ARTICLE IX CASES DIGEST – C.

COMMISSION ON ELECTION 1

IX. Constitutional Commissions 018 PERFECTO V. GALIDO v COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and

SATURNINO R. GALEON, G.R. No. 95346, January 18, 199,
C. Commission on Election PADILLA, J.:

Section 2. Powers and Function POINT OF THE CASE: The second paragraph of Section 8, Article
IX specifically adds that pensions and gratuities shall not be
017 ROQUE FLORES v COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. No. considered as additional, double or indirect compensation. This
89604, April 20, 1990, CRUZ, J.: has reference to compensation already earned, for instance by
a retiree. A retiree receiving pensions or gratuities after
POINT OF THE CASE: Municipal or Metropolitan Courts being retirement can continue to receive such pension or gratuity
courts of limited jurisdiction, their decisions in Barangay even if he accepts another government position to which
Election contests are subject to the exclusive appellate another compensation is attached.
jurisdiction of the COMELEC. FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent were candidates
FACTS: The petitioner, Roque Flores was declared by the board during the 18 January 1988 local elections for the position of
of canvassers as having the highest number of votes for mayor in the Municipality of Garcia-Hernandez, Province of
kagawad on the March 1989 elections, in Barangay Poblacion, Bohol. Petitioner was proclaimed duly-elected Mayor of Garcia-
Tayum, Abra, and thus proclaimed Punong Barangay in Hernandez, by the Municipal Board of Canvassers. On 25
accordance with section 5 of R.A. 6679 which provides that the January 1988, private respondent Saturnino R. Galeon filed an
candidate who garnered the highest vote shall be the Punong election protest before the Regional Trial Court of Bohol, 7th
Barangay. However, it was protested by Rapisora, who placed Judicial Region, Branch I, Tagbilaran City.
second in the said election with one vote less than the After hearing, the said court upheld the proclamation
petitioner. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Tayum sustained of petitioner as the duly-elected Mayor of Garcia-Hernandez,
Rapisora and install him as Punong Barangay in place of the by a majority of eleven (11) votes. Private respondent appealed
petitioner after deducting two votes as stray from the latter’s the RTC decision to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).
total. Flores appealed to the RTC, which affirmed the Through its First Division, the COMELEC reversed the trial
challenged decision and agreed that the four votes cast for court's decision and declared private respondent the
“Flores” only, without any distinguishing first name or initial, duly-elected mayor by a plurality of five (5) votes. Petitioner’s
should all have been considered invalid instead of being divided motion for reconsideration was denied by the COMELEC in its
equally between the petitioner and Anastacio Flores, another en banc resolution of 20 September 1990 which affirmed the
candidate for kagawad. The total credited to the petitioner was decision of its First Division. The COMELEC held that the fifteen
correctly reduced by 2, demoting him to second place. (15) ballots in the same precinct containing the initial C after
The petitioner went to the COMELEC file an appeal on the name Galido were marked ballots and, therefore, invalid.
said decision of the Trial Court that was dismissed on the ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
ground that it had no power to review the decision of the RTC, discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
based on Section 9 of R.A. 6679, that the decisions of RTC in a rendering the questioned decision.
protest appealed to it from the municipal trial court in barangay
questions “on questions of fact shall be final and non- RULING: No. It is settled that the function of a writ of certiorari
appealable”. is to keep an inferior court or tribunal within the bounds of its
jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing a grave abuse of
ISSUE: Whether or not the Section 9 of R.A. 6679 was discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. As
unconstitutional correctly argued by public respondent COMELEC, it has the
HELD: Yes, the Section 9 of R.A. 6679 was unconstitutional. The inherent power to decide an election contest on physical
assailed provision violates the Article IX-C, Section 2 (2) of the evidence, equity, law and justice, and apply established
Constitution which provides that the COMELEC shall “Exercise jurisprudence in support of its findings and conclusions; and
exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the that the extent to which such precedents apply rests on its
elections, returns and qualifications of all elective regional, discretion, the exercise of which should not be controlled
provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all unless such discretion has been abused to the prejudice of
contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial either party.
courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay Finally, the records disclose that private respondent
officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.” had already assumed the position of Mayor of Garcia-
Municipal or Metropolitan Courts being courts of limited Hernandez as the duly-elected mayor of the municipality by
jurisdiction, their decisions in Barangay Election contests are virtue of the COMELEC decision. The main purpose of
subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the COMELEC prohibition is to suspend all action and prevent the further
under the afore-quoted section. Hence, the decision rendered performance of the act complained of. In this light, the petition
by the Trial Court should have been appealed directly to the at bar has become moot and academic.
COMELEC and not to the RTC.

