Aratuc Vs Comelec Digest

Aratuc vs comelec
Petition in G. R. Nos. L-49705-09 for certiorari with restraining order and preliminary injunction filed by
six (6) independent candidates for representatives to tile Interim Batasang Pambansa who had joined
together under the banner of the Kunsensiya ng Bayan which, however, was not registered as a political
party or group under the 1976 Election Code, P.D. No. 1296, namely Tomatic Aratuc Sorgio Tocao,
Ciscolario Diaz, Fred Tamula, Mangontawar Guro and Bonifacio Legaspi her referred to as petitioners, to
review the decision of the respondent Commission on Election (Comelec) resolving their appeal from
the Of the respondent Regional Board of Canvasses for Region XII regarding the canvass of the results of
the election in said region for representatives to the I.B.P. held on April 7, 1978. Similar petition in G.R.
Nos. L49717-21, for certiorari with restraining order and preliminary injunction filed by Linang
Mandangan, abo a candidate for representative in the same election in that region, to review the
decision of the Comelec declaring respondent Ernesto Roldan as entitled to be proclaimed as one of the
eight winners in said election. A supervening panel headed by Commissioner of Elections, Hon- Venancio
S. Duque, had conducted of the complaints of the petitioners therein of alleged irregularities in the
election records in all the voting centers in the whole province of Lanao del Sur, the whole City of
Marawi, eight (8) towns of Lanao del Norte, Before the start of the hearings, the canvass was suspended
but after the supervisory panel presented its report, on May 15, 1978, the Comelec lifted its order of
suspension and directed the resumption of the canvass to be done in ManilaThus respondent Board
proceeded with the canvass, with the herein petitioners presenting objections, most of them supported
by the report of handwriting and finger print experts who had examined the voting records and lists of
voters in 878 voting centers, out of 2,700 which they specified in their complaints or petitions in Election
Cases 78-8, 78-9, 78-10, 78-11 and 7812 in the Comelec. In regard to 501 voting centers, the records cf.
which, consisting of the voters lists and voting records were not available- and could not be brought to
Manila, petitions asked that the results therein be completely excluded from the canvass.
Issue: The Aratuc petition is expressly predicated on the ground that respondent Comelec "committed
grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction" in eight specifications. On the other hand,
the Mandangan petition raises pure questions of law and jurisdiction. In other words, both petitions
invoked the Court's certiorari jurisdiction, not its appellate authority of review.
Held
While under the Constitution of 1935, "the decisions, orders and rulings of the Commission shall be
subject to review by the Supreme Court" (Sec. 2, first paragraph, Article X) and pursuant to the Rules of
Court, the petition for "certiorari or review" shall be on the ground that the Commission "has decided a
question of substance not theretofore determined by the Supreme Court, or has decided it in a way not
in accord with law or the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court" (Sec. 3. Rule 43), and such
provisions refer not only to election contests but even to pre-proclamation proceedings, the 1973
Constitution provides somewhat differently thus: "Any decision, order or ruling of the Commission may
be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from his receipt
of a copy thereof" (Section 11, Article XII c), even as it ordains that the Commission shall "be the sole
judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of all members of the National
Assembly and elective provincial and city official"
he ElectionCode of 1978, which is the first legislative constructionof the pertinent constitutional
provisions, makes the Commission also the "sole judge of all pre-proclamation controversies" and
further provides that "any of its decisions, orders or rulings (in such contoversies) shall be final and
executory", just as in election contests, "the decision of the Commission shall be final, and executory
and inappealable." (Section 193)
still a case of grave abuse of discretion would not come out, considering that Comelec cannot be said to
have acted whimsically or capriciously or without any rational basis, particularly if it is considered that in
many respects and from the very nature of our respective functions, becoming candor would dictate to
Us to concede that the Commission is in a better position to appreciate and assess the vital
circumstances closely and accurately
maceda vs erc

Aratuc Vs Comelec Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aratuc Vs Comelec Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aratuc Vs Comelec Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aratuc vs comelec

You might also like