ELEC

Tues 091520

PANLILIO V. COMELEC
- Petition for certiorari seeking to nullify:
a. 2nd division order giving due course to pineda’s election protest and directing revisions of
ballots of precints of Pampanga
b. 2nd division order denying petitioner panlilio’s motion for recon
c. En banc order denying petitioner’s omnibus motion to certify his said motion and stay order
directing the collection of ballot boxes
- Parties are gubernatorial candidates in Pampanga. Provincial board of canvassers proclaimed
petitioner Panlilio as duly elected.
- Respondent pineda filed election protest bc votes were misread, misappreciates and declared as
null, blank spaces read in favor of Panlilio, vote buying etc
- Petitioner filed counter-protest & counter-claims
- Comelec 2nd div, assailed due course to respondent’s protest ans revision of ballots
- Petitioner filed motion for recon but denied
- Respondent files compliance stating she deposited 2M pursuant to order
- Petitioner filed omnibus motion to certify his said motion and stay order directing the collection
of ballot boxes
- Comelec en banc issued order, that panlilio’s omnibus motion is denied for lack of merit
o En banc ratio is that the orders from 2 nd div are not one of the orders required by the
Comelec rules of procedure to be certifies to the en banc for resolution
1. petitioner led the instant petition for certiorari contending that the COMELEC acted with grave
abuse of discretion in denying his omnibus motion
o without merit. since the COMELEC's Division issued the interlocutory Order (something
more to be done to the case after its issuance), the same COMELEC Division should
resolve the motion for reconsideration
o sec 3 art 9c of consti mandates that only motions for recon of final decisions shall be
decided by the Comelec en banc
o controversy not one of the instances where en banc can take cognizance
 division is not authorized to act
 members of 2nd div, unanimously voted to refer the issue to en banc
2. grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC in giving due course to private
respondent's election protest
o insufficient in form and substance. Allegatios of fraud and irregulariries are sufficient
grounds for opening ballots (Sec. 255 of omnibus)
3. petitioner argues that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to
the election protest when respondent failed to raise objections first before the board of election
inspectors
o filing of protest before BOEI not condition sine qua non before Comelec acquires
jurisdiction
o juris conferred only by law and cant be acquired or waived by an act or omission
o sec2 art 9c for x
BAUTISTA V. COMELEC
- Bautista filed Candidacy for Punong Barangay
- Comelec law dept recommended cancellation of COC, not registered voter of brgy
ELEC
Tues 091520

- En banc failed to act on reco

- Bautista won and took oath
- Comelec issued resolution to delete name from list of candidates. 2 nd resolution, stated policies
on proclaimed candidates found to be ineligible
- Election officer jareno issued order deleting name and prohibited bautista from assuming
position
- Comelec commissioner directed jareno to order the board of canvassers to reconvene and
proclaimed alcoreza as winning punong brgy
- First, bautista requested for reconsideration. And while pending, petition for certiorari and TRO
to nullify resolutions
ISSUES
1. En banc committed grave abuse of discretion when it issued 2 resolutions
o Yes. Jareno reported to law dept about ineligibility, the dept recommended to Comelec
en banc to cancel COC. Comelec en banc approved the reco.
o Division should have first heard the case
o En banc can only act on the case if there is motion for recon of the decision of division
o en banc acted without jurisdiction when it ordered the cancellation of candidacy
without first referring the case to a division for summary hearing.
o Cancellation proceedings involve quasi-judicial functions
 Not just management but applies action of bodies who are required to
investigate facts and draw conclusions, as basis of their official action
 Constitution mandates the COMELEC to hear and decide cases first by division
and upon motion for reconsideration, by the COMELEC en banc
2. Comelec deprived bautista of due process
o Yes. Comelec did not give bautista an opportunity to explain his side. Comelec en banc
issued resolutions without prior notice and hearing. This results to serious
consequences bc 1) cancellation of COC; and 2) annulment of his procla
o There is due process when a party is able to present evidence in form of pleadings
o Involves right to be voted for public office and right to hold such
3. Proper to proclaim alcoreza in view of ineligibility of winning candidate
o No. Comelec cannot proclaim as winner the second placer.
o Alcoreza contends exception when 1) disqualified and 2) electorate aware of candidate’s
disqualification. But when the electorate voted, there is no presumption they agreed to
the invalidation of their votes in case of bautista’s disquali
o LGC provides: since bautista failed to qualify for position, second highest ranking
sanggunian member shall assume the office