Further, Section 9 of R.A. No. 6679, insofar as it 019 JOSE M. MERCADO v BOARD OF ELECTION SUPERVISORS
provides that the decision of the municipal or metropolitan OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF IBAAN, PROVINCE OF BATANGAS,
court in a barangay election should be appealed to the RTC, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
CRISANTO P. PANGILINAN and HON. CONRADO R. ANTONA,
must be declared unconstitutional.
G.R. No. 109713, April 6, 1995, DAVIDE, JR., J.:

PJC 2019-2020
 ARTICLE IX CASES DIGEST – C. COMMISSION ON ELECTION 2

Point of the Case: SK elections are not like elective barangay for certiorari to annul the aforesaid order of the trial court
officials, the contests of which are vested in the proper granting the motion for execution pending appeal and the writ
metropolitan or municipal trial court original jurisdiction over of execution.
such contest.
On 9 February 1995, the COMELEC promulgated its
Facts: Petitioner Jose M. Mercado was proclaimed winner in the resolution stating that, the Commission has exclusive authority
election for chairman of the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) of to hear and decide petitions for certiorari, prohibition and
Batangas. The proclamation was made by the Board of Election mandamus in election cases as authorized by law, and
Tellers (BET. Pangilinan filed a formal protest with the BES therefore, assumes jurisdiction of the instant petition for
questioning the results of the election. He alleged that the BET certiorari which is hereby granted and that the Order of the
Chairman was inebriated during the counting of the votes and court a quo of August 3, 1994 is hereby declared null and void
that he had invalidated some of them without consulting the and the Writ of Execution issued on August 4, 1994 is lifted.
other members. The Board of Election Supervisors (BES)
Issue: Whether Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has
ordered a recount of the votes for SK Chairman which reversed
jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and
the earlier tally to 51 to 49 in favor of Pangilinan, who was
mandamus in election cases where it has exclusive appellate
thereupon proclaimed the duly elected SK Chairman by the BES.
jurisdiction.
Mercado filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus
Held: Yes. The Court held that the last paragraph of Section 50
in the RTC praying for the annulment of Pangilinan’s
of B.P. Blg. 697 providing as follows: “The Commission is hereby
proclamation by the BES and for the DILG to recognize him as
vested with exclusive authority to hear and decide petitions for
the duly elected SK Chairman of Barangay Mabalor. He assailed
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus involving election cases”
the jurisdiction of the BES to act on the protest filed by
remains in full force and effect but only in such cases where,
Pangilinan, claiming that it was in the nature of an election
under paragraph (2), Section 1, Article IX-C of the Constitution,
protest properly cognizable by the Metropolitan or Municipal
it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction. Simply put, the COMELEC
Trial Court in accordance with Section 252 of the Omnibus
has the authority to issue the extraordinary writs of certiorari,
Election Code.
prohibition, and mandamus only in aid of its appellate
RTC dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. It jurisdiction. Since the COMELEC, in discharging its appellate
held that Resolution No. 2499 of the COMELEC did not vest in jurisdiction pursuant to Sec. 2 (2), Art. IX-C, acts as a court of
the RTC jurisdiction over controversies affecting SK elections. It justice performing judicial power and said power includes the
held that the BES, which is under COMELEC jurisdiction, is the determination of whether or not there has been grave abuse of
final arbiter of all election controversies within its level. discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, it
necessarily follows that the COMELEC, by constitutional
Issue: Whether or not Board of Election Supervisors could be
mandate, is vested with jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari
the final arbiter of SK elections.
in aid of its appellate jurisdiction
Held: Yes. The court ruled that SK elections are not like elective
barangay officials, the contests of which are vested in the 021 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v HON. GUALBERTO P.
proper metropolitan or municipal trial court original jurisdiction DELGADO, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, Br. 29, Toledo City, ELSIE
over such contest. In the light of the foregoing, it is indisputable RAGO LUMANGTAD, VIVENCIA ABARIDO, AVELINA
BUTASLAC, ROSELLANO BUTASLAC, HAYDELISA
that contests involving elections of SK (formerly KB) officials do
LUMANGTAD, SILVESTRE LUMANGTAD, MAXIMO RACAZA,
not fall within Section 252 of the Omnibus Election Code and
NENA RACAZA, VICTORIANO/ VICTOR RAGO, EDNA TEJAS,
paragraph 2, Section 2, Article IX-C of the Constitution and that
MERCEDITA TEJAS, TEOFISTO TEJAS, BERNABE TOQUERO, JR.,
no law in effect prior to the ratification of the Constitution had and PEDRO RAFAELA, G.R. Nos. 93419-32, September 18,
made the SK chairman an elective barangay official. 1990, GANCAYCO, J.:

020 EMMANUEL M. RELAMPAGOS v ROSITA C. CUMBA and Point of the Case: When the COMELEC conducts the
the COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. No. 118861, April 27, preliminary investigation of an election offense and upon a
1995, DAVIDE, JR., J.: prima facie finding of a probable cause files the information in
the proper court, said court thereby acquires jurisdiction over
Point of the case: The COMELEC, by constitutional mandate, is the case.
vested with jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction Facts. On 14 Jan 1988, the COMELEC received a report-
complaint from the Election Registrar of Toledo City against
Facts: In the synchronized elections of 11 May 1992, the private respondents for alleged violation of the Omnibus
petitioner and private respondent Rosita Cumba were Election Code. The COMELEC directed the Provincial Election
candidates for the position of Mayor in the municipality of Supervisor of Cebu to conduct the preliminary investigation of
Magallanes, Agusan del Norte. the case who eventually recommended the filing of an
The latter was proclaimed the winning candidate, with information against each of the private respondents for
a margin of only twenty-two votes over the former. Unwilling violation of the Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC en banc
to accept defeat, the petitioner filed an election protest with resolved to file the information against the private respondents
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Agusan del Norte, which was as recommended. Private respondents filed motions for
assigned to Branch 2 thereof in Butuan City. The trial court, per reconsiderations and the suspension of the warrant of arrest
Judge Rosario F. Dabalos, found the petitioner to have won with with the respondent court on the ground that no preliminary
a margin of six votes over the private respondent and rendered investigation was conducted. Later, an order was issued by
judgement in favor of the petitioner. As a result, the private respondent court directing the COMELEC through the Regional
respondent then filed with the respondent COMELEC a petition Election Director of Region VII to conduct a reinvestigation of
PJC 2019-2020
 ARTICLE IX CASES DIGEST – C. COMMISSION ON ELECTION 3

