TOPIC: Partial Invalidity

Roque Flors v. Commission on Elections, Nobelito Rapisora, G.R. No. 89604

April 20, 1990, J. Cruz

FACT/S:
Roque Flores (Flores) was proclaimed by the board of canvassers as having
received the highest number of votes for kagawad in the elections held on 28
March 1989 in Barangay Poblacion, Tayum, Abra, and thus became punong
barangay in accordance with Section 5 of Republic Act No. 6679 (RA No. 6679).
His election was protested by Nobelito Rapisora (Nobelito), who placed second
in the election with one vote less than Flores.

The Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Tayum, Abra sustained Rapisora and installed
him as punong barangay in place of Flores after deducting two votes. Flores
appealed in Regional Trial Court which affirmed the challenged decision. The
court’s judge agreed that the four votes cast for “Flores” only, without any
distinguishing first name or initial, should all have been invalid.

Flores went to Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to appeal but was dismissed

for they claim to have no power to such review in pursuant to the provision in
Section 9 of RA No. 6679 that decisions of the regional trial court in a protest
appealed to it from the municipal trial court in barangay elections “on questions
of fact shall be final and non-appealable.”

Hence, filing for a petition for certiorari, the COMELEC is faulted for not taking
cognizance to Flores’ appeal.

ISSUE/S:
1. Are the decisions of Municipal or Metropolitan Courts in Barangay election
contests are subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the COMELEC?
2. Is Section 9 of RA No. 6679 CONSTITUTIONAL?

RULING/S:
(1) YES.

The dismissal of the appeal was justifies on the ground, to wit, Article IX- C,
Section 2 (2) of the Constitution, provides that COMELEC shall:

“Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections,
returns and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials,
and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials
decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay
officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.”
“Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the COMELEC contests involving elective
municipal and barangay offices shall be final, executory, and not appealable.”

Hence, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that municipal or metropolitan courts
being courts of limited jurisdictions, their decisions in barangay election contests
are subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the COMELEC under the
afore-quoted section. Hence, the decision should have been appealed directly
to the COMELEC and not the RTC. The COMELEC also has the power to review
Flores’ appeal.

(2) NO.The Supreme Court through Justice Cruz ruled that Section 9 of RA No.
6679, insofar as it provides that the decision of the municipal or metropolitan
court in a barangay election case should be appealed to the regional trial
court, must be declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Section 9 of RA No. 6679 contradicts the provisions in Article IX-C, Section 2(2) of
the Constitution (mentioned above). The SC ordinarily requires compliance with
the requisites of judicial inquiry into a constitutional question. In the case at bar,
however, SC disregards technical obstacles and the flaw of RA No. 6679 was
brought to the Congress.