Respondents contend procedural question

1. Motion for recon is prereq to file certiorari & prohibition; Petition is premature bc has a pending
motion for reconsideration.
o Wrong. instant controversy involves resolutions issued by the COMELEC en banc which
do not pertain to election offenses. Hence, a special civil action for certiorari is the
proper remedy
ELEC
Tues 091520

CAGAS V. COMELEC

DE GUZMAN V. COMELEC

SULIGUIN V. COMELEC
- Petition for Certiorari seeking to reverse reso of COMELEC En Banc which denied P Suliguin’s
Motion for Reco of the Reso of COMELEC’s 1st division. Nullifies his procla as 8th Sangguniang
Bayan member of Laguna
- May 2004 elections
- Board of Canvassers fail ed to notice discrepancy in votes regarding 1 precint wherein it did not
record 200 votes for the respondent. Petitioner was still proclaimed
- Sumague requested for recomputation. MBOC discovered indeed failed to credit 200 votes, and
sumague should have been proclaimed.
- MBOC led before the Comelec a "Petition to Correct Entries Made in the Statement of Votes" for
Councilor. Error due to mental fatigue which the members of the board experienced during
canvassing of votes
- Petitioner took his oath of office before a Judge.
- Comelec 1st division issued a resolution granting the petition of MBOC. Nullified the procla of P.
Then ordered MBOC to reconvene and effect the nec corrections
- Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the resolution but the Comelec En Banc denied the
motion. Hence, this petition.

BEDOL V. COMELEC
The powers and functions of the COMELEC, conferred upon it by the 1987 Constitution and the OEC,
may be classified into administrative, quasi-legislative, and quasi-judicial. The COMELEC has the power
to create fact-finding investigation to probe into the veracity of the alleged fraud in elections. The
COMELEC also has the power to punish individuals for contempt for failure to appear in a fact-finding
investigation. The language of the OEC and the COMELEC Rules of Procedure allows the COMELEC to
initiate indirect contempt proceedings motu propio
- Petition for Certiorari for 2 resolutions issued by En Banc 1) Held P Bedol guilty of contempt 2)
Denied P’s motion for reco
- As Chair of the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBOC) for the province of Maguindanao, the
respondent [petitioner] discharged his official functions and was able to ensure the PBOC’s
performance of its ministerial duty to canvass the Certificates of Canvass coming from the
twenty two (22) city and municipalities in the province.
- At that time, respondent [petitioner] also was charged with the burdensome and gargantuan
duty of being the concurrent Provincial Elections Supervisor for the Province of Shariff
Kabunsuan a neighboring province of Maguindanao.
- Respondent [petitioner] Bedol failed to attend the scheduled canvassing of the Provincial
Certificates of Canvass (PCOC) of Maguindanao of which he is the Provincial Election Supervisor
which was slated on May 22, 2007.
ELEC
Tues 091520

