Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 22 views

    Cua V Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Clement del Rosario
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the election of Junie Evangelista Cua to the House of Representatives seat for the lone congressional district of Quirino. The Commission on Elections' First Division initially ruled 2-1 in favor of Cua but did not proclaim him due to its own rules requiring unanimity. On appeal, the Comelec en banc voted 3-2 to affirm this decision. However, the Comelec later tried to suspend Cua's proclamation. The Supreme Court held that the 2-1 First Division decision and the 3-2 en banc decision were both valid under the Constitution, and it enjoined the Comelec from further proceedings to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cua V Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Clement del Rosario
    22 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the election of Junie Evangelista Cua to the House of Representatives seat for the lone congressional district of Quirino. The Commission on Elections' First Division initially ruled 2-1 in favor of Cua but did not proclaim him due to its own rules requiring unanimity. On appeal, the Comelec en banc voted 3-2 to affirm this decision. However, the Comelec later tried to suspend Cua's proclamation. The Supreme Court held that the 2-1 First Division decision and the 3-2 en banc decision were both valid under the Constitution, and it enjoined the Comelec from further proceedings to

    Original Description:

    2. cua v comelec

    Original Title

    2. cua v comelec

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the election of Junie Evangelista Cua to the House of Representatives seat for the lone congressional district of Quirino. The Commission on Elections' First Division initially ruled 2-1 in favor of Cua but did not proclaim him due to its own rules requiring unanimity. On appeal, the Comelec en banc voted 3-2 to affirm this decision. However, the Comelec later tried to suspend Cua's proclamation. The Supreme Court held that the 2-1 First Division decision and the 3-2 en banc decision were both valid under the Constitution, and it enjoined the Comelec from further proceedings to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    22 views3 pages

    Cua V Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Clement del Rosario
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the election of Junie Evangelista Cua to the House of Representatives seat for the lone congressional district of Quirino. The Commission on Elections' First Division initially ruled 2-1 in favor of Cua but did not proclaim him due to its own rules requiring unanimity. On appeal, the Comelec en banc voted 3-2 to affirm this decision. However, the Comelec later tried to suspend Cua's proclamation. The Supreme Court held that the 2-1 First Division decision and the 3-2 en banc decision were both valid under the Constitution, and it enjoined the Comelec from further proceedings to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    EN BANC

    [G.R. Nos. L-80519-21. December 17, 1987.]

    JUNIE EVANGELISTA CUA , petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON


    ELECTIONS and RICHARD S. PUZON, respondents.

    RESOLUTION

    PER CURIAM : p

    In SPC No. 87-454 and SPC No. 87-467, the First Division of the COMELEC rendered
    a 2-1 decision on August 10, 1987, favoring the herein petitioner Cua but
    nevertheless suspended his proclamation as winner in the lone congressional district
    of Quirino due to the lack of the unanimous vote required by the procedural rules in
    COMELEC Resolution No. 1669 dated May 2, 1984. Pursuant to said rules, private
    respondent Puzon led on August 14, 1987 a "motion for reconsideration/appeal" of
    the said decision with the COMELEC en banc, where on October 28, 1987, three
    members voted to sustain the First Division, with two dissenting and one abstaining
    (one member having died earlier). On the strength of this 3-2 vote, Cua moved for
    his proclamation by the board of canvassers, which reconvened on November 9,
    1987, and granted his motion. Cua took his oath the same day, but the next day
    Puzon led with the COMELEC an urgent motion to suspend Cua's proclamation or
    to annul or suspend its eect if already made. On November 11, 1987, the
    COMELEC set the motion for hearing and three days later it issued a restraining
    telegram enjoining Cua from assuming the oce of member of the House of
    Representatives. The petitioner then came to this Court to enjoin the COMELEC
    from acting on the said motion and enforcing its restraining order.

    Section 5 of COMELEC Resolution No. 1669 reads as follows:

    "SEC. 5. Quorum: votes required; substitution. Two members shall


    constitute a quorum for the transaction of the ocial business of the
    Division.

    "A case being heard by it shall be decided with the unanimous concurrence
    of all three Commissioners and its decision shall be considered a decision of
    the Commission. If this required number is not obtained, as when there is a
    dissenting opinion, the case may be appealed to the Commission en banc, in
    which case the vote of the majority thereof shall be the decision of the
    Commission. . . ."

    The position of the petitioner is that the 2-1 decision of the First Division was a valid
    decision of the COMELEC itself despite the above rule because of Article IX-A.
    Section 7 of the new Constitution, providing that "each Commission shall decide by
    a majority vote of all its members any case or matter brought before it." He argues
    that this applies to the votings of the COMELEC both in division and en banc and
    that the private respondent himself recognized this when he led the motion for
    reconsideration/appeal with the COMELEC en banc. LLpr

    Cua also contends that Puzon's move, treated as a motion for reconsideration, is
    deemed denied for lack of the necessary majority to overturn the challenged
    decision. As an appeal, it should be considered dismissed, also for the same reason,
    resulting in the decision being regarded as armed in accordance with Rule 56,
    Section 11 of the Rules of Court applied suppletorily, reading as follows:

    "SEC. 11. Procedure if opinion is equally divided. Where the court en


    banc is equally divided in opinion, or the necessary majority cannot be had,
    the case shall be reheard, and if on re-hearing no decision is reached, the
    action shall be dismissed if originally commenced in the court; in appealed
    cases, the judgment or order appealed from shall stand armed; and on all
    incidental matters, the petition or motion shall be denied."

    For their part, the respondents insist that no decision was reached by the First
    Division on August 10, 1987, because the required unanimous vote was not
    obtained and there was therefore nothing to be armed on appeal by the COMELEC
    en banc and nothing to reconsider either. Additionally, they argue that in any case
    no valid decision was reached by the COMELEC en banc because only three votes
    were cast in favor of the petitioner and these did not constitute a majority of the
    body.

    After considering the issues and the arguments raised by the parties, the Court
    holds that the 2-1 decision rendered by the First Division was a valid decision under
    Article IX-A, Section 7 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the three members who
    voted to arm the First Division constituted a majority of the ve members who
    deliberated and voted thereon en banc and their decision is also valid under the
    aforecited constitutional provision. Hence, the proclamation of Cua on the basis of
    the two aforecited decisions was a valid act that entitles him now to assume his
    seat in the House of Representatives.

    It is expected that the above categorical rulings will put an end to the seemingly
    interminable debates on this matter that have been festering for quite some time
    now not only in this case but also in other cases still pending in the COMELEC. The
    indecisiveness of the public respondent in the appreciation and application of its
    own rules has seriously prejudiced a considerable number of our people who remain
    unrepresented to date in the House of Representatives despite the fact that the
    congressional elections were held more than seven months ago. LexLib

    ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED and the public respondent is enjoined from
    further proceeding with the private respondent's motion dated November 10, 1987.
    The restraining order issued by the COMELEC on November 14, 1987, enjoining
    petitioner from assuming oce as member of the House of Representatives for the
    lone congressional district of Quirino is LIFTED. This Resolution is IMMEDIATELY
    EXECUTORY.

    Teehankee C . J ., Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr ., Cruz, Paras,


    Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento and Cortes, JJ ., concur.

    Yap, J ., is on leave.

    You might also like