Aratuc vs.

COMELEC

FACTS:
The instant proceedings are sequels of the Court’s decision in GR no. L-48097 wherein Aratuc
et al sought the suspension of the canvass then being undertaken by the respondent Board in Cotabato
City.
The petitioners in the instant case filed complaints regarding the irregularities in the election
records in the voting centers in the whole of Lanao Del Sur, Marawi, parts of Lanao del Norte,
Maguindanao, North Cotabato, and Sultan Kudarat. Before the start of the hearings, the canvass was
suspended but after the supervisory panel presented its report, COMELEC filed its order of suspension
and directed the resumption of the canvass to be done in Manila. The petitioners presented their
objection with supporting handwritten report of finger print experts.
Soon after, the COMELEC rendered its resolution declaring the final result of the canvass.
Hence, this instant case.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the COMELEC committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction?

RULING:
NO. Under Section 168 of the Revised Election Code of 1978, “the Commission on Elections
shall have direct control and supervision over the board of canvassers”. Also, it was stated under
administrative law that a superior body or office having supervision or control over another may do
directly what the latter is supposed to do or ought to have done. The petition is hereby dismissed for
lack of merit.