Ambil v.

COMELEC
344 SCRA 358

FACTS:

Petitioner Ruperto Ambil, Jr. and private respondent Jose Ramirez were candidates for the
position of Governor, Eastern Samar during the May 11, 1998 elections. The Provincial Board of
Canvassers proclaimed petitioner as the duly elected Governor. Private respondent filed an election
protest with the COMELEC, which was assigned to the First Division.

Commissioner Japal Guidani prepared and signed a proposed resolution in the case regarding
Ramirez’s protest. In said resolution, Commissioner Julio Desamito had dissented while Commissioner
Luzviminda Tancangco did not indicate her vote because wanted to see both positions first before giving
her decision.
On February 15, 2000, Commissioner Guidani retired and was replaced. On February 24, 2000,
petitioner and respondent received a purported resolution in favor of private respondent promulgated on
February 14, 2000 and signed by Commissioners Guidani, Desamito and Tancangco.

The First Division later declared that the parties should ignore the resolution since it was not yet
promulgated. The Division later set a date for promulgation of a resolution of the case, and said that the
aggrieved party could then challenge it through a Motion for Reconsideration before the Commission en
banc or through a certiorari case before the SC.

The petitioner filed this case to annul the order for the promulgation of the resolution and to direct
the First Division to deliberate anew on the case.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Supreme Court has the power to review decisions of the COMELEC.

HELD:

The SC dismissed the case for prematurity. It ruled that it has no power to review via certiorari,
an interlocutory order or even a final resolution of a Division of the Commission on Elections. “The instant
case does not fall under any of the recognized exceptions to the rule in certiorari cases dispensing with a
motion for reconsideration prior to the filing of a petition. In truth, the exceptions do not apply to election
cases where a motion for reconsideration is mandatory by Constitutional fiat to elevate the case to the
Comelec en banc, whose final decision is what is reviewable via certiorari before the Supreme Court.
 The SC declared the resolution signed by Commissioner Guidani as void for various reasons.
First, one who is no longer a member of the Commission at the time the final decision or resolution is
promulgated cannot validly take part in that resolution or decision.

Second, the Clerk of the First Division denied the release or promulgation of the resolution on
February 14, 2000 resolution.

Third, the First Division even later said that the parties should ignore the resolution since it was
not yet promulgated.

Lastly, Commissioner Tancangco could not have affixed her signature on the resolution, since on
the same date an order was issued where she said that she still wanted to see both positions before
making her decision.