Paragraph C. The COMELEC Sec.1 Composition, Qualifications, and Appointment

1. Composition - 1 Chairman, 6 Commissioners

2. Qualifications a. Natural born Citizen. b. At least 35 years old at the time

of appointment. c. College Degree d. Not a candidate for ANY elective

position in the election preceding the appointment.

e. Majority of the members, including the CHAIRMAN must be members of the Phil. Bar and must have been practicing Law for at least 10 years.

3. Appointment - 7 years w/o reappointment. - For those first appointed: i. 3 Commissioners for 7 years ii. 2 Commissioners for 5 years iii. 1 Commissioner for 3 years - Terms begin on February 2 and

end at the same date every 7 years regardless of tenure.

CASES A. BRILLANTES v. YORAC

Facts: The petitioner in this case assails the constitutionality of the appointment of Assoc. Commissioner Haydee Yorac as acting Chairman of the COMELEC in place of Chairman Hilario Davide who was assigned to investigate the December 1989 coup d’ etat attempt. Issue: WON the President has authority to appoint a Chairman to the COMELEC in ACTING capacity. Held: The appointment is unconstitutional as it was in violation of the provision in sec. 1(2) art. 9(C) which states, “In no case shall ANY member be designated in a temporary or ACTING capacity.” This also violates the independent nature of the Commission, as the Commission itself, without the participation of the President,

could have resolved the matter regarding the inability of the incumbent Chairman to perform his functions.

B. Cayetano v. Monsod

Facts: In the instant case, petitioner is challenging the appointment of Christian Monsod as COMELEC Chairman alleging that he does not possess the qualifications, in particular, that he was not in the “practice of Law for at least 10 years.” Issue: WON Christian Monsod is qualified to be appointed COMELEC Chairman and WON he was “in the practice of Law” for at least 10 years. Held: He is qualified since the legal profession is not only concerned with litigation and appearances in Courts, as most people perceive it to be. The practice of law is defined as, “ANY activity, in or out of courts, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training, and experience.” Christian Monsod is a Corporate Lawyer.

Sec. 2 COMELEC Powers and Functions

1. Nature of COMELEC Powers - The powers it possesses are

executive, quasi-judicial, and quasi-legislative in nature.

- It has jurisdiction over intra-party disputes.

- It can recommend to the President disciplinary actions against those public officials who do not obey or perform what was designated to them by COMELEC.

- It may annul an entire municipal election on the ground of post-election terrorism.

- It has exclusive power to conduct investigations and prosecute election offenses.

- However, it is not empowered to decide questions involving the “right to vote”.

- Parties that may NOT be registered:

o Religious denominations o Parties that promote

violence and unlawful means.

o Parties that are supported by foreign governments.

2. Cases A. GALIDO v. COMELEC

This case involves election fraud (marked ballots) as determined by COMELEC. Issue: WON herein petitioner can appeal before the Supreme Court on certiorari the decision of the COMELEC regarding the election fraud. Held: Petitioner can appeal to the Supreme Court on certiorari. Despite the provision in sec. 2(2), (C), art.9 stating, “Decisions, Final Orders, or Rulings of the Commission on Elections in contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be FINAL, EXECUTORY, and NOT APPEALABLE”, it does not rule out the possibility of an original special civil action for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus, as the case may be, under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. It is still well within the power of the Supreme Court to decide on matters involving grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

B. PEOPLE v. HON. DELGADO Facts: COMELEC conducted a preliminary investigation of a case involving an election offense punishable under the Omnibus Election Code and filed a case before the RTC for its prosecution. Issue: WON the RTC is vested with the power to review the actions of COMELEC in the investigation and prosecution of the election offense. Held: The RTC has the power to review the actions of COMELEC since the case

 was filed before it and it acquired proper jurisdiction. The Supreme Court only has exclusive power to review the decisions of COMELEC where it has exercised adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. Actions done by COMELEC in the investigation and prosecution of election offenses are subject to review by lower courts where the case has been filed. Note: Sec. 2(6), art. 9-C, “the COMELEC has the power to investigate, and where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices.” The phrase, “where appropriate” leaves to the legislature the power to determine the kind of election offenses the COMELEC shall prosecute.

