SCHOOL OF LAW

Quasi-Judicial Bodies/Agencies:

Commission on Elections

Submitted to:
Atty. Jose Mari Molintas

Submitted by:

Kathleene Camille Bilog

Grace Frianeza
Lisyl Passol

Submitted on:
ARTICLE IX of the 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

Common Provisions (Section 1-8 of Article IX of the 1987 Philippine

Constitution):

Section 1: The INDEPENDENT Constitutional Commissions are:

1) Commission on Elections;
2) Civil Service Commission; and
3) Commission on Audit.

CASE:
Brillantes v. Yorac, 192 SCRA 358

FACTS:
In this case, petitioner is challenging the designation by the President of the
Philippines of Associate Commissioner Haydee B. Yorac as Acting Chairman of
the Commission on Elections, in place of Chairman Hilario B. Davide, who had
been named chairman of the fact-finding commission to investigate the
December 1989 coup d' etat attempt. The act of the President was a violation
of the Constitutional provision that the Commission on Elections as an
independent constitutional body and the specific provision of Article IX-C,
Section 1(2) of the Constitution that "(I)n no case shall any Member (of the
Commission on Elections) be appointed or designated in a temporary or
acting capacity."

ISSUE:
Does the designation by the President of the Philippines of respondent
Haydee B. Yorac as Acting Chairman of the Commission on Elections
UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

HELD:
The Supreme Court decided in the affirmative. Based on the following
grounds:
1) Article IX-A, Section 1, of the Constitution expressly describes all the
Constitutional Commissions as "independent." Although essentially
executive in nature, they are not under the control of the President
of the Philippines in the discharge of their respective functions. Each
 of these Commissions conducts its own proceedings under the
applicable laws and its own rules and in the exercise of its own
discretion. Its decisions, orders and rulings are subject only to review
on certiorari by this Court as provided by the Constitution in Article
IX-A, Section 7.

2) The Constitution provided for many safeguards to the independence

of the Commission on Elections, foremost among which is the
security of tenure of its members. That guaranty is not available to
the respondent as Acting Chairman of the Commission on Elections
by designation of the President of the Philippines.

Constitutional Safeguards to Ensure Independence of the Commissions:

(Under Section 1-6 of Article IX of the 1987 Philippine Constitution):

(1) They are constitutionally created, hence may not be abolished by

statute.
— The grant of a constitutional commission’s rulemaking power is
untouchable by Congress, absent a constitutional amendment or
revision.
— The laws that the Commission interprets and enforces fall within the
prerogative of Congress. As an administrative agency, its
quasi-legislative power is subject to the same limitations applicable
to other administrative bodies.
(2) Each commission is vested with powers and functions which
cannot be reduced by statute.
(3) Expressly defined in the Constitution as independent
constitutional bodies.
(4) The Chairmen and members may not be removed except by
impeachment.
(5) The Chairmen and members may not be appointed in an acting
capacity.
— However, in a case that was decided by the Supreme Court (Matibag
vs Benipayo, supra), wherein there was an ad interim appointment of
the Chairman of the Commission on Election is NOT CONFIRMED
because it was by-passed or there was no ample time for the
Commission on Appointments to pass upon the some, another ad
 interim appointment may be extended to the appointee without
violating the Constitutional provision on this matter.
(6) The salaries of the Chairmen and members may not be
decreased during their tenure.
— Under Section 3: The salaries of the Chairman and the
Commissioners are FIXED BY LAW and shall NOT BE DECREASED
DURING THEIR TENURE.
(7) The Commissions enjoy fiscal autonomy.
— Under Section 5: The Commission enjoys FISCAL AUTONOMY. Their
approved annual appropriations shall be automatically and regularly
released.
(8) Each Commission may promulgate its own procedural rules,
provided they do not diminish, increase or modify substantive
rights (though subject to disapproval by the Supreme Court).
(9) Chairmen and members are subject to certain disqualifications
and inhibitions calculated to strengthen their integrity.
(10) The Commission may appoint their own officials and employees
in accordance with Civil Service Law.
— Under Section 4.

