JOSELITO R. MENDOZA vs.

COMMISSION ON whole, the petitioner was afforded every opportunity to

FACTS: ISSUES:
Mendoza and Pagdanganan vied for the position of Governor 1. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMELEC VIOLATED
of the Province of Bulacan in the May 14, 2007 elections. The DUE PROCESS BY CONDUCTING
petitioner was proclaimed winning candidate and assumed PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT GIVING DUE NOTICE
the office of Governor. TO THE PETITIONER. NO.
2. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMELEC GRAVELY
Respondent seasonably filed an election protest with the ABUSED ITS DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT TO
COMELEC. Revision of ballots involving the protested and AN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN
counter-protested precincts soon followed. The revision was APPRECIATING BALLOTS WHICH ARE NOT IN
conducted at the COMELEC's office in Intramuros. ITS OFFICIAL CUSTODY AND ARE OUTSIDE ITS
OWN PREMISES, AUTHORITY AND CONTROL.
The parties complied with the COMELEC's order. The case NO.
was thereafter submitted for resolution.
RULING:
On March 2, 2009 the COMELEC transferred the Bulacan
ballot boxes, including those involved in the provincial election 1. Despite the exercise of discretion that is essentially
contest, to the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET). judicial in character, particularly with respect to
election contests, COMELEC is not a tribunal within
In light of this development, the petitioner moved to suspend the judicial branch of government and is not a court
further proceedings. The COMELEC's Second Division exercising judicial power in the constitutional sense;
denied the same. COMELEC's continued action led to- hence, its adjudicative function, exercised as it is in
specifically, the appreciation of ballots - on the provincial the course of administration and enforcement, is
election contest at the SET offices. quasi-judicial.

The SET Secretary in its letter said: Cardinal Primary Rights in Administrative Proceedings:
“Basis of such grant is Section 3, Comelec Resolution No. 2812 dated 17 October The appropriate due process standards that apply to the
1995, stating that "(t)he Tribunals, the Commission and the Courts shall coordinate
and make arrangement with each other so as not to delay or interrupt the revision
COMELEC, as an administrative or quasi-judicial tribunal, are
of ballots being conducted. The synchronization of revision of ballots shall be such those outlined in the seminal case of Ang Tibay v. Court of
that the expeditious disposition of the respective protest case shall be the primary Industrial Relations. The essence is the opportunity to be
concern.”
heard or as applied to administrative proceedings, an
opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a
Petitioner’s arguments: reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.
Petitioner argues that the proceedings before the COMELEC
in election protests are judicial in nature and character and In the present case, the petitioner invokes both the due
that he was denied of due process because he was not given process component rights at the hearing and deliberative
notice and opportunity to be heard. He was therefore denied stages and alleges that these component rights have all been
his day in court, he claims, when the COMELEC conducted violated.
the examination and appreciation of ballots. Also, when
COMELEC transferred possession, custody and jurisdiction Right to Notice and to be Heard
over the ballots to the SET, a tribunal separate and A. At the Hearing and Revision of ballots
independent from the COMELEC, COMELEC no longer has In the first place, he does not dispute that he fully participated
authority or jurisdiction over it. For the COMELEC to still in the proceedings of the election protest until the case was
conduct proceedings on property, materials and evidence no deemed submitted for resolution; he had representation at the
longer in its custody violates the principle of separation of revision of the ballots, duly presented his evidence, and
powers. summed up his case through a memorandum. In these
proceedings, the petitioner stood head-to-head with the
Respondent’s arguments: respondent in an adversarial contest where both sides were
He asserts that the "proceeding" the petitioner stated in his given their respective rights to speak, make their
petition was actually the COMELEC's decision-making presentations, and controvert each other's submission,
process, i.e., the appreciation of ballots, which is a procedure subject only to established COMELEC rules of procedures.
internal to the Members of the Second Division of the Under these undisputed facts, both parties had their day in
COMELEC and their staff members; no revision of ballots took court, so to speak.
place as revision had long been finished. That the petitioner B. Proceedings at the SET
was notified. That the petition was filed out of time. The contested proceedings at the SET ("contested
proceedings) are no longer part of the adversarial
COMELEC’s arguments: aspects of the election contest that would require notice
The COMELEC submits that while due process requires of hearing and the participation of the parties. What took
giving the parties an opportunity to intervene in all stages of place at the SET were the internal deliberations of the
the proceedings, the COMELEC in the present case is not COMELEC, as a quasi-judicial body, in the course of
actually conducting further proceedings requiring notice to the appreciating the evidence presented and deciding the
parties; there is no revision or correction of the ballots, as the provincial election contest on the merits. These deliberations
election protest had already been submitted for resolution. are no different from judicial deliberations which are
considered confidential and privileged. To conclude, the
When the COMELEC coordinated with the SET, it was simply rights to notice and to be heard are not material
for purposes of resolving the submitted provincial election considerations in the COMELEC's handling of the Bulacan
contest before it; the parties do not take part in this aspect of provincial election contest after the transfer of the ballot boxes
the case which necessarily requires utmost secrecy. On the to the SET; no proceedings at the instance of one party or
of COMELEC has been conducted at the SET that would transfer of the ballots and other election materials to the
require notice and hearing because of the possibility of SET for purposes of its own revision becomes a non-
prejudice to the other party. issue, given the arrangement between the COMELEC and
Alleged violation of Deliberative Stage Rights the SET, pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 2812, to
In the absence of the results of the COMELEC deliberations "coordinate and make arrangements with each other so as not
through its decision on the election protest, no basis exists to to delay or interrupt the revision of ballots being conducted,"
apply the Ang Tibay deliberative stage rights; there is nothing all for the purpose of the expeditious disposition of their
for us to test under the standards of the due process respective protest cases.
deliberative stages rights before the COMELEC renders its This arrangement recognized the COMELEC's effective
decision. authority over the Bulacan ballots and other election
materials, although these were temporarily located at the SET
premises. This arrangement, too, together with the side by
2 COMELEC did not lose jurisdiction over the side and non-conflicting existence of the COMELEC and SET
provincial election contest, as the petitioner jurisdictions, negate the validity of the petitioner's argument
seems to imply, because of the transmittal of the that the COMELEC transgressed the rule on separation of
provincial ballot boxes and other election materials powers when it acted on the Bulacan provincial election
to the SET. The Constitution conferred upon the contest while the ballot boxes were at the SET premises.
COMELEC jurisdiction over election protests Rather than negate, this arrangement reinforced the separate
involving provincial officials. but co-existing nature of these tribunals' respective
jurisdictions.
Rule of adherence of jurisdiction
Section 4 Means to Effect Jurisdiction
The COMELEC in this case has lawfully acquired There is no specific rule which allows the COMELEC to
jurisdiction over the subject matter, i.e., the provincial conduct an appreciation of ballots outside its premises and of
election contest, as well as over the parties. After its those which are outside its own custody." But while this is
jurisdiction attached, this jurisdiction cannot be ousted true, there is likewise nothing to prohibit the COMELEC from
by subsequent events such as the temporary transfer of undertaking the appreciation of ballot side by side with the
evidence and material records of the proceedings to SET's own revision of ballots for the senatorial votes, in light
another tribunal exercising its own jurisdiction over another especially of the COMELEC's general authority to adopt
election contest pursuant to the Constitution. This is the rule means to effect its powers and jurisdiction under its Rules of
of adherence of jurisdiction. Procedure. Section 4 of these Rules states:

Thus, the jurisdiction of the COMELEC over provincial Sec. 4. Means to Effect Jurisdiction. - All auxiliary writs, processes and other
means necessary to carry into effect its powers or jurisdiction may be employed by
election contest exists side by side with the jurisdiction of the the Commission; and if the procedure to be followed in the exercise of such power
Senate Electoral Tribunal, with each tribunal being supreme or jurisdiction is not specifically provided for by law or these rules, any
in their respective areas of concern (the Senate election suitable process or proceeding may be adopted.
contests for the SET, and the regional, provincial and city
The Constitution additionally requires that the rules of
election contests for the COMELEC), and with neither one
procedure that the COMELEC will promulgate must
being higher than the other in terms of precedence so that the
expedite the disposition of election cases, including pre-
jurisdiction of one must yield to the other.
proclamation controversies. This constitutional standard is
authority, no less, that the COMELEC can cite in defending its
Order of preference in the custody and revision of
action. For ultimately, the appreciation of the Bulacan ballots
ballots and other documents contained in the ballot
that the COMELEC undertook side by side with the SET's own
boxes
revision of ballots, constitutes an exercise of discretion made
The order, in terms of the adjudicatory tribunal and as
under the authority of the above-cited COMELEC rule of
provided in COMELEC Resolution No. 2812, runs:
procedure.
1. Presidential Electoral Tribunal;
On the basis of the standards set by Section 4 of the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure, and of the Constitution itself
2. Senate Electoral Tribunal;
in the handling of election cases, we rule that the COMELEC
action is a valid exercise of discretion as it is a suitable
3. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal;
and reasonable process within the exercise of its
jurisdiction over provincial election contests, aimed at
4. Commission on Elections; and
expediting the disposition of this case, and with no
adverse, prejudicial or discriminatory effects on the
5. Regional Trial Courts.
parties to the contest that would render the rule
unreasonable.
This order of preference dictated that the ballot boxes and
Since the COMELEC action, taken by its Second Division, is
other election materials in Bulacan's provincial election
authorized under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the
contest, had to be transferred to the SET when the latter
Second Division cannot in any sense be said to be intruding
needed these materials for its revision of ballots. The transfer
into the COMELEC en banc rule-making prerogative when the
to the SET, however, did not mean that the Bulacan provincial
Second Division chose to undertake ballot appreciation within
election contest - at that time already submitted for decision -
the SET premises side by side with the SET revision of ballots.
had to be suspended. This is particularly true in Bulacan's
To be exact, the Second Division never laid down any new
case as no revision had to be undertaken, the revision having
rule; it merely acted pursuant to a rule that the COMELEC en
been already terminated.
banc itself had previously enacted.
With the COMELEC retaining its jurisdiction over the Bulacan
provincial election contest, the legal effect of the physical