CASE DIGESTS: The trial court’s assumption of jurisdiction over

an election offense under OEC is clearly

6. Gallardo v TABAMO
inconsistent with the COMELEC’s Constitutional
FACTS: PR Romualdo was the incumbent mandate to enforce and administer all laws
Congressman of Camiguin, a candidate for relative to the conduct of elections. Under the
Governor office. On APRIL 10, 1992 A MONTH 1987 Constitution, the COMELEC has broader
BEFORE THE ELECTIONS he petitioned before powers. The trial court arrogating unto itself the
the court to prohibit and restrain the powers granted to the COMELEC impedes the
petitioners (Gallardo, auditors, treasurer, vision of the Constitution for a truly
engineer) from pursuing certain public work independent COMELEC in ensuring free,
projects as this would violate the 45-day ban on orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections.
public works imposed by Omnibus Election
The COMELEC Rules of Procedure also provides
Code and more importantly it would corrupt the
that initiation of complaints for commission of
voters and induce them to support the
an election offense may be done motu propio
candidacy of Respondent Gallardo and his
by the COMELEC or upon written complaint by
candidates in the coming election.
any citizen, candidate or registered political
The public respondent Judge issued TRO and party or organization under the party-list
directed the petitioner to file their answer. system or any of the accredited citizen’s arms of
However, petitioners filed a special civil action COMELEC.
for certiorari and prohibition contending that
7. GARCIA and O’hara v COMELEC
the case involves an alleged violation of the
OMNIBUS ELECTION code and is therefore FACTS: This was a consolidated case of Antipolo
within the jurisdiction of the COMELEC, not in and Isabela.
the RTC.
Antipolo Case: Garcia and O’ Hara were the
ISSUE: WON the RTC has jurisdiction over the winners for the office of Mayor and Vice-Mayor
subject matter of SCA 465. in Antipolo, Rizal and were contested by De
Jesus and David.
Ruling: NO.
Isabela Case: Neyra was proclaimed Mayor over
In Zaldivar vs. Estenzo the RTC has no
petitioner Uy.
jurisdiction over a case involving the
enforcement of the OEC; it is at war with the Petitioners in the two cases question the
plain constitutional command that the arrogation unto itself by the COMELEC of the
COMELEC is exclusively charged with the power of issue Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition
enforcement of all laws relative to the conduct and Mandamus invoking the ruling in Pimentel v
of elections. Although the Omnibus Election Comelec that no such jurisdiction was ever
does impose a 45-day ban on public works, the conferred on respondent Commission by the
RTC has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of a 1973 Constitution or by law.
petition for injunction, prohibition and
WHILE Respondents contend that since the
mandamus to enjoin the concerned
1987 Constitution expressly gives COMELEC
government officials from continuing with such
appellate jurisdiction over election contests of
public works.
elective municipal officials decided by trial
courts. (Section 2[2], Article IX-C), and to
promulgate its own rules based in specific declared private respondent the duly-elected
conditions.-> (Section 6, Article IX-A and Section mayor by a plurality of five (5) votes.
3, Article IX-C), the COMELEC validly Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was
promulgated the rule which empowers it to denied by the COMELEC in its en banc
issue the special Writs. resolution.