Prohibited Offices and Interests

Section 2: No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his
tenure:
(1) Hold any other office or employment;
(2) Engage in the practice of any profession;
(3) Engage in the active management and control of any business
which in any way may be affected by the function of his office;
and
(4) Be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract
with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by the Government,
any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, including
GOCCs or their subsidiaries.

ROTATIONAL SCHEME OF APPOINTMENTS: The first appointees shall

serve terms of SEVEN, FIVE and THREE YEARS, respectively. After the
FIRST COMMISSIONERS are appointed, the rotational scheme is
intended to PREVENT THE POSSIBILITY OF ONE PRESIDENT
APPOINTING ALL THE COMMISSIONERS.
 § Jurisprudence on this proviso:
Ø The appointment of members of any of the three constitutional
commissions, after the expiration of the uneven terms of office of the
first set of commissioners, shall always be for a fixed term of seven (7)
years; an appointment for a lesser period is void and
unconstitutional.
— The appointing authority cannot validly shorten the full term of seven
(7) years in case of the expiration of the term as this will result in the
distortion of the rotational system prescribed by the Constitution.

Ø Appointments to vacancies resulting from certain causes (death,

resignation, disability or impeachment) shall only be for the
unexpired portion of the term of the predecessor; such
appointments cannot be less than the unexpired portion [as it will
disrupt the staggering].

Ø Members of the Commission who were appointed for a full term of

seven years and who served the entire period, are barred from
reappointment to any position in the Commission.

— The first appointees in the Commission under the Constitution are

also covered by the prohibition against reappointment.

Ø A commissioner who resigns after serving in the Commission for less

than seven years is eligible for an appointment as Chairman for the
unexpired portion of the term of the departing chairman.
— Such appointment is not covered by the ban on reappointment,
provided that the aggregate period of the length of service will not
exceed seven (7) years and provided further that the vacancy in the
position of Chairman resulted from death, resignation, disability or
removal by impeachment. This is not a reappointment, but
effectively a new appointment.

Ø Any member of the Commission cannot be appointed or designated

in a temporary or acting capacity.

§ Promotional Appointment of Commissioner to Chairman:

 Section 1(2), Article IX-D of the Constitution: It does not prohibit a
promotional appointment from commissioner to chairman as long as:
a) The commissioner has not served the full term of 7 years;
b) The appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired
portion of the term of the predecessor; and
c) The promotional appointment must conform to the rotational
plan or the staggering of terms in the commission membership.

Decisions:

Section 7 (a): Each commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its
members any case or matter brought before it within SIXTY days from
the date of its submission for decision or resolution.
— The provision of the Constitution is clear that what is required is the
majority vote of all the members, not only of those who participated
in the deliberations and voted thereon in order that a valid decision
may be made by the Constitutional Commissions.

Under Section 7 (b): A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision

or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum
required by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself.

§ In Dumayas vs COMELEC: There were two commissioners who

had participated in the deliberations BUT had retired PRIOR to
the promulgation of the decision, the Supreme Court said that
the votes of the said commission should be merely considered as
WITHDRAWN, as if they had not signed the resolution at all, and
only the votes of the remaining Commissioners considered for
the purpose of deciding the controversy. However, if the
withdrawal of the votes would materially affect the result insofar
as votes for or against a party is concerned, there is no reason to
declare the decision a nullity.

In this case, the withdrawal of the votes of the two commissioners, the
remaining among the four incumbent commissioners, still constitutes a
quorum at the time of the promulgation of the resolution, would still be
3 to 1 and thus, be a vote of majority, which is in favor of herein
respondent COMELEC.
 § Pursuant to COMELEC Rules of Procedure, when the COMELEC en
banc is equally divided in an opinion and the necessary majority
cannot be had, there shall be a rehearing. If, on rehearing, no
majority 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.
— A protesting candidate cannot file a petition with the Supreme
Court when the COMELEC vote is EQUALLY divided and a
rehearing is NOT conducted because the petition shall be
considered premature and shall be dismissed.