said cases. The COMELEC Prosecutor filed a motion for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief,
reconsideration and opposition to the motion for or memorandum required by the rules of the commission or by
reinvestigation alleging therein that it is only the Supreme Court the commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this
that may review the decisions, orders, rulings and resolutions constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each
of the COMELEC. This was denied by the court. commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari
by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy
Issue. Whether or not the Regional Trial Court (RTC) have the thereof. This provision is inapplicable as there was no case or
authority to review the actions of the Commission on Elections matter filed before the COMELEC. On the contrary, it was the
(COMELEC) in the investigation and prosecution of election COMELECs resolution that triggered this Controversy. The case
offenses filed in said court. or matter referred to by the constitution must be something
within the jurisdiction of the COMELEC, i.e., it must pertain to
Held. Yes. Based on the Constitution and the Omnibus Election an election dispute. The settled rule is that decision, rulings,
Code, it is clear that aside from the adjudicatory or quasi- order of the COMELEC that may be brought to the Supreme
judicial power of the COMELEC to decide election contests and Court on certiorari under Sec. 7 Art. IX-A are those that relate
administrative questions, it is also vested the power of a public to the COMELEC’s exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial
prosecutor with the exclusive authority to conduct the powers involving elective regional, provincial and city officials.
In this case, what is being assailed is the COMELECs choice of
preliminary investigation and the prosecution of election
an appointee to occupy the Gutalac Post which is an
offenses punishable under the Code before the competent
administrative duty done for the operational set-up of an
court. Thus, when the COMELEC, through its duly authorized
agency. The controversy involves an appointive, not an elective,
law officer, conducts the preliminary investigation of an official.
election offense and upon a prima facie finding of a probable
cause, files the information in the proper court, said court 023 MARIVIC ZARATE v COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and
thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case. Consequently, all JULIAN LALLAVE, JR., G.R. No. 129096, November 19, 1999,
the subsequent disposition of said case must be subject to the PURISIMA, J.:
approval of the court. The COMELEC cannot conduct a
reinvestigation of the case without the authority of the court or POINT OF THE CASE: Election cases, including pre-proclamation
unless so ordered by the court controversies, and all such cases must first be heard and
decided by a Division of COMELEC. COMELEC, sitting En Banc,
does not have the authority to hear and decide the same at the
022 LUCITA Q. GARCES v THE HONORABLE COURT OF
first instance.
APPEALS, SALVADOR EMPEYNADO and CLAUDIO
CONCEPCION, G.R. No. 114795, July 17, 1996, FRANCISCO, J.:
FACTS: During the SK elections, Lallave won over Zarate by a
single vote and was proclaimed thereafter. Zarate lodged his
POINT OF THE CASE: Only decisions of the COMELEC made in
election protest before the MTC alleging that there are invalid
the exercise of adjudicatory or quaasi-judicial power may be
three votes that were counted stating a named “JL” which is
brought to the Supreme Court on certioraari
irregular, anomalous and void. That had the three (3) been
voided or excluded, Zarate should have been proclaimed as the
FACTS: Garces was appointed as an Election Registrar in
Chairman. The MTC rendered a decision declaring and setting
Gutalac, Zamboanga del Norte. She replaced respondent
aside the proclamation of Julian Lallave Jr and proclaiming
Concepcion who was transferred to Liloy, Zambpanga del
Marivic Zarate as the Chairman of Brgy Malaiqui, Pangasinan.
Norte. However, respondent Provincial Election Supervisor
Dissatisfied with the decision, Julian Lallave Jr., filed an appeal
Empeynado issued a memorandum to prohibit Garces from
to the COMELEC theorizing that those three (3) votes should be
assuming her post. Garces filed before the RTC a petition for
counted and validly credited in his favor since the initials can
mandamus with preliminary prohibitory and mandatory
sufficiently identify him as the candidate since, among the
injunction and damages against Empeynado and Concepcion,
three, he has the only initials of “JL.” The COMELEC en banc
among others. Meantime, the COMELEC en banc through a
came out with a resolution setting aside the decision of the
Resolution dated June 3, 1988, resolved to recognize
MTC declaring Lallave as the SK Chairman. However, Zarate find
respondent Concepcion as the Election Registrar of Gutalac and
her way to raise the protest against Lallave to the Supreme
ordered that the appointments of Garces to Gutalac and of
Court. Hence, this petition.
Concepcion to Liloy be cancelled. In view thereof, respondent
Empeynado moved to dismiss the petition for mandamus
ISSUE: WON the COMELEC en banc acted with grave abuse?
alleging that the same was rendered moot and academic by the
said COMELEC Resolution, and that the case is cognizable only
HELD: Yes. The COMELEC en banc acted with grave abuse of
by the COMELEC under Sec. 7 Art. IX-A of the 1987 Constitution.
discretion or without jurisdiction when it resolved the appeals
The RTC, thereafter, dismissed the petition for mandamus on
of the petitioner without first referring them to any of its
two grounds, viz., (1) that quo warranto is the proper remedy,
Divisions. Said resolutions are, therefore, null and void and
and (2) that the cases or matters referred under the
must be set aside. Consequently, the appeals are deemed
constitution pertain only to those involving the conduct of
pending before the Commission for proper referral to a
elections. On appeal, respondent CA affirmed the RTCs
Division.
dismissal of the case. Hence, this petition.
024 DOMINADOR REGALADO, JR. v COURT OF APPEALS and
ISSUE: Is this case cognizable by the RTC or by the Supreme
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 115962, February 15,
Court?
2000, MENDOZA, J.:
RULING: The contention is without merit. Sec. 7, Art. IX-A of the
Constitution provides: Each commission shall decide by a POINT OF THE CASE: The powers of the Commission on election
majority vote of all its members any caseor matter brought in cases involving the illegal transfer of a public employee.
before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for
FACTS: Petitioner allegedly charged for violating 261(h) of the
decision or resolution. A caseor matteris deemed submitted for
Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code). That the
PJC 2019-2020
 ARTICLE IX CASES DIGEST – C. COMMISSION ON ELECTION 4

