence in support of such findings ... there is no reason to
believe that the framers of our Constitution intended to place the Commission on Elections
created and explicitly made 'independent' by the Constitution itself on a lower level than
said statut

ory administrative organs.

How the right to vote is to be exercised is regulated by the Election Code. Its enforcement
under the Constitution is, as noted, vested in COMELEC. Such a power, however, is purely
executive or administrative. Thus, although independent of the President to which the
Constitution has given the 'exclusive charge' of the 'enforcement and administration of all laws
relative to the conduct of elections,' the power of decision of the Commission is limited to
purely 'administrative questions.
The question of inclusion or exclusion from the list of voters is properly judicial. As to whether
or not an election has been held is a question of a different type. It is properly within the
administrative jurisdiction of COMELEC.
The rejection by the COMELEC of the returns in question would result in the disfranchisement
of a large number of voters, but this is merely provisional, subject to the final determination of
the validity of the votes at the protest that may be filed with the Constitutional Convention.

Badelles vs. Cabili, 27 SCRA 11, February

27, 1969
Facts:

Mariano Badelles together with Bonifacio P. Legaspi and Cecilia T.

Barazon who along with the five protestees were among those who were registered
candidates voted for in such election for councilors in the City of Iligan, who

contested the election of Honorable Camilo P. Cabili to the Office of City Mayor
of the said city.
It was then alleged that there are irregularities on the said election and that illegal
votes were cast by those not qualified to do so. Protestees moved to dismiss in
different suits the petition on the following grounds:
1. That the protest was filed beyond the reglementary period allowed by the
Revised Election Code;
2. That the lower court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the present
case, the Commission on Elections being the proper body to hear the same;
3. That the complaint states no cause of action.
On march 23, 1968, in a single order, the election protests were
dismissed based on the lack of a cause of action.

Issue: Whether or not the dismissal issued by COMELEC on March 23, 1968 is
valid.

Held: No. The election law has no justification except as a means for
assuring a free, honest and orderly expression of their views. It is of the
essence that corruption and irregularities should not be permitted to taint
the electoral process.