Section 7 (c): Any decision or ruling of each Commission may be

brought to the Supreme Court on CERTIORARI by the aggrieved party
within 30 days from the receipt of a copy thereof.
— In Aratuc vs COMELEC, the Supreme Court held that when it
reviews a decision of the COMELEC, the Court exercise
extraordinary jurisdiction; thus, the proceeding is limited to
issues involving grave abuse of discretion resulting in lack or
excess of jurisdiction and does NOT ordinarily empower the
court to review the factual findings of the Commission.
— In Loong vs COMELEC, the court reiterated that certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the appropriate remedy
to INVALIDATE disputed COMELEC Resolutions (such as final
orders, ruling and decisions of the COMELEC rendered in the
exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial power.
COMPOSITION: The Commission on Elections is composed of a Chairman
and six Commissioners

(a) Qualifications: a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, at the time of

their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree,
and must not have been candidates for any elective positions in the
immediately preceding elections. However, a majority thereof, including the
Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in
the practice of law for at least ten years.

(b) Appointment: shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without
reappointment.

(c) Rotational scheme of appointment: Of those first appointed, three

Members shall hold office for seven years, two Members for five years, and the
last Members for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any
vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of the predecessor.

CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMELEC

a. Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct
of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall.

Broad Powers. The 1987 Constitution has granted the COMELEC broader
powers than its predecessors. It implicitly grants the commission the power
to promulgate rules and regulations in the enforcement of laws relative to
elections.

b. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections,

returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city
officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective
municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or
involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited
jurisdiction.

Exclusive jurisdiction over all pre proclamation cases, which prohibits

pre-proclamation controversies in national offices except questions involving
the composition and proceedings of the Board of Canvassers.
 c.. Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions affecting
elections, including determination of the number and location of
polling places, appointment of election officials and inspectors, and
registration of voters.

d.. Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law enforcement

agencies and instrumentalities of the Government, including the
Armed Forces of the Philippines, for the exclusive purpose of ensuring
free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.

e. Register, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, or

coalitions which, in addition to other requirements, must present their
platform or program of government; and accredit citizens’ arms of the
Commission on Elections. Religious denominations and sects shall not
be registered. Those which seek to achieve their goals through
violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and adhere to this
Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign government shall
likewise be refused registration.

f. File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, petitions in court

for inclusion or exclusion of voters; investigate and, where appropriate,
prosecute cases of violations of election laws, including acts or
omissions constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices.

g. Recommend to the Congress effective measures to minimize election

spending, including limitation of places where propaganda materials
shall be posted, and to prevent and penalize all forms of election
frauds, offenses, malpractices, and nuisance candidates.

h. Recommend to the President the removal of any officer or employee it

has deputized, or the imposition of any other disciplinary action, for
violation or disregard of, or disobedience to, its directive, order, or
decision.

i. Submit to the President and the Congress, a comprehensive report on

the conduct of each election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or recall.

G.R. No. 202860, April 10, 2019

LEE T. ARROYO, PETITIONER, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
AND ULYSSES A. BRITO, RESPONDENTS.

Doctrine: The doctrine on immutability of judgments admits of the following

exceptions: (a) the correction of clerical errors; (b) the so-called nunc pro tunc
entries that cause no prejudice to any party; (c) void judgments; and (d)
whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the judgments
rendering execution unjust and inequitable. The Court applies these
exceptions in order to serve the interests of justice.

Facts:

This case arose from the enactment of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8371, otherwise
known as "The Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of 1997," which resulted in the
reorganization of two (2) offices:

(1) the Office for Northern Cultural Communities (ONCC);and (2) the Office of
Southern Cultural Communities (OSCC). Pursuant to the passage of R.A. No.
8371, the ONCC and OSCC were merged as the organic offices of the National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP).

Upon the effectivity of R.A. No. 8371, the positions of Staff Directors, Bureau
Directors, Deputy Executive Directors and Executive Directors, except the
positions of Regional Directors and below, were phased-out. Absorbed
personnel were nonetheless subject to the qualifications set by the Civil
Service Commission and the Placement Committee.