C. PEOPLE v. JUDGE INTING

Issue: WON a preliminary investigation conducted by a Provincial Election Supervisor involving election offenses has to be coursed through the Provincial Fiscal or Provincial Prosecutor before the RTC may take cognizance of the investigation and determine whether or not there is probable cause. Held: The case filed by the Provincial Election Supervisor can bypass the Provincial Prosecutor as the COMELEC is vested with the exclusive jurisdiction over election offenses and can prosecute and file a case before court. See sec. 2(6), art.9(C).

D. CORPUS v. TANODBAYAN This case tackles the question on jurisdiction over election offenses committed by public officials – does the power to investigate, prosecute, and try election offenses committed by a public official vest in the COMELEC and the Court of First Instance (now the RTC) or in the Tanodbayan and the Sandiganbayan

who have the jurisdiction over offenses committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office? The court ruled that jurisdiction clearly lies with the COMELEC since the Constitution granted it with the power, among others, to “enforce and administer ALL laws relative to the conduct of election and concomitant with authority to investigate and prosecute election offenses is not without compelling reason. The evident Constitutional intendment in bestowing this power is to insure free, orderly, and honest conduct of elections.” In other words, it is the nature of the offense and not the personality of the offender that matters. As long as the offense is an election offense, jurisdiction over the same rests exclusively with the COMELEC, in view of its all-embracing power over the conduct of elections.

E. TAN v. COMELEC

The petitioner in this case contends that COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction for continuing to take action in an administrative case. He argues that since the Civil Service Law provides that department heads “shall have jurisdiction to investigate and decide matters involving disciplinary action against officers under their jurisdiction”, then it is the Department of Justice and not COMELEC that has jurisdiction over his offense. The court ruled that since his offense is an election offense in relation to his duties as an election canvasser and NOT as a city prosecutor, the COMELEC’s jurisdiction should be sustained. Moreover, the COMELEC may merely issue a recommendation for disciplinary action but it still with the executive department to which petitioner belongs that the ultimate authority to impose the penalty lies. See Sec. 2(8), Art. 9(C) of the Constitution.

F. REYES v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT The Solicitor General, in behalf of the COMELEC, raises a fundamental question: Does the filing of the petitioner of the present case on certiorari before the Supreme Court without first filing a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc violate sec. 7, Art. 9 (A) of the Constitution which states that “only decisions of the COMELEC en banc may be brought before the Supreme Court on certiorari”? The Court ruled that it violates the Constitution in so far as procedure is concerned. Decisions of COMELEC are arrived at by divisions but the Constitution only allows the Supreme Court to review on certiorari those which are arrived at by the Commission en banc. And since the Commission only decides en banc when there is a motion for reconsideration, then the present case cannot prosper.

G. KILOSBAYAN v. COMELEC

Kilosbayan filed a case before COMELEC without providing for evidence to support its claim. It asserts that COMELEC has the obligation to provide for the evidence since it has the Constitutional power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of the elections. The Court ruled that it is the legal obligation of the petitioner and not of COMELEC in addition to it also being its moral duty to submit evidence to support its claim.

H. BUAC & BAUTISTA v. COMELEC This is a petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the resolution of the COMELEC en banc which held that it has no jurisdiction over controversies involving the CONDUCT of a plebiscite transforming the municipality of Taguig into a highly urbanized city and the annulment of its result. The court ruled

 that the COMELEC has jurisdiction and not the trial courts since this case involves an “election” which concerns controversies regarding the true will of the people and does not concern actual controversies regarding legally demandable and enforceable rights. Note: Trial courts only have jurisdiction over the election, returns, and qualifications of candidates (appellate jurisdiction on municipal and barangay elective positions) but in cases where the actual conduct of elections is concerned, COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction.

I. LDP v. COMELEC Facts: Sen. Angara, Chairman of the LDP placed Rep. Aquino, who is the LDP Secretary General on “indefinite forced leave”. The General Counsel of the LDP then filed a manifestation before COMELEC stating that whatever actions done by Sen. Angara are official acts of LDP and so his nominations for candidacy for elective positions from the President down to the last Sangguniang Bayan Kagawad are the official candidates of LDP for the May 2004 elections. Rep. Aquino then challenged this manifestation arguing that the LDP Chairman has no power to give disciplinary actions more so, to suspend him from office. As the internal conflicts of the LDP worsen, Rep. Aquino also presented his own version of a list of official candidates for the May 2004 elections. COMELEC ruled by dividing the party into an “Angara Wing” and an “Aquino Wing” maintaining both lists of candidates as official candidates of LDP. Sen. Angara filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court assailing the decision by COMELEC for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. Issue: WON COMELEC has jurisdiction and power to decide on internal conflicts of political parties.

