1

Lico v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 205505, 29 Rimas Group... h COMELEC a Petition against petitioner Lico...
September 2015 prayed that petitioner Lico... be ordered to vacate the office
of Ating Koop in the House of Representatives
FACTS: Commission on Elections' (COMELEC) jurisdiction over
the expulsion of a sitting party-list representative: from the COMELEC RESOLVES... to: DISMISS the instant Petition to
House of Representatives, on the one... hand; and from his Expel Respondent Atty. Isidro Q. Lico in the House of
party-list organization, on the other. Representatives and to Sanction the Immediate Succession of
the Second Nominee of ATING KOOP Party List, Mr. Roberto
Ating Koop is a multi-sectoral party-list organization...
C. Mascarina as its Party Representative, for lack of...
registered... under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941, also known
jurisdiction
as the Party-List System Act (Party-List Law).
Issues: Commission on Elections' (COMELEC) jurisdiction over
Ating Koop filed its Manifestation of Intent to Participate in
the expulsion of a sitting party-list representative: from the
the Party-List System of Representation for the 10 May 2010
House of Representatives, on the one... hand; and from his
Elections. it filed with the COMELEC the list of its nominees,
party-list organization, on the other.
with petitioner Lico as first... nominee
Ruling: The COMELEC En Banc held that it had no jurisdiction
OMELEC proclaimed Ating Koop as one of the winning party-
to expel Congressman Lico from the House of
list groups. Ating Koop earned a seat in the House... of
Representatives, considering that his expulsion from Ating
Representatives. Petitioner Lico subsequently took his oath of
Koop affected his qualifications as member of the House, and
office... and thereafter assumed office.
therefore it was... the House of Representatives Electoral
Several months prior to its proclamation as one of the Tribunal (HRET) that had jurisdiction over the Petition.
winning party-list organizations,... Ating Koop issued Central
the COMELEC upheld the validity of petitioner Lico's expulsion
Committee Resolution 2010-01, which incorporated a term-
from Ating Koop, explaining that when the Interim Central
sharing agreement signed by its nominees
Committee ousted him from Ating Koop, the said
Under the agreement,... petitioner Lico was to serve as Party- Committee's members remained in hold-over capacity even
list Representative for the first year of the three-year term after their terms had... expired;... and that the COMELEC was
not in a position to substitute its judgment for that of Ating
Ating Koop... introduced amendments to its Constitution and Koop with respect to the cause of the expulsion.
By-laws. Among the salient changes was the composition of
the Central Committee,... The amendments likewise We find that while the COMELEC correctly dismissed the
mandated the holding of an election of Central Committee Petition to expel petitioner Lico from the House of
members within six months after the Second National Representatives for being beyond its jurisdiction, it
Convention. nevertheless proceeded to rule upon the validity of his
expulsion from Ating Koop - a matter beyond its purview.
In effect, the amendments cut short the three-year term of
the incumbent members (referred to hereafter as the Interim Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution... ndows the
Central Committee) of the Central Committee. HRET with jurisdiction to resolve questions on the
qualifications of members of Congress. In the case of party-
The Interim Central Committee was dominated by members list representatives, the HRET acquires jurisdiction over a
of the Rimas Group. disqualification case... upon proclamation of the winning
party-list group, oath of the nominee, and assumption of
almost one year after petitioner Lico had assumed office, the
office as member of the House of Representative
Interim Central Committee expelled him from Ating Koop for
disloyalty. Apart from allegations of malversation and graft In this case, the COMELEC proclaimed Ating Koop as a
and corruption, the Committee cited petitioner winning party-list group; petitioner Lico took his oath; and...
he assumed office in the House of Representatives. Thus, it is
Lico's refusal to honor the term-sharing agreement as factual
the HRET, and not the COMELEC, that has jurisdiction over
basis for disloyalty and as cause for his expulsion under Ating
the disqualification case.
Koop's Amended Constitution and By-laws.
We find to be without legal basis, however, is the action of
the COMELEC in upholding the validity of the expulsion of