Unsatisfied with the appointment of Arroyo and three (3) other appointees,
Brito, together with several other individuals formerly holding the positions of
Bureau Director and Regional Director, initiated a petition for quo warranto to
challenge their appointment before the CA. Brito invoked his right to security
of tenure under R.A. No. 6656,17 and argued that Arroyo does not possess the
required Career Executive Service (CBS) eligibility for the position of Regional
Director.

Issue: Whether the CA gravely abused its discretion, amounting to lack or

excess of jurisdiction,in directing the execution of its Decision dated August
30, 2004 granting the quo warranto petition of Brito.
Ruling of the Court:

The Court grants the petition of Arroyo.

Courts may modify a final and executory decision when circumstances

transpire that render the execution unjust or inequitable. It is true that the
execution of a court's judgment becomes a matter of right upon the
expiration of the period to appeal and no appeal was duly perfected.
Generally, therefore, courts may no longer review or modify a final and
executory judgment. This is otherwise referred to as the principle of
immutability of judgments, which dictates that once a decision becomes
final, the enforcement or execution of the judgment becomes a purely
ministerial act.

A supervening event, in order to apply, must rest on proven or certain facts.

Hence, Arroyo should establish through competent evidence there are events,
which transpired after the finality of the decision altered or modified the
parties' situation in such a manner that renders execution of the judgment
inequitable, impossible, or unfair. It should directly affect the matter already
litigated and settled, or substantially changed the rights or relations of the
parties.

While Arroyo raised the fact that Brito falsified his college degree in her
motion for the reconsideration of the quo warranto decision, it was only on
October 30, 2007 that the OP declared final its decision to dismiss and
disqualify Brito from government service. By then, the period to appeal to the
Court has lapsed without Arroyo filing an appeal, and Brito has commenced
the execution of the quo warranto decision in his favor. Verily, the supervening
event referred to in the present case transpired after the finality of the
judgment that Brito sought to execute.

STATUTORY POWERS

Secs. 52 and 57, BP 881, enumerate, among others, as the statutory powers of
the Comelec, to exercise supervision and control over officials required to
perform duties relative to the conduct of elections, promulgate rules and
regulations, punish contempt, inquire into financial records of candidates,
groups, etc., prescribe forms to be used in elections, procure supplies and
materials needed for the election, enlist nonpartisan groups to assist it, fix
periods for pre-election requirements, etc.. See Dumarpa v. Dimaporo, 177
SCRA 478.

Power to declare failure of election; call for special elections.

Sec. 4, R.A. 7166, provides that the Comelec, sitting en banc, by a majority vote
of its members, may declare failure of elections and call for special elections,
as provided in Sec. 6, BP 881. The Comelec may exercise such power motu
propio or upon a verified petition, and the hearing of the case shall be
summary in nature. In Joseph Peter Sison v. Comelec, G.R. No. 134096, March
3, 1999, the Supreme Court said that there are only three instances where a
failure of elections may be declared, namely:

[a] the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fixed on
account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous
causes;

[b] the election in any polling place had been suspended before the hour
fixed by law for the closing of the voting on account of force majeure,
violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous causes; and

[c] after the voting and during the preparation and transmission of the
election returns or in the custody or canvass thereof such election results in a
failure to elect on account of force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other
analogous causes.

i) However, before the Comelec can act on a verified petition seeking a

declaration of failure of election, two conditions must concur, namely:

(i) no voting has taken place in the precincts concerned on the

date fixed by law, or even if there was voting, the election
nevertheless resulted in a failure to elect;and (ii) the votes cast
would affect the results of the election [Mitmug v. Comelec, 230
SCRA 54; Loong v. Comelec, 257 SCRA 1; Hassan v. Comelec, 264
SCRA 125; Batabor v. Comelec, G.R. No. 160428, July 21, 2004], A
petition to declare a failure of election is neither an election
protest nor a pre-proclamation controversy [Borja v. .Comelec, 260
SCRA 604].
ii) In Loong v. Comelec, G.R. No. 133676, April 14, 1999, the Supreme Court
denied the petition to declare failure of election, because when the
Comelec resorted to manual count after the automated machines
failed to read the ballots correctly, it did not do so arbitrarily. The Court
found that there was, after all, compliance with the due process clause
because the petitioner and the intervenor were given every opportunity
to oppose the manual count, and the result of the said count was
reliable.