petitioner’s brother as the OIC Mayor of the Municipality of DAUD, LUKMAN OMAR, ONNIH AHMAD and BASARON M.
Tanjay, Negros Oriental, did then and there unlawfully, BURAHAN, G.R. Nos. 148575-76, December 10, 2003
feloniously and illegally transfer Mrs. Editha P. Barba, a
permanent Nursing Attendant, Grade I, in the Office of the x-----------------------x
Mayor of Tanjay, during the election period without obtaining
prior permission or clearance from the Commission on YUSOP JIKIRI, ABDEL ANNI, ABRAHAM DAUD, LUKMAN
OMAR, ONNIH AHMAD, BASARON BURAHAN, DEN RASHER
Elections, Manila.
SALIM, TALIB HAYUDINI, RIZAL TINGKAHAN, and BARLIE
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner violated the COMELEC NAHUDAN v COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ABDUSAKUR TAN,
Resolution No. 1937 for failure to comply with prior approval ABDULWAHID SAHIDULLA, MUNIB ESTINO and ABRAHAM
for the transfer BURAHAN, G.R. Nos. 152882-83, CALLEJO, SR., J.:

HELD: Yes, the Court held that it may well be that Barangay Sto. POINT OF THE CASE:
Nio in January 1988 was in need of health service personnel.
Nonetheless, this fact will not excuse the failure of petitioner to FACTS:
obtain prior approval from the COMELEC for the movement of
ISSUE:
personnel in his office. appointing authorities can transfer or
detail personnel as the exigencies of public service
HELD: In Loong v. COMELEC, we held that “the COMELEC is
require. However, during election period, as such personnel
duty-bound to investigate allegations of fraud, terrorism,
movement could be used for electioneering or even to harass violence and other analogous causes in actions for annulment
subordinates who are of different political persuasion, 261(h) of election results or for declaration of failure of elections, as
of the Omnibus Election Code, as amended, prohibits the same the OEC denominates the same. Thus, COMELEC, in the case of
unless approved by the COMELEC. actions for annulment of election results or declaration of
failure of elections, may conduct a technical examination of
025 EUGENIO "JING-JING" FAELNAR v PEOPLE OF THE election documents and compare and analyze voters’
PHILIPPINES, HON. RAMON CODILLA, in his capacity as signatures and fingerprints in order to determine whether or
Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 19, Cebu City, and not the elections had indeed been free, honest and clean.”
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. Nos. 140850-51, May 4, However, the exercise of this authority presupposes that the
2000, MENDOZA, J.: petition has properly been acted upon on account of the
existence of any of the grounds provided under Section 6 of the
POINT OF THE CASE: COMELEC shall exercise original OEC. Where, as in this case, elections had been held and
jurisdiction over all contests involving elective barangay officials winners had been duly proclaimed, the proper recourse should
decided by the trial court of limited jurisdiction. have been to file regular election protest cases to ventilate the
veracity of the alleged election fraud and irregularities of the
FACTS: Eugenio Faelnar filed his certificate of candidacy for the election in the subject precincts with the consequent