1
 2

petitioner Lico from Ating Koop, despite its own ruling that amendment of the list of nominees with the new order as
the HRET has jurisdiction over the disqualification issue. follows:
These findings already touch upon... the qualification
1. Emmanuel Joel Villanueva
requiring a party-list nominee to be a bona fide member of
the party-list group sought to be represented. 2. Cinchona Cruz-Gonzales
The rules on intra-party matters and on the jurisdiction of the 3. Armi Jane Borje
HRET are not parallel concepts that do not intersect. Rather,
the operation of the rule on intra-party matters is The COMELEC en banc proclaimed Cruz-Gonzales as the
circumscribed by Section 17 of Article VI of the 1987 official second nominee of CIBAC. Cruz-Gonzales took her
Constitution and jurisprudence on the... jurisdiction of oath of office as a Party-List Representative of CIBAC.
electoral tribunals. The jurisdiction of the HRET is exclusive. It
Lokin filed a petition for mandamus to compel respondent
is given full authority to hear and decide the cases on any
COMELEC to proclaim him as the official second nominee of
matter touching on the validity of the title of the proclaimed
CIBAC. Likewise, he filed another petition for certiorari
winner.
assailing Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 alleging that it
The Court held that it was for the HRET to interpret the expanded Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941 by allowing CIBAC to
meaning of the requirement of... bona fide membership in a change its nominees.
party-list organization. It reasoned that under Section 17,
ISSUES:  1. Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction over
Article VI of the Constitution, the HRET is the sole judge of all
the controversy;
contests when it comes to qualifications of the members of
the House of Representatives. 2. Whether or not Lokin is guilty of forum shopping;

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED. 3. Whether or not Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 is
The COMELEC En Banc Resolution dated 31 January 2013 and unconstitutional and violates the Party-List System Act; and
the COMELEC Second Division Resolution dated 18 July 2012
in E.M. No. 12-039 are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE 4. Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
insofar as it... declares valid the expulsion of Congressman discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
Lico from Ating Koop and it upholds the ATING KOOP Party- approving the withdrawal of the nominees of CIBAC and
list Group represented by its President, Amparo T. Rimas, as allowing the amendment of the list of nominees of CIBAC
the legitimate Party-list Group. without any basis in fact or law and after the close of polls.

Lokin vs. COMELEC G.R. Nos. 179431-32, June 22, 2010 RULING: The Court ruled that it had jurisdiction over the case.
Lokin’s case is not an election protest nor an action for quo
FACTS: The Citizen’s Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC), a duly warranto. Election protest is a contest between the defeated
registered party-list organization, manifested their intent to and the winning candidates, based on the grounds of
participate in the May 14, 2004 synchronized national and electoral frauds and irregularities, to determine who obtained
local elections. They submitted a list of five nominees from the higher number of votes entitling them to hold the office.
which its representatives would be chosen should CIBAC On the other hand, a special civil action for quo warranto
obtain the number of qualifying votes. However, prior to the questions the ineligibility of the winning candidate. This is a
elections, the list of nominees was amended: the nominations special civil action for certiorari against the COMELEC to seek
of the petitioner Lokin, Sherwin Tugna and Emil Galang were the review of the resolution of the COMELEC in accordance
withdrawn; Armi Jane Borje was substituted; and Emmanuel with Section 7 of Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution.
Joel Villanueva and Chinchona Cruz-Gonzales were retained.
Petitioner is not guilty of forum shopping because the filing of
Election results showed that CIBAC was entitled to a second the action for certiorari and the action for mandamus are
seat and that Lokin, as second nominee on the original list, to based on different causes of action and the reliefs they
a proclamation, which was opposed by Villanueva and Cruz- sought were different. Forum shopping consists of the filing
Gonzales. of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same
cause of action, either simultaneously or successively to
The COMELEC resolved the matter on the validity of the
obtain a favorable judgment.
amendment of the list of nominees and the withdrawal of the
nominations of Lokin, Tugna and Galang. It approved the