iii) For the validity of an election, it is essential that the voters have
notice in some form, either actual or constructive, of the time, place and
purpose thereof. The time must be authoritatively designated in
advance. This requirement of notice becomes stricter in cases of special
elections where it was called by some authority after the happening of
a condition precedent, or at least, there must be substantial compliance
therewith, so that it may fairly and reasonably be said that the purpose
of the statute had been carried into effect. The sufficiency of notice is
based on whether the voters generally have knowledge of the time,
place and purpose of the elections so as to give them full opportunity to
attend the polls and express their will [Hassan v. Comelec, 264 SCRA
125]. In Lucero v. Comelec, infra., it was held that in fixing the date of the
special elections, the Comelec should see to it that [a] it should not be
later than 30 days after the cessation of the cause of the postponement
or suspension of the election or failure to elect; and [b] it should be
reasonably close to the date of the election not held, suspended or
which resulted in failure to elect.

iv) No law provides for a reglementary period within which to file a

petition for the annulment of an election if there has been no
proclamation yet [Loong v. Comelec, 257 SCRA 1].

v) Special election. The prohibition on conducting special elections after

30 days from the cessation of the cause for failure of election is not
absolute. It is directory, not mandatory, and the Comelec has residual
powers to conduct special elections even beyond the deadline
prescribed by the law. The Comelec may fix other dates for the conduct
of the special elections when the same cannot be reasonably held
within the period prescribed by law [Sambarani v. Comelec, G.R. No.
160427, September 15, 2004].
 va) Since there was failure of elections, petitioners can legally
remain in office as barangay chairmen of the respective
barangays in a holdover capacity. They shall continue to discharge
their powers and duties, and enjoy the rights and privileges
pertaining to the office. While it is true that Sec. 43c of the Local
Government Code limits the term of elective barangay officials to
three years, Sec. 5, R.A. 9164 explicitly provides that incumbent
barangay officials may continue in office in a hold-over capacity
until their successors and elected and shall have qualified
[Sambarani v. Comelec, supra.].

Exclusive original jurisdiction over all pre-proclamation controversies

While the Comelec is restricted, in pre-proclamation cases, to an examination

of the election returns on their face and is without jurisdiction to go beyond
them and investigate election irregularities, the Comelec is duty bound to
investigate allegations of fraud, terrorism, violence and other analogous
causes in an action for annulment of election results or for a declaration of
failure of elections. Thus, the Comelec may conduct technical examination of
election documents and compare and analyze voters’ signatures and
fingerprints in order to determine whether the elections had, indeed, been
free, honest and clean [Loong v. Comelec, 257 SCRA 1]

EN BANC AND DIVISION CASES

“It may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of
procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including
pre-proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and
decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions
shall be decided en banc” [Sec. 3, Art. IX-C],

i) Cases which must first be heard and decided in division.

ia) All election cases, including pre-proclamation contests, originally

cognizable by the Commission in the exercise of its powers under Sec. 2
(2), Art. IX-C of the Constitution. Thus, in Sarmiento v. Comelec, 212 SCRA
307, the Supreme Court set aside the resolutions of the Comelec in this
and several companion cases, because the Comelec en banc took
original cognizance of the cases without referring them first to the
appropriate Division.
 ib) Jurisdiction over a petition to cancel a certificate of candidacy rests
with the Comelec in division, not the Comelec en banc [Garvida v. Sales,
G.R. No. 122872, September 10, 1997, reiterated in Bautista v. Comelec,
G.R. Nos. 154796-97, October 23, 2003],

ic) Even cases appealed from the Regional Trial Court or the Municipal
Trial Court have to be heard and decided in Division before they may be
heard en banc upon the filing of a motion for reconsideration of the
Division decision. And, although not raised as an issue, the Supreme
Court may motu propio consider and resolve this question of
jurisdiction [Abad v. Comelec, G.R. No. 128877, December 10, 1999],

