Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 57 views

    Sahali V. Comelec G.R. No. 201796. January 15, 2013. Facts

    Uploaded by

    Wence Ibabao
    The COMELEC First Division did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering the technical examination of ballots from an election. While the petitioners were not able to oppose the initial motion for examination, they were given the opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration to register their opposition. Additionally, COMELEC rules allow for motions to be resolved without a hearing. Finally, the COMELEC First Division has the authority to order technical examinations of election materials even without an explicit rule, as part of its broad jurisdiction over election cases.

    Copyright:

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

    Sahali V. Comelec G.R. No. 201796. January 15, 2013. Facts

    Uploaded by

    Wence Ibabao
    57 views1 page
    The COMELEC First Division did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering the technical examination of ballots from an election. While the petitioners were not able to oppose the initial motion for examination, they were given the opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration to register their opposition. Additionally, COMELEC rules allow for motions to be resolved without a hearing. Finally, the COMELEC First Division has the authority to order technical examinations of election materials even without an explicit rule, as part of its broad jurisdiction over election cases.

    Original Title

    SAHALI v. COMELEC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The COMELEC First Division did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering the technical examination of ballots from an election. While the petitioners were not able to oppose the initial motion for examination, they were given the opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration to register their opposition. Additionally, COMELEC rules allow for motions to be resolved without a hearing. Finally, the COMELEC First Division has the authority to order technical examinations of election materials even without an explicit rule, as part of its broad jurisdiction over election cases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    57 views1 page

    Sahali V. Comelec G.R. No. 201796. January 15, 2013. Facts

    Uploaded by

    Wence Ibabao
    The COMELEC First Division did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering the technical examination of ballots from an election. While the petitioners were not able to oppose the initial motion for examination, they were given the opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration to register their opposition. Additionally, COMELEC rules allow for motions to be resolved without a hearing. Finally, the COMELEC First Division has the authority to order technical examinations of election materials even without an explicit rule, as part of its broad jurisdiction over election cases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    SAHALI v.

    COMELEC
    G.R. No. 201796. January 15, 2013.
    Facts:
    Matba filed an Election Protest Ad Cautelam for the technical examination of the ballots. On
    February 20, 2012, the COMELEC First Division ordered the recount of the contested ballots,
    directing the creation of five recount committees for the said purpose. Matba and Usman filed a
    Manifestation and Ex-Parte Motion requesting that they be allowed to secure photocopies of the
    contested ballots which the COMELEC granted the said motion. Sadikul and Ruby jointly filed
    with the COMELEC First Division a Strong Manifestation of Grave Concern and Motion for
    Reconsideration. They asserted that the ex-parte motion should be reversed on account of the
    following: the said Order was issued without due process since the COMELEC First Division did
    not allow them to oppose the said ex-parte motion; the COMELEC First Division cannot just
    order a technical examination in the absence of published rules on the matter; and; the
    COMELEC First Division could not just examine the said election paraphernalia without violating
    the Precautionary Protection Order.
    Issue:
    Whether the COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
    excess of jurisdiction when:
    a. It did not give them the opportunity to oppose the motion for technical examination filed
    by Matba and Usman; and,
    b. It ordered the technical examination of the said election paraphernalia despite the lack of
    sanction and published rules governing such examination.
    Ruling:
    No. Deprivation of due process cannot be successfully invoked where a party was given the
    chance to be heard on his motion for reconsideration.

    Section 3, Rule 9 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8804 clearly provides that:

    Sec. 3. No hearings on motions. – Motions shall not be set for hearing unless the Commission
    directs otherwise. Oral argument in support thereof shall be allowed only upon the discretion of
    the Commission. The adverse party may file opposition five days from receipt of the motion,
    upon the expiration of which such motion is deemed submitted for resolution. The Commission
    shall resolve the motion within five days.

    In this case petitioners did not file any opposition to the said motion. It was only after the
    COMELEC First Division issued its Order that the petitioners decided to register their opposition
    to the intended technical examination, albeit in the form of a motion for reconsideration of the
    said Order.
    Section 1, Rule 18 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8804 does not explicitly provide for the rule on
    the technical examination of election paraphernalia, it does not mean, however, that the
    COMELEC First Division does not have the power to order the conduct of such technical
    examination.
    The absence of a rule which specifically mandates the technical examination of the said election
    paraphernalia does not mean that the COMELEC First Division is barred from issuing an order
    for the conduct thereof. The power of the COMELEC First Division to order the technical
    examination election paraphernalia in election protest cases stems from its "exclusive original
    jurisdiction over all contest relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of all elective
    regional, provincial and city officials".

    You might also like