Held: COMELEC has power to decide internal conflicts of political parties in so far as it affects the power of registering political parties. In order to protect the electorate from misrepresentation by candidates who promote ideals inconsistent with those of the party, it must determine the identity of the party and its legitimate officers. The ascertainment of the identity of a political party and its legitimate officers is a matter that is well within the authority of COMELEC. To resolve this simple issue, the COMELEC need only to turn to the Party Constitution. The COMELEC resolution in this case is annulled and the petition is granted in part. The official list by Sen. Angara should be recognized.

     J.      MANZALA  V.  COMELEC  Facts:   Respondent   Monton   was   declared    elected   mayor   of   Magdiwang   Romblon.  Manzala   wanted   to   annul   the   declaration.  The   COMELEC   denied   the   motion   for  reconsideration   of   the   petitioner   regarding  the   modification   of   the   number   of   votes  obtained   by   both   parties   after   the   re-­‐appreciation.  Issue:  The  Petitioner  argues  that   the  second  division   of   Comelec   has   opened   the   whole  case  for  review  just  like  how  the  courts  will  trial  criminal  cases  but  the  Comelec    en  banc  failed   to   conduct   a   thorough   review   of   the  contested  ballots.  Held:   The   argument   has   no   basis.   The  COMELEC   can   exercise   original   jurisdiction  to   review,   revise,   modify   or   even   reverse  and   set   aside   the  decision  of   the   trial   court  and  substitute   it  with   its  own  decision.  And  in   the   exercise   of   its   adjudicatory   or   quasi-­‐judicial   powers,   the   constitution   mandates  the  COMELEC  to  hear  and  decide  cases  first  by   division   and   upon   motion   for  reconsideration,   by   the   COMELEC.     This   is  what   COMELEC   exactly   did   when   they  reaffirmed  the  findings.  

 Note:  

• When   the   candidate   who   won   was  disqualified  or  declared  ineligible,  candidate  with   the   second   highest   votes   doesn’t  automatically  win.   The   votes   for   those  who  are   qualified   shall   be   considered   as   stray,  void  or  meaningless  unless  there  is  a  sincere  belief  that  the  candidate  was  alive,  qualified  or  eligible.  

• The   COMELEC   has   the   power   to   annul   an  entire   municipal   election   on   the   ground   of  terrorism.  (see  primer)  

• COMELEC   may   call   for   “the   holding   or  continuation   of   the   election   as   soon   as  practicable.”    This  includes  the  power  to  call  special   elections   if   ever   there   is   a   failure   to  elect  

• COMELEC  is  not  empowered  to    o decide  questions  involving  the  right  

to  vote  o determine   WON   a   person   has   a  

right  of  suffrage  o resolve  such  question  that  has  been  

excluded   from   the   Commissions  power   to   be   judge   of   election    contests  

o Contempt   cannot   be   exercised   in  connection  with  purely  executive  or  ministerial   functions   but   only   in  furtherance   of   its   quasi-­‐judicial  functions  

• All   political   parties   and   organization  which  present   their   platform   or   program   of  government  and  which  satisfy  requirements  prescribed   by   law   may   register.   However,  religious   denominations   and   sect   and  organizations   which   aim   to   achieve   their  goals   through   violence   may   not   be  registered    

Sec  3  A. BATAYAN  V.  COMELEC  

Facts:    The  comelec   is  determining  whether  probable   cause   exists   to   charge   petitioners  for   violation   of   the   provision   of   Election  

 Code   prohibiting   double   registration   –  administrative  case.  Issue:     Whether   the   COMELEC   en   banc’s  assumption  of   original   jurisdiction  over   the  case  violated  the  constitution  Held:   It   is   not   applicable   in   administrative  cases    Ratio:  It  is  only  when  COMELEC  exercises  its  quasi   judicial  power  that   it   is  subject   to   the  Section  3  of  article  IX  which  requires  that  all  cases   including   pre   proclamation  controversies   shall   be   decided   in   division  and   the  motion   for  reconsideration  shall  be  decided   by   the   COMELEC   en   banc.     But   the  COMELEC  en  banc  can  directly  act  when  it  is  exercising  its  administrative  power.    