id) A petition for certiorari filed with the Commission from a decision of
the RTC (or MTC) is likewise to be resolved in Division before the same
may be heard en banc [Sollerv. Comelec, G.R No. 139853, September 5,
2000], Thus, in Zarate v. Comelec, G.R. No. 129096, November 19, 1999,
where the appeal from the decision of the MTC in an election case
involving the SK Chairman of Barangay lean, Malasigui, Pangasinan,
was directly taken cognizance of by the Comelec en banc, the Supreme
Court set aside the Comelec decision because the appeal should have
been referred first to the appropriate Division.

ii) Exceptions. (Quasi-judicial vs Administrative Functions)

iia) A petition for the correction of manifest errors alleges an erroneous

copying of figures from the election return to the Statement of Votes by
precinct. Such an error in the tabulation of results, which merely
requires a clerical correction without opening the ballot boxes or
examining the ballots, demands only the exercise of the administrative
power of the Comelec. Hence, the Comelec en banc may properly
assume jurisdiction [Jaramilla v. Comelec, G.R. No. 155717, October 23,
2003]. In Torres v. Comelec, 270 SCRA 583, and in Ramirez v. Comelec,
270 SCRA 590, the Supreme Court held that the Comelec en banc may
directly assume jurisdiction over a petition to correct manifest errors in
the tabulation or tallying of results (Statement of Votes) by the Board of
Canvassers.

While it is settled that election cases, including pre-proclamation

contests, must first be heard and decided by the Comelec in division —
and a petition for correction of manifest errors in the Statement of
 Votes is a pre proclamation controversy — Sec. 5, Rule 27 of the 1993
Rules of the Comelec expressly provides that pre-proclamation
controversies involving correction of manifest errors in the tabulation or
tallying of results may be filed directly with the Comelec en banc. The
Statement of Votes is merely a tabulation per precinct of the votes
obtained by the candidates, as reflected in the election returns. What is
involved is simple arithmetic. In making the correction in the
computation, the Board of Canvassers acts in an administrative
capacity under the control and supervision of the Comelec. Pursuant to
its constitutional function to decide questions affecting elections, the
Comelec en banc has authority to resolve any question pertaining to
proceedings of the the Board of Canvassers. This ruling was reiterated in
Mastura v. Comelec, 285 SCRA 493.

iib) The power of the Comelec to prosecute cases of violation of election

laws involves the exercise of administrative powers which may be
exercised directly by the Comelec en banc [Baytan v. Comelec, G.R. No.
153945], February 4, 2003].

iii) Thus, the rule that all election cases, including pre-proclamation cases,
should first be heard and decided by the Comelec in division applies only
when the Comelec exercises its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial functions, not
when it exercises purely administrative functions [Municipal Board of
Canvassers v. Comelec, G.R. No. 150946, October 23, 2003; Jaramilla v.
Comelec, G.R. No. 155717, October 23, 2003; Canicosa v. Comelec, G.R. No.
120318, December 5, 1997].

iv) Comelec decisions reviewable by the Supreme Court. (Judicial Review)

iva) Only decisions of the Comelec en banc may be brought to the

Supreme Court on certiorari (as a special civil action under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court). In Reyes v. RTC of Oriental Mindoro, 244 SCRA 41, it
was held that the failure of the petitioner to file a Motion for
Reconsideration from the decision of the Comelec First Division is fatal
to the petition filed with the Supreme Court.

ivb) Only decisions of the Comelec made in the exercise of its

adjudicatory or quasi-judicial power may be brought to the Supreme
Court on certiorari. Thus, in Garces v. Court of Appeals, 259 SCRA 99,
where what was assailed in the petition for certiorari was the Comelec
 choice of an appointee, which is a purely administrative duty, the case is
cognizable by the Regional Trial Court (or the Civil Service Commission,
as the case may be). Indeed,, determinations made by the Comelec
which are merely administrative (not quasi-judicial) in character, may
be challenged in an ordinary civil action before trial courts [Filipinas
Engineering & Machine Shop v. Ferrer, 135 SCRA 25].