2
 3

The Court held that Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 was The petitions for certiorari and mandamus were granted.
invalid. The COMELEC issued Resolution No. 7804 as an Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804  was declared invalid and
implementing rules and regulations in accordance with the of no effect to the extent that it authorizes a party-list
provisions of the Omnibus Election Code and the Party-List organization to withdraw its nomination of  a nominee once it
System Act. As an administrative agency, it cannot amend an has submitted the nomination to the COMELEC.
act of Congress nor issue IRRs that may enlarge, alter or
ROMEO M. ESTRELLA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, et al.
restrict the provisions of the law it administers and enforces.
429 SCRA 789 (2004)
Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941 provides that: Each registered
party, organization or coalition shall submit to the COMELEC FACTS: Rolando Salvador was proclaimed winner in a
not later than forty-five (45) days before the election a list of mayoralty race in May 14, 2001 elections. His opponent,
names, not less than five (5), from which party-list Romeo Estrella, filed before Regional Trial Court (RTC) an
representatives shall be chosen in case it obtains the required election protest which consequently annulled Salvador‘s
number of votes. proclamation and declared Estrella as the duly elected mayor
and eventually issued writ of execution. While Salvador filed a
A person may be nominated in one (1) list only. Only persons
petition for certiorari before the Commission on Elections
who have given their consent in writing may be named in the
(COMELEC), raffled to the Second Division thereof, Estrella
list. The list shall not include any candidate of any elective
moved for inhibition of Commissioner Ralph Lantion, but a
office or a person who has lost his bid for an elective office in
Status Quo Ante Order was issued. However, Commissioner
the immediately preceding election. No change of names or
Lantion voluntarily inhibited himself and designated another
alteration of the order of nominees shal be allowed after the
Commissioner to substitute him. The Second Division, with
same shall have been submitted to the COMELEC except in
the new judge, affirmed with modifications the RTC decision
cases where the nominee dies, or withdraws in writing his
and declared Estrella as the duly elected mayor. Salvador filed
nomination, becomes incapacitated in which case the name
a Motion for Reconsideration which was elevated to the
of the substitute nominee shall be placed last in the list.
COMELEC En Banc, in which this time, Commissioner Lantion
Incumbent sectoral representatives in the House of
participated by virtue of Status Quo Ante Order issued by the
Representatives who are nominated in the party-list system
COMELEC En Banc. He said that as agreed upon, while he may
shall not be considered resigned.
not participate in the Division deliberations, he will vote when
The above provision is clear and unambiguous and expresses the case is elevated to COMELEC En Banc. Hence, Estrella filed
a single and definite meaning, there is no room for a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court.
interpretation or construction but only for application.
ISSUE: Whether a COMELEC Commissioner who inhibited
Section 8 clearly prohibits the change of nominees and
himself in Division deliberations may participate in its En Banc
alteration of the order in the list of nominees’ names after
deliberation.
submission of the list to the COMELEC. It enumerates only
three instances in which an organization can substitute HELD: The Status Quo Ante Order dated November 5, 2003
another person in place of the nominee whose name has issued by the COMELEC En Banc is nullified. Commissioner
been submitted to the COMELEC : (1) when the nominee fies; Lantion‘s voluntary piecemeal inhibition cannot be
(2) when the nominee withdraws in writing his nomination; countenanced. Nowhere in the COMELEC Rules does it allow
and (3) when the nominee becomes incapacitated. When the a Commissioner to voluntarily inhibit with reservation. To
statute enumerates the exception to the application of the allow him to participate in the En Banc proceedings when he
general rule, the exceptions are strictly but reasonably previously inhibited himself in the Division is, absent any
construed. satisfactory justification, not only judicially unethical but
legally improper and absurd. Since Commissioner Lantion
Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 expanded the exceptions
could not participate and vote in the issuance of the
under Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941 when it provided four
questioned order, thus leaving three (3) members concurring
instances by adding “nomination is withdrawn by the party”
therewith, the necessary votes of four (4) or majority of the
as statutory ground for substituting a nominee. COMELEC had
members of the COMELEC was not attained. The order thus
no authority to expand, extend, or add anything to law it
failed to comply with the number of votes necessary for the
seeks to implement. An IRR should remain consistent with the
pronouncement of a decision or order.
law it intends to carry out not override, supplant or modify it.
An IRR adopted pursuant to the law is itself law but in case of
conflict between the law and the IRR, the law prevails.
3
 4