B. BALINDONG  V.  COMELEC  Facts:   Anwar   Balindong,   a   candidate   for  mayor   seeks   to   set   aside   the   resolution   of  COMELEC   en   banc   ordering   the   Municipal  Board   of   Canvassers   (MBC)   to   immediately  reconvene   to   totally   exclude   from   the  canvass  the  election  return    Issue:   Whether   the   COMELEC   en   banc   had  jurisdiction   over   pre-­‐proclamation  controversies  at  the  first  Instance    Held:   The   COMELEC   en   banc   acted  without  jurisdiction  or  with  grave  abuse  Ratio:   The   hearing   and   the   decision   of  election   cases,   including   pre   proclamation  controversies,   at   the   first   instance   by   a  division   of   COMELEC,   and   not   by   the   poll  body   as   a   whole   is   mandatory   and  jurisdictional  according  to  Article  IX  –C  sec  3    

  Notes  • The  rule  is  that  only  decision  of  the  Comelec  

en   banc   may   be   brought   to   the   court   on  certiorari.  However  if  a  division  of  a  comelec  decides   a   motion   for   reconsideration   in  violation   of   Article   IX,   C,   3,   the   ruling   is   a  complete  nullity  and  may  be  brought   to   the  court  on  certiorari  

• A   motion   to   reconsider   an   interlocutory  order   of   a   division   may   be   referred   to   the  

Comelec   en   banc   by   the   division   of   all  members  agree  

• It   is   only   in   adjudicatory   or   quasi   judicial  powers   that   the   COMELEC   is   mandated   to  hear   and   decide   cases   first   by   division   and  then  upon  motion  of  reconsideration,  by  the  COMELEC   en   banc.   The   filing   of   an  information   in   court   does   not   involve   the  exercise  of  adjudicatory  function  

 Sec  4  

A. SANIDAD  V.  COMELEC  Facts:  there  is  a  plebiscite  to  be  held  for  the  ratification   of   an   organic   act   for   the  Cordillera   autonomous   region.   COMELEC  then   released   Resolution   No.   2176,  prohibiting    campaign  of  plebiscite  issues  in  columns,  radio  or  televisions.  Issue:   WON   the   resolution   was  constitutional  Held:  The  instant  petition  is  granted.  Ratio:  What  was  granted  to  the  comelec  was  supervise   and   regulate   the   use   and  enjoyment   for   media   communication  because   it   might   give   some   candidates  undue   advantage   and   not   the   right   to  supervise   the   petitioner’s   right   to  expression   during   plebiscite   periods  because  those  who  they  are  not  candidates    

B. ABS-­CBN  BROADCASTING  CORPORATION  V.  COMELEC  Facts:  An  exit  poll   is  an  electoral   survey   for  the   purpose   of   determining   the   probable  result   of   an   election   by   asking   random  selected   voters   whom   they   have   voted   for.    This  will  be  published  publicly.  Issues:   Whether   or   not   the   respondent  commission   acted   with   grave   abuse   of  discretion   amounting   to   lack   or   excess   of  jurisdiction   when   it   approved   the   issuance  of   a   restraining   order   preventing   the  conducting  of  exit  polls.  Held:  The  petition  is  meritorious.    Ratio:   The   fear   of   COMELEC   that   it   would  create  confusion  and  destroy   the  credibility  

of   COMELEC   in   untenable   because   the  participants   are   random   and   not   meant   to  replace  the  actual  results.  In  addition  to  that,  it   violates   the   constitutionally   guaranteed  rights   of   the   media   and   electorate.   It   also  doesn’t   violate   ballot   secrecy   because   the  purpose  of  secrecy  is  to  prevent  vote  buying    

C. SOCIAL  WEATHER  STATIONS  V.  COMELEC  Issue:  Petioners,  Social  Weather  Stations  Inc.  and   Kamahan   Publishing   Corporation  questions   WON   the   prohibition   of   surveys  affecting  national  candidates  15  days  before  and   local   candidates   7   days   before   the  election  Held:  Unconstitutional  Ratio:  Because  of  the  preferred  status  of  the  constitutional   rights   of   speech,   expression,  and   the   press,   it   is   declared  unconstitutional.   This   purpose   of   this   this  power   is   also   to   ensure   equal   opportunity  for  the  candidates    Dissent  by  Justice  Kapunan:  It   is   a  mere   restriction   and  not   an   absolute  prohibition   on   the   publication   of   election  surveys   especially   during   the   period   when  the   voters   are   presumabley   contemplating  whom   they   should   elect   and  when   they   ate  most   susceptible   to   such   unwarranted  persuasion.  These  surveys  may  be  published  thereafter.