Rule-Making Powers

The Comelec en banc shall promulgate rules concerning pleadings and

practice before it or before any of its offices, but they must not diminish,
increase or modify substantive rights [Sec. 6, Art. IX-A],

i) This power is subject to Sec. 5 (5), Art. VIII, which provides that rules of
procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective
unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

ii) Procedural rules in election cases are designed to achieve not only a correct
but also an expeditious determination of the popular will of the electorate.
The nature of an election case differs from an ordinary civil action. Because of
this difference, the Rules on Civil Procedure on demurrer to evidence cannot
apply to election cases, even by analogy or in a suppletory character,
especially because the application of the Rules would not be practicable and
convenient.

iii) The Comelec has the authority to suspend the reglementary periods
provided by its rules, or the requirement of certificate of non-forum shopping,
in the interest of justice and speedy resolution of cases. The Comelec is
likewise not constrained to dismiss a case before it by reason of non-payment
of filing fees [Jaramilla v. Comelec, G.R. No. 155717, October 23, 2003; Barot v.
Comelec, G.R. No. 149147, June 18, 2003],

iv) In Penaflorida v: Comelec, 206 SCRA 754, it was held that the fingerprinting
of the Chairman and members of the Board of Election Inspectors is an
internal matter, and may be done even without prior notice to the parties.
 COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE

DISPOSITION OF ACTIONS OR PROCEEDINGS

A. Issuance of Summons

The Clerk of Court of the Commission or the division concerned shall

issue the corresponding summons to the protestee or respondent within
three (3) days following the filing of a protest or petition in ordinary actions
except appeals from decisions of courts in election protest cases, in special
actions, special cases, special reliefs, and in special proceedings.

If a summons is returned without being served on any of the protestees

or respondents, or if it has been lost, the Clerk of Court concerned, on
demand of the protestant or petitioner, may issue another summons as the
case may require, in the same form as the original.

The summons may be served by personal service or by mail. Personal

service may be made by a bailiff of the Commission or the division or upon
request of the Commission or a Division, by the sheriff of any court in the
place where the parties to be served reside; or for special reasons, by any
person especially authorized by the Commission or a Division. When the
service has been completed by personal service, the server shall give notice
thereof, by registered mail, to the protestant or petitioner or his counsel and
shall return the summons to the Clerk of Court concerned who issued it,
accompanied with the proof of service.

B. Pre-Trial

At the discretion of the Commission or the Division, the parties and

their attorneys may be required to appear before it for a pre-trial conference
to consider:

(a) The simplification of issues;

(b) The possibility of obtaining admission of facts and of documents to avoid

unnecessary proof;
(c) The limitation of the number of witnesses; and

(d) Such other matters as may be aid in the prompt disposition of the action
or proceeding.

This rule shall not apply to election protest cases filed before the
Commission on Elections. In such cases, the parties shall submit, to form part
of the record of the case, a position paper which summarizes their legal
positions.

C. Subpoena

Subpoena ad testificandum or subpoena duces tecum may be issued

by the Commission or the Division motu propio, or upon request of the
parties in any case.

D. Hearings

After the issues have been joined, the case shall be set for hearing and
the parties, thru counsel, shall be served, personally or by registered mail,
giving sufficient time for the notice thereof to be received by the parties not
less than three (3) days before the date set. Whenever necessary, telegraphic
notices shall be sent simultaneously with the formal notice of hearing.

Unless the Commission or the Division, as the case may be, for special
reasons, directs otherwise, the order of hearing shall be as follows:

(a) The petitioner or protestant shall present evidence on his part;

(b) The protestant-in-intervention, if any, shall present evidence on

his part;

(c) The respondent or protestee shall then offer evidence in support

of his defense or counter-protest, if any;

(d) The parties may then respectively offer rebutting evidence only,
unless the Commission or the Division, as the case may be, for good
 reasons, in the furtherance of justice, permits them to offer
evidence upon their original case;

(e) When the evidence is concluded, unless the parties agree to

submit the case without arguments, the parties or their counsel
may be allowed to argue, subject to such limitation of time as the
Commission or the Division may prescribe;

(f) In lieu of oral arguments, the parties may be allowed to submit

their respective memoranda within a period of three (3) days.