- On May 25, 2007, respondent appeared before the Commission, en banc sitting as the National
Board of Canvassers (NBOC) for the election of senators to submit the provincial certificate of
canvass for Maguindanao, pursuant to his functions as Provincial Elections Supervisor and chair
of the PBOC for Maguindanao. Due to certain ‘observations’ on the provincial certificates of
canvass by certain parties, canvassing of the certificate was held in abeyance and respondent
was queried on the alleged fraud which attended the conduct of elections in his area.
- He was already informed of the resetting of the canvassing for May 30, 2007, but failed to
appear despite prior knowledge.
- Respondent’s [petitioner] contention:
o Bedol explained before the Task Force during its June 11, 2007 fact finding activity that,
while in his custody and possession, the election paraphernalia were stolen sometime
on May 29, 2007, or some fifteen (15) days after the elections. This was the first time
such an excuse was given by the respondent [petitioner] and no written report was ever
filed with the Commission regarding the alleged loss.
- Due to absences in the next scheduled investigative proceedings and refusal to submit a written
explanation of his absences, respondent [petitioner] was issued a contempt charge by
COMELEC.
- Petitioner was later arrested by members of the Philippine National Police on the basis of an
Order of Arrest after petitioner repeatedly failed to appear during the fact-finding proceedings
before Task Force Maguindanao.
- Petitioner questioned the COMELEC’s legal basis for issuing the warrant of arrest and its
assumption of jurisdiction over the contempt charges. Nevertheless, he was declared in
contempt by COMELEC.
- Petitioner, then, filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the COMELEC in the
other assailed Resolution dated August 31, 2007.
ISSUE: Whether or not the initiation and issuance of contempt order is within the constitutional powers
of the COMELEC.
o Powers of COMELEC
o The COMELEC possesses the power to conduct investigations as an adjunct to its
constitutional duty to enforce and administer all election laws, by virtue of the explicit
provisions of paragraph 6, Section 2, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution, which reads:
o Article IX-C, Section 2. Xxx
(6) xxx; investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election
laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses, and
malpractices.
The powers and functions of the COMELEC, conferred upon it by the 1987 Constitution
and the Omnibus Election Code, may be classified into administrative, quasi-legislative,
and quasi-judicial. The quasi-judicial power of the COMELEC embraces the power to
resolve controversies arising from the enforcement of election laws, and to be the sole
judge of all pre-proclamation controversies; and of all contests relating to the elections,
returns, and qualifications. Its quasi-legislative power refers to the issuance of rules and
regulations to implement the election laws and to exercise such legislative functions
as may expressly be delegated to it by Congress. Its administrative function refers to
the enforcement and administration of election laws. In the exercise of such power, the
ELEC
Tues 091520

Constitution (Section 6, Article IX-A) and the Omnibus Election Code (Section 52 [c])
authorize the COMELEC to issue rules and regulations to implement the provisions of
the 1987 Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code.
o The quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power is the power to hear and
determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply, and to decide in
accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering
the same law.
o The exercise of judicial functions may involve the performance of legislative or
administrative duties, and the performance of and administrative or ministerial duties,
may, in a measure, involve the exercise of judicial functions. It may be said generally
that the exercise of judicial functions is to determine what the law is, and what the legal
rights of parties are, with respect to a matter in controversy; and whenever an officer is
clothed with that authority, and undertakes to determine those questions, he acts
judicially.
o The language of the Omnibus Election Code and the COMELEC Rules of Procedure is
broad enough to allow the initiation of indirect contempt proceedings by the
COMELEC motu proprio. Furthermore, the above-quoted provision of Section 52(e),
Article VII of the Omnibus Election Code explicitly adopts the procedure and penalties
provided by the Rules of Court.
o Findings of guilt of indirect contempt
o Petitioner was found guilty of contempt on four (4) grounds.

First, he repeatedly failed to attend, despite notice of the scheduled [12] canvassing of the Provincial
Certificates of Canvass, the hearing of the Task Force Maguindanao; and refused to submit his
explanation for such absences, which he had undertaken to submit, in violation of paragraphs (b) and (f)
of Section 2, Rule 29 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.

Second, he unlawfully assumed custody of accountable election documents, which were lost while in his
possession, and consequently failed to deliver the same, in violation of paragraphs (a), (c) and (d)
Section 2, Rule 29 of same Rules.

Third and fourth, he publicly displayed disrespect for the authority of the COMELEC through the media
(interviews on national television channels, and in newspapers and radios) by flaunting an armory of
long firearms and side arms in public, and posing for the front page of a national broadsheet, with a
shiny pistol tucked in a holster, in violation of paragraphs (a) and (d), Section 2, Rule 29 of same Rules.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED and the prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or
a Writ of Preliminary Injunction is hereby DENIED. No costs.