MAMERTO T. SEVILLA, JR. Petitioner, vs. In the present case, while the October 6, 2012 Resolution of
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and RENATO R. SO the Comelec en banc appears to have affirmed the Comelec
Second Division’s Resolution and, in effect, denied Sevilla’s
FACTS: Sevilla and So were candidates for the position of
motion for reconsideration, the equally divided voting
Punong Barangay of Barangay Sucat, Muntinlupa City during
between three Commissioners concurring and three
the October 25, 2010 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan
Commissioners dissenting is not the majority vote that the
Elections. On October 26, 2010, the Board of Election Tellers
Constitution and the Comelec Rules of Procedure require for
proclaimed Sevilla as the winner with a total of 7,354 votes or
a valid pronouncement of the assailed October 6, 2012
a winning margin of 628 votes over So’s 6,726 total votes. On
Resolution of the Comelec en banc.
November 4, 2010, So filed an election protest with the MeTC
on the ground that Sevilla committed electoral fraud, IBRAHIM VS. COMELEC
anomalies and irregularities in all the protested precincts. So
FACTS: On December 1, 2009, Ibrahim filed his certificate of
pinpointed twenty percent (20%) of the total number of the
candidacy to run as Vice-Mayor of Datu-Unsay in the May 10,
protested precincts. He also prayed for a manual revision of
2010 elections. Thereafter, respondent Rolan G. Buagas
the ballots.4
(Buagas), then Acting Election Officer in the said municipality,
Following the recount of the ballots in the pilot protested forwarded to the COMELEC’s Law Department (Law
precincts, the MeTC issued an Order dated May 4, 2011 Department) the names of 20 candidates who were not
dismissing the election protest. On May 9, 2011, So filed a registered voters therein. The list5 included Ibrahim’s name,
motion for reconsideration from the dismissal order instead along with those of two candidates for mayor, one for vice-
of a notice of appeal; he also failed to pay the appeal fee mayor and 16 for councilor.
within the reglementary period. On May 17, 2011, the MeTC
In a Memorandum6 dated December 10, 2009, the Law
denied the motion for reconsideration.
Department brought to the attention of the COMELEC en
Comelec Second Division granted So’s petition ruling that It banc the names of 56 candidates running for various posts in
also ruled that the assailed Order was fraught with infirmities Maguindanao and Davao del Sur who were not registered
and irregularities in the appreciation of the ballots, and was voters of the municipalities where they sought to be elected.
couched in general terms: "these are not written by one The Law Department recommended the retention of the said
person observing the different strokes, slant, spacing, size and names in the Certified List of Candidates, but for the
indentation of handwriting and the variance in writing." The COMELEC to motu propio institute actions against them for
Comelec en banc affirmed the Comelec Second Division’s. disqualification and for violation of election laws. Thereafter,
the COMELEC en banc issued the herein assailed December
ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion
22, 2009 Resolution approving, but with modification.
when it gave due course to the petition despite its loss of
jurisdiction after the dismissal order became final and Ibrahim and 50 other candidates filed a
executory due to So’s wrong choice of remedy Petition/Opposition8 to assail the Resolution. COMELEC en
banc denied the Petition/Opposition through the herein
HELD: Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution requires that
assailed Resolution. In the May 10, 2010 elections, during
"each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its
which time the Resolution dated May 6, 2010 had not yet
members, any case or matter brought before it within sixty
attained finality, Ibrahim obtained 446 votes, the highest
days from the date of its submission for decision or
number cast for the Vice-Mayoralty race in Datu
resolution."17 Pursuant to this Constitutional mandate, the
Unsay.9 However, the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBOC),
Comelec provided in Section 5(a), Rule 3 of the Comelec Rules
which was then chaired by Buagas, suspended Ibrahim’s
of Procedure the votes required for the pronouncement of a
proclamation on the basis of Section 5, Rule 25 10 of the
decision, resolution, order or ruling when the Comelec sits en
COMELEC Rules of Procedure
banc, viz.:
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC en banc acted with
Section 5. Quorum; Votes Required. - (a) When sitting en
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
banc, four (4) Members of the Commission shall constitute a
jurisdiction when it issued the Resolutions dated December
quorum for the purpose of transacting business. The
22, 2009 and May 6, 2010
concurrence of a majority of the Members of the Commission
shall be necessary for the pronouncement of a decision,
resolution, order or ruling
4
 5