ISSUE: WON COMELEC has jurisdiction to Writs ISSUE: WON the COMELEC decision may be
of Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus in brought to the SC by a petition for certiorari?
electoral contests involving municipal and
HELD:
barangay officials
Yes. A writ of certiorari may be issued to keep
HELD: NO.
an inferior court within the bounds of its
COMELEC is bereft of jurisdiction to issue said jurisdiction. It also prevents such tribunal from
Writs. In the Philippine setting, the authority to committing grave abuse of discretion
issue Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Mandamus involves the exercise of original COMELEC has the power to decide over election
jurisdiction. Thus, such authority has always contests based on physical evidence, equity, law
been expressly conferred, either by the and justice, and jurisprudence. Absent any
Constitution or by law. findings of grave abuse of discretion, no one can
control the COMELEC’s power to decide up to
What the Constitution granted the COMELEC
which extent these bases shall find application
was appellate jurisdiction. The Constitution
in its decisions
makes no mention of any power given the
COMELEC to exercise original jurisdiction over The fact that decisions, final orders or rulings of
Petitioners for Certiorari, Prohibition and the Commission on Elections in contests
Mandamus unlike in the case of the Supreme involving elective municipal and barangay
Court which was specifically conferred such offices are final, executory and not appealable,
authority (Art. VIII, Sec. 5[1]). The immutable does not preclude a recourse to this Court by
doctrine being that jurisdiction is fixed by law, way of a special civil action of certiorari.
the power to issue such Writs cannot be
COMELEC didn’t commit GAD amounting to lack
implied from the mere existence of appellate
or excess of jurisdiction in rendering the
jurisdiction.
decision. It is settled that the function of a writ
8. Galido v COMELEC (Marked Ballots with of certiorari is to keep an inferior court or
letter “C”) tribunal within the bounds of its jurisdiction
and to prevent it from committing GAD.
FACTS:
9. MUTILAN v COMELEC and AMPATUAN
Petitioner and private respondent were
candidates for Mayor in a municipality in Bohol. Facts: Petitioner Mutilan and Respondent
Petitioner was proclaimed as Mayor. PR filed an Ampatuan were candidates for ARMM
election protest before the RTC WHERE it Governor. PETITIONER alleges there were no
upheld the proclamation. PR THEN appealed the voting actually happened in some parts of
RTC decision to the Commission on Elections ARMM and that there was also substitute
(COMELEC). Through its First Division, the voting. Hence, they file for an annulment of
COMELEC reversed the trial court's decision and elections and prayed that it be elevated to the
COMELEC en banc and not the 2nd Division 2. the election has been suspended
where it was originally filed. They argued that 3. the preparation and the transmission of
jurisdiction of this case may be heard by both the election returns give rise to the
division and en banc so the second division can consequent failure to elect
legally elevate the case to the Commission En
ALL ON THE ACCOUNT OF force majeure,
Banc pursuant to its rules of procedure to
violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous
expedite disposition of election case.
causes.
The COMELEC Second Division ruled that
2. MFR must be verified before it may be
jurisdiction over petitions for annulment of
acted by the COMELEC en banc.
elections is vested in the COMELEC En Banc.
However, the elevation of the case to the 10. PEOPLE v BASILIA
COMELEC En Banc is not sanctioned by the rules
or by jurisprudence. Thus, the COMELEC Second FACTS: After 1987 congressional elections in
Division dismissed the petition for lack of Masbate, complaints for violations of Section
jurisdiction. 261 of the Omnibus Election Code (BP Blg. 881)
were filed with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal
ISSUES: of Masbate against the private respondents for
vote-buying and for carrying of deadly weapon,
1. WON the COMELEC Second Division acted
Respondent Judge Henry Basilla OF RTC motu
with GAD in dismissing the petition to annul
proprio dismissed the three (3) informations
elections and in not elevating the petition to
filed by the Provincial Fiscal because they were
the COMELEC En Banc.
not filed before, investigated AND prosecuted
2. WON the COMELEC En Banc acted with GAD by the COMELEC.
in denying petitioner’s motion for
ISSUE: WON COMELEC has the authority to
reconsideration for lack of verification.
deputize prosecutors, fiscals… OR WON THE
HELD: PETITION HAS MERIT.

1. YES. RULING:
Division can elevate. While automatic elevation
YES. While Section 265 of the Code vests
of a case erroneously filed with the Division to
"exclusive power" to conduct preliminary
En Banc is not provided in the COMELEC Rules
investigation of election offenses and to
of Procedure, such action is not prohibited.
prosecute the same upon the Comelec, it at the
same time authorizes the Comelec to avail itself
Section 4, Rule 2 of the COMELEC Rules of
of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of
Procedure provides if the procedure to be
the Government. Section 2 of Article IX-C of the
followed in the exercise of such power or
1 987 Constitution clearly envisage that the
jurisdiction is not specifically provided for by
Comelec would not be compelled to carry out
law or these rules, any suitable process or
all its functions directly and by itself alone.
proceeding may be adopted.
The immediate investigation and prosecution
BUT STILL the petition must fail. > There are
and disposition of election offenses are
three instances where a failure of elections
indispensable parts of securing a free, orderly,
may be declared
honest, peaceful and credible elections. Such
1. election has not been held purpose is of greater importance than that of
the maintenance of the physical order in an
election precinct. There is thus a need for the
assistance of provincial and city fiscals and their
assistants and staff members, and of the state
prosecutors of the Department of Justice in
order that free, orderly, honest and peaceful
elections may be conducted.