AMBIL VS COMELEC

FACTS:
Petitioner and private respondent were candidates for the position of Governor,
Eastern Samar during the May 11, 1998 elections. The Provincial Board of
Canvassers proclaimed petitioner as the duly elected Governor. Private
respondent filed an election protest with the COMELEC, which was assigned to
the First Division.
Commissioner X prepared and signed a proposed resolution in the case.
Commissioner Y dissented, while Commissioner Z wanted to see both positions
first before giving her decision. On 2/15/00, Commissioner X retired and was
replaced. On 2/24/00, petitioner and respondent received a purported resolution
in favor of private respondent promulgated on 2/14/00 and signed by
Commissioners X, Y, and Z. The First Division later declared that the parties
should ignore the resolution since it was not yet promulgated. The Division later
set a date for promulgation of a resolution of the case, and said that the
aggrieved party could then challenge it through a Motion for Reconsideration
before the Commission en banc or through a certiorari case before the SC. The
petitioner filed this case to annul the order for the promulgation of the resolution
and to direct the First Division to deliberate anew on the case.
HELD:
The SC dismissed the case for prematurity. It ruled that it has no power to
review via certiorari, an interlocutory order or even a final resolution of a Division
of the Commission on Elections. The instant case does not fall under any of the
recognized exceptions to the rule in certiorari cases dispensing with a motion for
reconsideration prior to the filing of a petition. In truth, the exceptions do not
apply to election cases where a motion for reconsideration is mandatory by
Constitutional fiat to elevate the case to the Comelec en banc, whose final
decision is what is reviewable via certiorari before the Supreme Court.
The SC declared the resolution signed by Commissioner X as void for various
reasons. First, one who is no longer a member of the Commission at the time the
final decision or resolution is promulgated cannot validly take part in that
resolution or decision. Second, the Clerk of the 1st Division denied the release
or promulgation of the resolution on 2/14/00 resolution. Third, the 1st Division
even later said that the parties should ignore the resolution since it was not yet
promulgated. Lastly, Commissioner Z could not have affixed her signature on the
resolution, since on the same date an order was issued where she said that she
still wanted to see both positions before making her decision.