HELD: The COMELEC en banc is devoid of authority to representation in his certificate. The petition may be heard
disqualify Ibrahim as a candidate for the position of Vice- and evidence received by any official designated by the
Mayor of Datu Unsay. COMELEC after which the case shall be decided by the
COMELEC itself.
Section 3(C), Article IX of the 1987 Constitution explicitly
provides: Under the same Rules of Procedure, jurisdiction over a
petition to cancel a certificate of candidacy lies with the
Sec. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two
COMELEC sitting in Division, not en banc. Cases before a
divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order
Division may only be entertained by the COMELEC en banc
to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-
when the required number of votes to reach a decision,
proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be
resolution, order or ruling is not obtained in the Division.
heard and decided in division, provided that motions for
Moreover, only motions to reconsider decisions, resolutions,
reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the
orders or rulings of the COMELEC in Division are resolved by
Commission en banc. (Italics ours)
the COMELEC en banc.
Further, the circumstances obtaining in Bautista v.
JARAMILLA VS. COMELEC
Comelec35 cited by the OSG in its Manifestation are similar to
those attendant to the instant Petition. In Bautista, the FACTS: Antonio Suyat and Alberto J. Jaramilla both ran for the
election officer reported to the Law Department that Bautista position of Member of the Sangguniang Bayan in the
was ineligible to run as a candidate by reason of his being an Municipality of Sta. Cruz, Ilocos Sur in the 14 May 2001
unregistered voter. The Law Department recommended to elections. On 16 May 2001, the Municipal Board of
the COMELEC en banc to deny due course or cancel Bautista’s Canvassers of Sta. Cruz, proclaimed the winning candidates
certificate of candidacy. The COMELEC en banc adopted the for the offices of Mayor, Vice
recommendation and consequently issued a resolution. In the Mayor and 8 members of the Sangguniang Bay
said case, this Court discussed the COMELEC en banc’s a n .   T h e   C e r ti fi c a t e   o f   C a n v a s s   o f   V o t e s   a n d
jurisdiction over petitions for disqualification, for denial of Proclamation shows the following results and ranking with
due course, or cancellation of certificates of candidacy in the respect to the members of the Sangguniang Bayan, to wit: (1)
following wise: RAGUCOS, Ma. Luisa Laxamana (6,324); (2) ABAYA, Juan Jr.,
Andaquig (6,013); (3) GINES, Fidel Cudiamat (5,789); (4)
In Garvida v. Sales, Jr., the Court held that it is the COMELEC
QUILOP, Renato Avila (5,227); (5) BILIGAN, Osias Depdepen
sitting in division and not the COMELEC en banc which has
( 5 , 1 3 0 ) ;   ( 6 )   R U I Z ,   A g u s ti n   T u r g a n o   ( 4 , 9 7 2 ) ;   ( 7
jurisdiction over petitions to cancel a certificate of candidacy.
) JARAMILLA, Alberto Jimeno (4,815); and (8)
The Court held:
CORTEZ, Ireneo Habon (4,807). In the tabulated results issued
The Omnibus Election Code, in Section 78, Article IX, governs by the Election Officer and Chairperson of the Municipal
the procedure to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of Board of Canvassers of Sta. Cruz, it is shown that Suyat
candidacy, viz: obtained 4,779 votes and was ranked 9. Upon review by
Suyat, he discovered that Jaramilla was credited
"Sec.78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate with only 23 votes per Electi on Return from Precinct
of candidacy  A verified petition seeking to deny due course 34A1. However, when the fi gures were forwarded to
or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by any the Statement of Votes by Precinct, Jaramilla was credited
person exclusively on the ground that any material with 73 votes for Precinct 34A1 or 50 votes more than what
representation contained therein as required under Section he actually obtained. If the entry were to be corrected, the
74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not affected candidates would be ranked as follows:(7) CORTEZ,
later than twenty-five days from the time of filing of the Ireneo Habon (4,807); (8) SUYAT, Antonio (4,779);
certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and (9) JARAMILLA, Alberto(4,765). On 13 June 2001,
and hearing, not later than fifteen days before election." Suyat filed before the COMELEC en banc an Urgent Motion
for Issuance of Order to Reconvene, which the latt er
In relation thereto, Rule 23 of the COMELEC Rules of
treated as a Peti ti on for Correcti on of Manifest
Procedure provides that a petition to deny due course to or
Error. Jaramilla countered in his Answer that said petition
cancel a certificate of candidacy for an elective office may be
should be dismissed for having been filed out of time and
filed with the Law Department of the COMELEC on the
for lack of the required certification of non-forum shopping.
ground that the candidate has made a false material
On 24 October 2002, COMELEC en banc issued a resolution,
5
 6