CAPALLA V COMELEC
As COMELEC is confronted with time and budget constraints, and in view of the COMELEC’s mandate to
ensure free, honest, and credible elections, the acceptance of the extension of the option period, the
exercise of the option, and the execution of the Deed of Sale, are the more prudent choices available to
the COMELEC for a successful 2013 automated elections.
ELEC
Tues 091520

Facts: On July 10, 2009, the Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM entered into a Contract for the Provision of an
Automated Election System for the May 10, 2010 Synchronized National and Local Elections,(AES
Contract). The contract between the Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM was one of “lease of the AES with
option to purchase (OTP) the goods listed in the contract.” In said contract, the Comelec was given until
December 31, 2010 within which to exercise the option. In September 2010, the Comelec partially
exercised its OTP 920 units of PCOS machines with corresponding canvassing/consolidation system (CCS)
for the special elections in certain areas in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Bulacan. In a letter
dated December 18, 2010, Smartmatic-TIM, through its Chairman Flores, proposed a temporary
extension of the option period on the remaining PCOS machines until March 31, 2011, waiving the
storage costs and covering the maintenance costs. The Comelec did not exercise the option within the
extended period. Several extensions were given for the Comelec to exercise the OTP until its final
extension on March 31, 2012.

On March 29, 2012, the Comelec issued a Resolution resolving to accept Smartmatic-TIM’s offer to
extend the period to exercise the OTP until March 31, 2012 and to authorize Chairman Brillantes to sign
for and on behalf of the Comelec the Agreement on the Extension of the OTP Under the AES Contract
(Extension Agreement). Comelec again issued a Resolution resolving to approve the Deed of Sale
between the Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM to purchase the latter’s PCOS machines to be used in the
upcoming May 2013 elections and to authorize Chairman Brillantes to sign the Deed of Sale for and on
behalf of the Comelec. The Deed of Sale was forthwith executed.

Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the Comelec Resolutions on the grounds that the option period
provided for in the AES contract had already lapsed; that the extension of the option period and the
exercise of the option without competitive public bidding contravene the provisions of RA 9184; and
that the Comelec purchased the machines in contravention of the standards laid down in RA 9369. On
the other hand, respondents argue on the validity of the subject transaction based on the grounds that
there is no prohibition either in the contract or provision of law for it to extend the option period; that
the OTP is not an independent contract in itself, but is a provision contained in the valid and existing AES
contract that had already satisfied the public bidding requirements of RA 9184; and that exercising the
option was the most advantageous option of the Comelec.

Issue: Whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the part of the Comelec in issuing the assailed Resolutions and in executing the assailed Extension
Agreement and Deed.

Held: No. A reading of the other provisions of the AES contract would show that the parties are given
the right to amend the contract which may include the period within which to exercise the option. There
is, likewise, no prohibition on the extension of the period, provided that the contract is still effective.
The Comelec still retains P50M of the amount due Smartmatic-TIM as performance security, which
indicates that the AES contract is still effective and not yet terminated. Consequently, pursuant to Article
19 of the contract, the provisions thereof may still be amended by mutual agreement of the parties
provided said amendment is in writing and signed by the parties. Considering, however, that the AES
contract is not an ordinary contract as it involves procurement by a government agency, the rights and
ELEC
Tues 091520

obligations of the parties are governed not only by the Civil Code but also by RA 9184. A winning bidder
is not precluded from modifying or amending certain provisions of the contract bidded upon. However,
such changes must not constitute substantial or material amendments that would alter the basic
parameters of the contract and would constitute a denial to the other bidders of the opportunity to bid
on the same terms.

The conclusions held by the Court in Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation
(PSALM) v. Pozzolanic Philippines Incorporated and Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co.,
Inc., (PIATCO) cannot be applied in the present case. First, Smartmatic-TIM was not granted additional
right that was not previously available to the other bidders. The bidders were apprised that aside from
the lease of goods and purchase of services, their proposals should include an OTP the subject goods.
Second, the amendment of the AES contract is not substantial. The approved budget for the contract
was P11,223,618,400.00 charged against the supplemental appropriations for election modernization.
Bids were, therefore, accepted provided that they did not exceed said amount. The competitive public
bidding conducted for the AES contract was sufficient. A new public bidding would be a superfluity.
Lastly, the amendment of the AES contract is more advantageous to the Comelec and the public because
the P7,191,484,739.48 rentals paid for the lease of goods and purchase of services under the AES
contract was considered part of the purchase price. For the Comelec to own the subject goods, it was
required to pay only P2,130,635,048.15. If the Comelec did not exercise the option, the rentals already
paid would just be one of the government expenses for the past election and would be of no use to
future elections.