position of Barangay Chairman in Cebu. After filing such determination and declaration of the real winners in the
certificate, a basketball tournament was held in the sports elections.
complex dubbed as, “2nd Jing-Jing Faelnar’s Cup.” This gave rise
to a complaint for electioneering against petitioner. It was 027 ELLAN MARIE P. CIPRIANO, a minor represented by her
alleged that it was actually a form of campaign done outside the father ROLANDO CIPRIANO, (AND OTHER YOUTH OF THE
official campaign period. The complaint alleged that the LAND AFFECTED AND SIMILARLY SITUATED) v COMMISSION
basketball tournament was actually a gimmick staged outside ON ELECTIONS, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL
the campaign period which during the tournament, there was GOVERNMENT, Election Officer LOPE GAYO, JR., 1st District,
a streamer bearing the name of petitioner placed at the façade Pasay City, SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY thru its Chairman
of the venue, Faelnar’s name was repeatedly mentioned over JOHNNY SANTIAGO of Barangay 38, Pasay City, GREG PAOLO
the microphone, it was widely published in the local ALCERA in his capacity as SK Federation President of Pasay
newspapers and a raffle sponsored by Gillamac was held with City, EDNA TIBAR – a minor assisted by parents, KRISTAL GALE
home appliances as prize. It constituted an election offense. Luy BONGGO – a minor assisted by parents, SK Chairman RUEL
moved for reconsideration prompting te COMELEC to proceed TAYAM DECENA of Barangay 142, Pasay City, THE PRESIDENT
with the filing of the case against Lallave. Petitioner move to OF THE PAMBANSANG KATIPUNAN NG MGA SANGGUNIANG
quash on the basis that the previous dismissal of the COMELEC KABATAAN, and ALL SK OFFICERS AND YOUTH OF THE LAND
en banc was immediately final and executory. And that Luy’s SIMILARLY SITUATED and THEIR AGENTS AND
motion for reconsideration was a prohibited pleading under the REPRESENTATIVES, G.R. No. 158830, August 10, 2004, PUNO,
Commission’s rules of procedure. J.:

ISSUE: WON COMELEC has jurisdiction over the motion for POINT OF THE CASE:
reconsideration filed?

HELD: Yes. COMELEC has jurisdiction over the motion for

reconsideration filed by the petitioner. It was held that the 028 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v HON. HENRY B. BASILLA,
COMELEC en banc is the one that determines the existence of SALVACION COLAMBOT, SPOUSES JAIME AND ADORACION
probable cause in an election offense. But, it may also be TAYONG and MELCHOR YANSON, G.R. Nos. 83938-40,
delegated to the State Prosecutor or to the Provincial or City November 6, 1989, FELICIANO, J.:
Fiscal but may still be reviewed by the COMELEC.
Point of the Case: The acts of COMELEC’s deputies within the
026 ABDUSAKUR M. TAN, ABDULWAHID SAHIDULLA, lawful scope of their delegated authority are, in legal
BRAHAM BURAHAN v COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, YUSOP contemplation, the acts of the COMELEC itself.
H. JIKIRI, ABDEL S. ANNI, DEN RASHER I. SALIM, TALIB L.
HAYUDINI, RIZAL TINGKAHAN, BARLIE NAHUDAN, ABRAHAM
PJC 2019-2020
 ARTICLE IX CASES DIGEST – C. COMMISSION ON ELECTION 5