annulling the proclamation of Jaramilla and creating a new FACTS: A party aggrieved by an interlocutory order issued by
Municipal Board of Canvassers Jaramilla fi led the a COMELEC Division in an election protest may not directly
peti ti on for certi orari with prayer for temporary assail the order before the Supreme Court through a special
restraining order and preliminary injunction ascribing civil action for certiorari. The remedy is to seek the review of
grave abuse of discretion. said interlocutory order during the appeal of the decision of
the Division. Petitioner Douglas R. Cagas was proclaimed the
ISSUE(S): Whether the Commission on Elections en banc
winner for the gubernatorial race for the province of Davao
properly assumed original jurisdiction over the Petition for
del Sur. Respondent Claude P. Bautista, his rival, filed an
Correction of Manifest Errors.
electoral protest alleging fraud, anomalies, irregularities,
HELD: YES. : Article IX-C of the Constitution states in part that vote-buying and violations of election laws, rules and
"The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two resolutions. The protest was raffled to the COMELEC First
divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order Division. In his affirmative defense, Cagas argued that
to expedite disposition of electi on cases, including pre- Bautista did not make the requisite cash deposit on time and
proclamati on controversies.  All such electi on that Bautista did not render a detailed specification of the
cases shall be heard and decided in division, acts or omissions complained of. The COMELEC First Division
provided that moti ons for reconsiderati on of denied the special affirmative defences. Thus, Cagas prayed
decisions shall be decided by the Commission en that the matter be certified to the COMELEC En Banc. Bautista
banc." As stated in the provision, and in line with the Court’s countered that the assailed orders, being merely
recent pronouncement in Milla v. Balmores - Laxa, election interlocutory, could not be elevated to the COMELEC En Banc.
cases including pre-proclamation controversies should first be The COMELEC First Division issued an order denying Cagas’
heard and motion for reconsideration, prompting him to file a petition
decided by a division of the COMELEC, a for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
nd then by the commission en banc if a 
ISSUE: Whether or not the Supreme Court has the power to
m o ti o n   f o r   reconsideration of the division is filed. It
review on certiorari an interlocutory order issued by a
must be noted however that this provision applies only cases
Division of the COMELEC
where the COMELEC exercises its adjudicator
y or quasijudicial powers, and not when it me HELD: Petition DENIED. Although Section 7, Article IX of the
r e l y   exercises purely administrative functions. This doctrine 1987 Constitution confers on the Court the power to review
was laid out in Castromayor v. COMELEC, and reiterated in any decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC, it limits such
subsequent cases. Accordingly, when the case demands only power to a final decision or resolution of the COMELEC en
the exercise by the COMELEC of its administrative functions, banc, and does not extend to an interlocutory order issued by
such as the correction of a manifest mistake in the addition of a Division of the COMELEC. Otherwise stated, the Court has
votes or an erroneous tabulati on in the statement of no power to review on certiorari an interlocutory order or
votes, the COMELEC en banc can directly act on it in even a final resolution issued by a Division of the COMELEC.
the exercise of its consti tuti onal functi on to decide There is no question, therefore, that the Court has no
questi ons aff ecti ng electi ons. Herein, the Peti ti on jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petition for certiorari
for Correcti on of Manifest Errors alleges an assailing the denial by the COMELEC First Division of the
erroneous copying of fi gures from the electi on special affirmative defenses of the petitioner. The proper
return to the Statement of Votes by Precinct. Such remedy is for the petitioner to wait for the COMELEC First
an error in the tabulati on of the results, which Division to first decide the protest on its merits, and if the
merely requires a clerical correction without the necessity result should aggrieve him, to appeal the denial of his special
of opening ballot boxes or examining ballots, demands only affirmative defenses to the COMELEC En Banc along with the
the other errors committed by the Division upon the merits. It is
e x e r c i s e   o f   t h e   a d m i n i s t r a ti v e   p o w e r   o f   t h e   C true that there may be an exception to the general rule,
OMELEC. Hence, the Commission en banc prop which is when an interlocutory order of a Division of the
erly assumed original jurisdiction over the COMELEC was issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or
aforesaid petition. with grave abuse of discretion, as the Court conceded in Kho
v. Commission on Elections. However, the said UST Law
CAGAS VS. COMELEC
Review, Vol. LVII No. 1, November 2012 case has no
application herein because the COMELEC First Division had

