Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 50 views

    Mendoza Vs COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    Marklawrence Fortes
    The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) annulled the proclamation of Joselito Mendoza as governor of Bulacan and proclaimed the respondent as duly elected. Mendoza filed a motion for reconsideration which was dismissed by the COMELEC En Banc in a resolution on February 8, 2010. However, the Supreme Court ruled this resolution invalid because the COMELEC En Banc failed to muster the required majority vote as required by its rules. The rules state that if the necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall be dismissed. Since there was no majority, the election protest should have been dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    Mendoza Vs COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    Marklawrence Fortes
    50 views2 pages
    The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) annulled the proclamation of Joselito Mendoza as governor of Bulacan and proclaimed the respondent as duly elected. Mendoza filed a motion for reconsideration which was dismissed by the COMELEC En Banc in a resolution on February 8, 2010. However, the Supreme Court ruled this resolution invalid because the COMELEC En Banc failed to muster the required majority vote as required by its rules. The rules state that if the necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall be dismissed. Since there was no majority, the election protest should have been dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Case Digests

    Original Title

    Mendoza vs 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 Commission on Elections (COMELEC) annulled the proclamation of Joselito Mendoza as governor of Bulacan and proclaimed the respondent as duly elected. Mendoza filed a motion for reconsideration which was dismissed by the COMELEC En Banc in a resolution on February 8, 2010. However, the Supreme Court ruled this resolution invalid because the COMELEC En Banc failed to muster the required majority vote as required by its rules. The rules state that if the necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall be dismissed. Since there was no majority, the election protest should have been dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    50 views2 pages

    Mendoza Vs COMELEC

    Uploaded by

    Marklawrence Fortes
    The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) annulled the proclamation of Joselito Mendoza as governor of Bulacan and proclaimed the respondent as duly elected. Mendoza filed a motion for reconsideration which was dismissed by the COMELEC En Banc in a resolution on February 8, 2010. However, the Supreme Court ruled this resolution invalid because the COMELEC En Banc failed to muster the required majority vote as required by its rules. The rules state that if the necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall be dismissed. Since there was no majority, the election protest should have been dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Petitioner Joselito R.

    Mendoza was proclaimed the winner of the 2007 gubernatorial


    election for the province of Bulacan. Respondent filed the Election Protest which, anchored on
    the massive electoral fraud allegedly perpetrated by petitioner.

    Upon the evidence adduced and the memoranda subsequently filed by the parties, the
    COMELEC annulled and set aside petitioners’ proclamation as governor of Bulacan and
    proclaimed respondent duly elected to said position. Coupled with a directive to the DILG to
    implement the same, the resolution ordered petitioner to immediately vacate said office, to
    cease and desist from discharging the functions pertaining thereto and to cause a peaceful
    turn-over thereof to respondent.

    Dissatisfied, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the said resolution with
    the COMELEC En Banc on the ground that lack of concurrence of the majority of the
    members of the Commission pursuant to Section 5, Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules of
    Procedure.
    However, the motion was dismissed in a Resolution dated 8 Feb 2010. Petitioner filed
    before the COMELEC an Urgent Motion to Recall the Resolution Promulgated on February 8,
    2010. Anchored on the same ground, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Certiorari with an
    Urgent Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a Status Quo Order and
    Writ of Preliminary Injunction.

    In their respective Comments thereto, both respondent and the Office of the Solicitor
    General argue that, in addition to its premature filing, the petition at bench violated the rule
    against forum shopping.

    ISSUE:
    1. Is the assailed COMELEC Resolution valid? (February 8, 2010 Reso)

    RULING:

    1. Not valid. The SC held that the COMELEC themselves admit that in a Resolution dated
    10 February 2010 it ordered the re-hearing of the case on the ground that "there was no
    majority vote of the members obtained in the Resolution of the Commission En Banc
    promulgated on February 8, 2010 (denying MR).

    The failure of the COMELEC En Banc to muster the required majority vote should have
    caused the dismissal of respondents Election Protest pursuant to Section 6, Rule 18 of the
    Rules of Procedure

    Further, the SC said that the said provision of law is very clear and thus cited the Section
    6, Rule 18 of Rules of Procedure which categorically provides that:

    Sec. 6. Procedure if Opinion is Equally Divided. – When the Commission en banc is


    equally divided in opinion, or the necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall be
    reheard, and if on rehearing no decision is reached, the action or proceeding shall be
    dismissed if originally commenced in the Commission; in appealed cases, the judgment
    or order appealed from shall stand affirmed; and in all incidental matters, the petition or
    motion shall be denied.

    When the language of the law is clear and explicit, there is no room for interpretation,
    only application. And if statutory construction be necessary, the statute should be
    interpreted to assure its being in consonance with, rather than repugnant to, any
    constitutional command or prescription.
    In this case, the SC held that there can be no APPEAL as indicated in the said provision
    (bolded word) because the Election Protest was originally commenced in the COMELEC,
    and although initially raffled to the COMELEC Second Division, the elevation of said
    election protest on motion for reconsideration before the Commission En Banc cannot be
    considered an appeal. – Hence, AS PER SEC. 6, RULE 18, the resolution of dismissing
    MR on Feb 8, 2010 is not valid.

    You might also like