Facts. After the May 1987 congressional elections in Masbate, Facts: Respondent CIBAC party-list is a multi-sectoral party
complaints for violations of Section 261 of the Omnibus registered under Republic Act No. (R.A.) 7941, otherwise known
Election Code (BP Blg. 881)277 were filed with the Office of the as the Party-List System Act. On 20 November 2009, two
Provincial Fiscal of Masbate against the spouses Jaime and different entities, both purporting to represent CIBAC,
Adoracion Tayong for violation of Section 261, paragraph a-1, submitted to the COMELEC a “Manifestation of Intent to
for vote-buying; against Salvacion Colambot for violation of Participate in the Party-List System of Representation in the
Section 261, paragraph a-1, also for vote buying; and against May 10, 2010 Elections.” The first Manifestation was signed by
Melchor Yanson for violation of Section 261, paragraph p, for a certain Pia B. Derla, who claimed to be the party’s acting
carrying of deadly weapon. After preliminary investigation of secretary-general. At 1:30 p.m. of the same day, another
the aforequoted complaints, the Provincial Fiscal of Masbate Manifestation was submitted by herein respondents Cinchona
filed the appropriate cases in the Regional Trial Court of Cruz-Gonzales and Virginia Jose as the party’s vice president
Masbate. However, accused-respondent Judge Henry Basilla and secretary-general, respectively.
motu proprio dismissed the 3 information filed by the Provincial
On 26 March 2010, Pia Derla submitted a second
Fiscal. Basilia argued that the complaints should have been filed
Certificate of Nomination,10 which included petitioners Luis
with the COMELEC not with the fiscal pursuant to 1987
Lokin, Jr. and Teresita Planas as party-list nominees. Derla
Constitution, Art IX-C, Sec. 2(6). Moreover, the judge found that
affixed to the certification her signature as “acting secretary-
the COMELEC did not investigate the cases.
general” of CIBAC. Claiming that the nomination of petitioners
Issue. Whether or not the three information be dismissed on Lokin, Jr. and Planas was unauthorized, respondents filed with
the basis of 1987 Constitution, Art IX-C, Sec. 2(6)? the COMELEC a “Petition to Expunge From The Records And/Or
For Disqualification,” seeking to nullify the Certificate filed by
Held. No. While Section 265 of the Omnibus Election Code
Derla. Respondents contended that Derla had misrepresented
vests “exclusive power” to conduct preliminary investigation of
herself as “acting secretary-general,” when she was not even a
election offenses and to prosecute the same upon the Comelec,
member of CIBAC; that the Certificate of Nomination and other
it at the same time authorizes the Comelec to avail itself of the
documents she submitted were unauthorized by the party and
assistance of other prosecuting arms of the Government.
therefore invalid; and that it was Villanueva who was duly
Section 2 of Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution clearly
authorized to file the Certificate of Nomination on its behalf.
envisage that the Comelec would not be compelled to carry out
all its functions directly and by itself alone. Further, the On appeal Lokin then assailed that COMELEC has no
concurrence of the President with the deputation by Comelec jurisdiction on the case Lokin filed a petition for mandamus to
of the prosecuting arms of the Government, was expressed in compel respondent COMELEC to proclaim him as the official
general terms and in advance in Executive Order No. 134. second nominee of CIBAC. Likewise, he filed another petition
Registration of Parties and Organization for certiorari assailing Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804
alleging that it expanded Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941 by allowing
029 LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO v THE CIBAC to change its nominees.
COMMISION ON ELECTIONS and AGAPITO A. AQUINO, G.R.
No. 161265, February 24, 2004, TINGA, J.: Issue: Whether or not the authority of Secretary of CIBAC to file
the part’s Certificate of Nomination is an intra-corporate
POINT OF THE CASE: Electoral process envisions one candidate matter, exclusively cognizable by special commercial courts,
from a political party for each position and disunity and discord and over which the COMELEC has no jurisdiction
amongst members of a political party should not be allowed.
Ruling: Yes, the COMELEC has jurisdiction over cases pertaining
030 JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., MATIAS v DEFENSOR, JR., RODOLFO to party leadership and the nomination of party-list
G. VALENCIA, DANILO E. SUAREZ, SOLOMON R. CHUNGALAO, representatives. The present dispute stemmed from an intra-
SALVACION ZALDIVAR-PEREZ, HARLIN CAST-ABAYON, corporate matter, their submissions even recognize the
MELVIN G. MACUSI and ELEAZAR P. QUINTO v COMMISSION COMELEC’s constitutional power to enforce and administer all
ON ELECTIONS, MANUEL A. ROXAS II, FRANKLIN M. DRILON laws relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative,
and J.R. NEREUS O. ACOSTA, G.R. No. 188920, February 16, referendum, and recall. More specifically, as one of its
2010, ABAD, J.: constitutional functions, the COMELEC is also tasked to register,
after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, or
POINT OF THE CASE: coalitions which, in addition to other requirements, must
present their platform or program of government.” Section 2,
031 LUISK. LOKIN, JR. and TERESITA F. PLANAS v
Article IX-C of the Constitution, include the ascertainment of
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), CITIZENS’ BATTLE
AGAINST CORRUPTION PARTY LIST represented by VIRGINIA the identity of the political party and its legitimate officers
S. JOSE SHERWIN N. TUGNA, and CINCHONA CRUZ- responsible for its acts. The Court also declared that the
GONZALES, G.R. No. 193808, June 26, 2012, SERENO, J.: COMELEC’s power to register political parties necessarily
involved the determination of the persons who must act on its
Point of the case: COMELEC has jurisdiction over cases behalf. Thus, the COMELEC may resolve an intra-party
pertaining to party leadership and the nomination of party- list leadership dispute, in a proper case brought before it, as an
representatives. The present dispute stemmed from an intra- incident of its power to register political parties.
corporate matter, their submissions even recognize the Prosecution of Election Offenses
COMELEC’s constitutional power to enforce and administer all
laws relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative,
032 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v HONORABLE ENRIQUE B.
referendum, and recall.
INTING, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH
38, DUMAGUETE CITY, AND OIC MAYOR DOMINADOR S.