6
 7

the competence to determine the lack of detailed worth of constitutional revisions that transformed the
specifications of the acts or omissions complained of as COMELEC from a purely administrative body, whose scope of
required by Rule 6, Section 7 of COMELEC Resolution No. decision making is limited to those incidental to its duty to
8804, and whether such lack called for the outright dismissal enforce election laws, to a polling commission that also
of the protest. exercises original and exclusive, as well as appellate,
jurisdiction over election contests.
ATTY FRANCISCO VS. COMELEC

FACTS: Francisco is a registered voter in Cainta, Rizal, while Considering the historical evolution of the COMELEC, the
Nieto was elected as mayor of the same municipality in 2013. Court now declares that the polling body has full adjudicatory
Nieto filed a certificate of candidacy (COC) to signify his bid powers to resolve election contests outside the jurisdiction of
for re-election for the 2016 National and Local Elections. the electoral tribunals. To rule otherwise would be an act of
regression, contrary to the intent behind the constitutional
On April 8, 2016, Francisco filed before the COMELEC a innovations creating and further strengthening the
Petition for Disqualification against Nieto, docketed as SPA Commission.
16-062(DC), alleging that on April 1-2, 2016, respondent
The doctrine in Poe was never meant to apply to Petitions for
made financial contributions out of the government coffers
Disqualification. A prior court judgment is not required before
for the asphalt-paving of the road entrance along Imelda
the remedy under Sec. 68 of the OEC can prosper. This is
Avenue of Cainta Green Park Village. This, according to
highlighted by the provision itself, which contemplates of two
petitioner, amounted to the expending of public funds within
scenarios: first, there is a final decision by a competent court
forty-five (45) days before the 2016 polls and to illegal
that the candidate is guilty of an election offense and second,
contributions for road repairs, respectively punishable under
it is the Commission itself that found that the candidate
Sees. 261(v)2 and 1043 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, otherwise
committed any of the enumerated prohibited acts.
known as the Omnibus Election Code (OEC). Petitioner further
Noteworthy is that in the second scenario, it is not required
claimed that the said asphalt paving was one of the
that there be a prior final judgment; it is sufficient that the
accomplishments that respondent reported on his Facebook
Commission itself made the determination. The conjunction
page.
"or" separating "competent court" and "the Commission"
In his Answer filed on April 22, 2016, Nieto countered that the could only mean that the legislative intent was for bot/1
questioned asphalting project was subjected to public bidding bodies to be clothed with authority to ascertain whether or
on March 15, 2016, with a Notice of Award issued on March not there is evidence that the respondent candidate ought to
21, 2016. be disqualified.

COMELEC Second Division promulgated Therefore, constrained to rule that the COMELEC erred when,
aResolution4 dismissing the Petition for Disqualification relying on Poe, it imposed the requirement of a prior court
against Nieto, and ruled in the following wise: From the judgment before resolving the current controversy.
foregoing, it is clear that a candidate cannot be disqualified
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition
without a prior finding that he or she is suffering from a
is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Court declares that in a
disqualification provided by law or the Constitution. To be
Petition for Disqualification under Section 68 of the Omnibus
sure, in order to disqualify a candidate there must be a
Election Code, a prior judgment by a competent court that
declaration by a final judgment of a competent court that the
the candidate is guilty of an election offense is not required
candidate sought to be disqualified is guilty of or found by the
before the said petition can be entertained or given due
Commission to be suffering from any disqualification provided
course by the Commission on Elections.
by law or the Constitution.

ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC acted in grave abuse of

HELD: The COMELEC is, thus, fully-clothed with authority to