When Proceedings are Summary

When the proceedings are authorized to be summary, in lieu

of oral testimonies, the parties may, after due notice, be required to
submit their position paper together with affidavits,
counter-affidavits and other documentary evidence; and when there
is a need for clarification of certain matters, at the discretion of the
Commission or the Division, the parties may be allowed to
cross-examine the affiants.This provision shall likewise apply to cases
where the hearing and reception of evidence are delegated by the
Commission or the Division to any of its officials; and when there is a
need for clarification of certain matters, the hearing officer may
schedule a hearing to propound clarificatory questions, observing for
that purpose Section 6 of Rule 34 of these Rules.

The hearing and reception of evidence, when delegated by the

Commission or a Division to any of its officials, shall be completed within
three (3) days. The official concerned shall submit his findings, report and
recommendation to the Commission or the Division within three (3) days
from such completion. Then the parties to any action may agree in
writing on the facts involved in the case.

E. Decisions

The conclusions of the Commission in any case submitted to it for

decision en banc or in Division shall be reached in consultation before the
case is assigned by raffle to a Member for the writing of the opinion of the
Commission or the Division and a certification to this effect signed by the
Chairman or the Presiding Commissioner, as the case may be, shall be
incorporated in the decision. Any Member who took no part, or dissented,
or abstained from a decision or resolution must state the reason therefor.
Every decision shall express therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the
law on which it is based.

No minute resolution resolving a case shall be rendered if evidence

has been adduced and received.

When in a given resolution or decision the writing of an extended

opinion is reserved, the extended opinion shall be released within fifteen
(15) days after the promulgation of the resolution. If an extended opinion
is reserved in a decision or resolution, the period to file a petition for
certiorari with the Supreme Court or to file a motion for reconsideration
shall begin to run only from the date the aggrieved party received a copy
of the extended opinion.

The promulgation of a decision or resolution of the Commission or

a Division shall be made on a date previously fixed, of which notice shall
be served in advance upon the parties or their attorneys personally or by
registered mail or by telegram.

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.

i. Any case or matter submitted to or heard by the Commission en

banc shall be decided within thirty (30) days from the date it is
seemed submitted for decision or resolution, except a motion for
reconsideration of a decision or resolution of a Division in Special
Actions and Special Cases which shall be decided within fifteen
(15) days from the date the case or matter is deemed submitted for
decision, unless otherwise provided by law.
 ii. Any case or matter heard by a Division shall be decided within
ten (10) days from the date it is deemed submitted for decision or
resolution, except in Special Actions and Special Cases which shall
be decided or resolved within five (5) days from the date they are
deemed submitted for decision or resolution, unless otherwise
provided by law

A decision shall be deemed submitted when:

(a) A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution

upon the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum as required
in these Rules or by the Commission en banc or by a Division.

(b) However, if the hearing and reception of evidence are delegated to

any of its officials, the case or matter shall be deemed submitted for
decision as of the date of the receipt of the findings, report and
recommendation of the official so delegated.

D. Motions for Reconsideration

A motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order, or ruling of a

Division shall be filed within five (5) days from the promulgation thereof. Such
motion, if not proforma, suspends the execution or implementation of the
decision, resolution, order or ruling. It may be filed on the grounds that the
evidence is insufficient to justify the decision, order or ruling; or that the said
decision, order or ruling is contrary to law.

When a Motion for Reconsideration is not pro-forma, it suspends the

running of the period to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court.

Upon the filing of a motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or

ruling of a Division, the Clerk of Court concerned shall, within twenty-four (24)
hours from the filing thereof, notify the Presiding Commissioner. The latter
shall within two (2) days thereafter certify the case to the Commission en
banc.
 Afterwhich, the Clerk of Court concerned shall calendar the motion for
reconsideration for the resolution of the Commission en banc within ten (10)
days from the certification thereof.