PJC 2019-2020
 ARTICLE IX CASES DIGEST – C. COMMISSION ON ELECTION 6

REGALADO, JR., G.R. No. 88919 July 25, ,1990, GUTIERREZ,

JR., J.:

Point of the case: The Constitution empowers the COMELEC to

conduct preliminary investigations in cases involving election
offenses for the purpose of helping the Judge determine
probable cause and for filing an information in court.

Facts. Mrs. Barba filed a letter-complaint against OIC-Mayor

Regalado of Tanjay, Negros Oriental with the COMELEC for
allegedly transferring her, a permanent Nursing Attendant,
Grade I, in the office of the Municipal Mayor to a very remote
barangay and without obtaining prior permission or clearance
from COMELEC as required by law. After a preliminary
investigation of Barba’s complaint, Atty. Lituanas found a prima
facie case. Hence, on September 26, 1988, he filed with the
respondent trial court a criminal case for violation of section
261, Par. (h), Omnibus Election Code against the OIC-Mayor. In
an Order dated September 30, 1988, the respondent court
issued a warrant of arrest against the accused OIC Mayor.
However, in an order dated October 3, 1988 and before the
accused could be arrested, the trial court set aside its
September 30, 1988 order on the ground that Atty. Lituanas is
not authorized to determine probable cause pursuant to
Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The trial court
later on quashed the information. Hence, this petition.

Issue. Whether or not a preliminary investigation conducted by

a Provincial Election Supervisor involving election offenses have
to be coursed through the Provincial Prosecutor, before the
Regional Trial Court may take cognizance of the investigation
and determine whether or not probable cause exists?

Held. No. The Constitution empowers the COMELEC to conduct

preliminary investigations in cases involving election offenses
for the purpose of helping the Judge determine probable cause
and for filing an information in court. This power is exclusive
with COMELEC. The evident constitutional intendment in
bestowing this power to the COMELEC is to insure the free,
orderly and honest conduct of elections, failure of which would
result in the frustration of the true will of the people and make
a mere idle ceremony of the sacred right and duty of every
qualified citizen to vote. To divest the COMELEC of the authority
to investigate and prosecute offenses committed by public
officials in relation to their office would thus seriously impair its
effectiveness in achieving this clear constitutional mandate.
Bearing these principles in mind, it is apparent that the
respondent trial court misconstrued the constitutional
provision when it quashed the information filed by the
Provincial Election Supervisor.

066 LIBERAL PARTY v COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,

NACIONALISTA PARTY, represented by its President Manuel
B. Villar and NATIONALIST PEOPLE'S COALITION, allegedly
represented by its Chairman Faustino S. Dy, Jr., G.R. No.
191771, May 6, 2010, BRION, J.:

POINT OF THE CASE:

PJC 2019-2020