Malinias Vs COMELEC StatConAssignDigest

SARIO MALINIAS, petitioner, maintenance of peace and order around the vicinity of the
vs. canvassing site.

THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, TEOFILO CORPUZ,
ANACLETO TANGILAG and VICTOR DOMINGUEZ, respondents. Also, they said that the presence of the policemen within the said
G.R. No. 146943, October 4, 2002 area is to prevent some groups who were reportedly had the
intention to disrupt the canvass proceedings. They claimed that
FACTS: such a response was not unwarranted as this has already
happened in the past, wherein, in fact, the petitioners were among
On July 31, 1998, Sario Malinias and Roy S. Pilando, who were them.
candidates for governor and congress representative positions,
respectively, filed a complaint with the COMELEC's Law COMELEC’s Ruling:
Department against Victor Dominguez, Anacleto Tangilag and
others for their violation of the following laws: After investigating the allegations, COMELEC ruled to dismiss the
petition against the respondents for insufficiency of evidence to
1. Section 25 of R.A. No. 6646; and establish probable cause. Malinias filed an MR but it was also
2. Sections 232 and 261 (i) of B.P. Blg. 881. denied for failure of adducing additional evidence thereon.
Dominguez was then the incumbent Congressman of Poblacion, Not satisfied with the same, Malinias filed to SC a petition for review
Sabangan, Mountain Province. Corpuz was then the Provincial on certiorari on this case.
Director of the Philippine National Police in Mountain Province while
Tangilag was then the Chief of Police of the Municipality of Bontoc, ISSUE:
Mountain Province.
Did COMELEC abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint for
The petitioners said that due to said violations, their supporters lack of probable cause?
were deprived from participating in the canvassing of election
returns as they were blocked by a police checkpoint in the course of RATIO DECIDENDI OF SC:
their way to the canvassing site at the Provincial Capitol Building in
Bontoc, Mountain Province. No. SC AFFIRMED the decision of COMELEC and found the
conduct of its investigation and ruling on the case to be in accord
Among the private respondents, only Corpuz and Tangilag with its jurisdiction and duties under the law. In this case,
submitted their joint Counter-Affidavit, wherein they admitted that COMELEC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion as there is
they ordered the establishment of checkpoints all over the province nothing capricious or despotic in the manner of their resolution of
to enforce the COMELEC Gun Ban and its other pertinent rules the said complaint, hence, SC cannot issue the extraordinary writ of
pursuant to COMELEC Res. No. 2968 purposive of the certiorari.
Page 1 of 2
On the said violations, the only evidence that was successfully prosecute private respondents for alleged violation of Section 232
presented by the petitioner is the mass-affidavits of his supporters, of B.P. Blg. 881 precisely because this is a non-criminal act.
which were considered self-serving and cannot be admitted by the
court thus, the same are not enough to prove his claims. "It is a settled rule of statutory construction that the express mention
of one person, thing, or consequence implies the exclusion of all
Also, the allege violation of the respondents of Sec. 25 of R.A. 6646 others. The rule is expressed in the familiar maxim, expressio unius
and Sec. 232 of B.P. Blg. No. 881 are not included in the acts est exclusio alterius.
defined as punishable criminal election offenses under Sec. 27 of
R.A. 6646 and Sec. 261 and 262 of B.P. Blg. No. 881, respectively. The rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius is formulated in a
number of ways. One variation of the rule is the principle that what
Here, Sec. 25 merely highlights one of the rights of a political party is expressed puts an end to that which is implied. Expressium facit
or candidate during elections whereas, the violation of Sec. 232, cessare tacitum. Thus, where a statute, by its terms, is expressly
which enumerates the persons who are not allowed inside the limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or
canvassing site, can only be subjected to an administrative construction, be extended to other matters.
disciplinary action and cannot be punished by imprisonment as
provided for under Sec. 264 of the same law.
Moreover, it is clear in the defense of the respondents that they did

not violate Sec. 261 (i), a criminal offense, which prohibits any
officer or employee of political offices or police force from
intervening in any election campaign or from engaging in any
partisan activity except to vote or maintain public order.
In the said defense, the respondents said that setting up the

checkpoints was done to enforce the COMELEC's firearms ban,
pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 2968 and not to prejudice
any candidate from participating in the canvassing. As such, the
actions of the respondents are deemed lawful and not in excess of
their authority.
Ruling related to Statutory Construction
Under the rule of statutory construction of expressio unius est

exclusio alterius, there is no ground to order the COMELEC to
Page 2 of 2

Malinias Vs COMELEC StatConAssignDigest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Malinias Vs COMELEC StatConAssignDigest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Malinias Vs COMELEC StatConAssignDigest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SARIO MALINIAS, petitioner, maintenance of peace and order around the vicinity of the

vs. canvassing site.

Moreover, it is clear in the defense of the respondents that they did

In the said defense, the respondents said that setting up the

Ruling related to Statutory Construction

Under the rule of statutory construction of expressio unius est

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.