TAN V COMELEC

1994 || Vitug, J.
Facts:

Petitioner Tan is an incumbent City

Prosecutor of Davao City. He was
designated by COMELEC as Vice Chairman
of the City Board of Canvassers of Davao
City for the Mayy 11 1992 Synchronized
National and Local Elections.

On the basis of votes canvassed by the

Board of Canvassers, Manuel Garcia was
proclaimed as the winning candidate for a
congressional seat to represent the Second
District of Davao City in the House of
Representatives.

Alterado, the losing candidate filed a

number of cases questioning the validity of
the proclamation of Manuel Garcia and
accusing the members of the Board of
Canvassers
of
unlawful,
erroneous,
incomplete and irregular canvass. HRET
dismissed the complained. The criminal
complaint for falsification of public
documents and violation of RA 3019 before
the Ombudsman was also dismissed for
lack of criminal intent.

However, still pending is an administrative

charge instituted in the COMELEC against
the Coity Board of Canvassers including
petitioner Tan for Misconduct, Neglect of
Duty, Gross Incompetence and Acts
Inimical to the Service

Petitioner Tan moved to dismiss the

administrative complaint against him for
lack of jurisdiction. His main argument is
that since he is under the Executive
Deaprtment, COMELEC has no jurisdiction
over him.

Tan contends in his petition that COMELEC

committed grave abuse of discretion
because:
(1) He is the City Prosecutor of Davao City.
Thus, he is under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Justice of the executive
vranch and not COMELEC;
(2) The Civil Service Law provides that
department
heads
shall
have
jurisdiction to investigate and decide
matters involving disciplinary action
against officers under their jurisdiction;
(3) Sectio 2, Article IX of the 1987
Constitution
which
authorizes
COMELEC to deputize public officers
belonging to the executive department
is for the purpose of insuring free,
orderly and honest elections. It does
not
include
and
comprehend
administrative disciplinary jurisdiction
over
officials
belonging
to
the
executive branch of government. That

jurisdiction over deputized executive

officers cannot be deemed to include
such
powers
as
would
allow
encroachment into the domain of the
executive branch under guise of
administering
laws
relative
to
elections;
Issue:/ Held:
Whether COMELEC has jurisdiction over the
administrative complaint against Prosecutor
Tan, a member of the City Board of
Canvassers? YES
Ratio:
COMELECs authority under Section 2(6-8),
Article IX of the Constituion is virtually all
encompassing when it comes to election
matters, In respect particularly to sanctions
against election offenses:
Sec. 2. COMELEC shall exercise the following
powers and functions
(6) 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.
(8) 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.
Section 52, Article VII of the Omnibus Election
Code likewise provides for the powers and
functions of the COMELEC:
Sec. 52. Powers and functions of COMELEC.- In
addition to the powers and functions conferred
upon it by the Constitution, the Commission
shall have exclusive charge of the enforcement
and administration of all laws relative to the
conduct of elections for the purpose of insuring
free, orderly and honest elections and shall:
a.

Exercise
direct
and
immediate
supervision and control over national
and local officials or employees,
including members of any national or
local law enforcement agency and
instrumentality of the government
required by law to perform duties
relative to the conduct of elelctions. In
addition, it may authorize CMP cadets
eighteen years of age and above to act
as its deputies for the purpose of
enforcing tis orders.

The Commission may relieve any

officer or employee refered to in the
preceding
paragraph
from
the
performance of his duties relating to
electoral processes who violates the
election law or fails to comply with its
instructions,
orders,
decisions
or
rulings, and appoint his substitute.
Upon
recommendation
of
the
Commission, the corresponding proper
authority shall suspend or remove from
office any or all of such officers or
employees who may after due process,
be found guilty of such violation or
failure.
The administrative case against Tan, taken
cognizance of by COMELEC is in relation to the
performance of his duties as an election
canvasser and not as city prosecutor.
The COMELECs mandate includes its authority
to exercise direct and immediate supervision
and control over national and local officials or
employees, including members of any national
or local law enforcement agency and
instrumentality of the government, required by
law to perform duties relative to the conduct of
elections.
In roder to help ensure that such duly
deputized
officials
and
employees
of
government carry out their respective assigned
tasks, the law has also provided that upon the
COMELECs
recommendation,
the
corresponding proper authority (DOJ in this
case) shall take appropriate action either to
suspend or remove from office the officer or
employee who may after due process, be found
guilty of violation of electon laws or failure to
comply with instructions, orders, decisions or
rulings of the COMELEC.
Unavoidably, the COMELEC prior to making its
recommendation must first satisfy itself that
there has been indeed an infraction of the law,
or its directives issued conformably therewith,
by the person administratively charged. Also,
COMELEC is in the best position to assess how
its deputized officials and employees perform
or have performed in their duties, that should
conduct the administrative inquiry.
TYo say that the COMELEC is without
jurisdiction to look into charges of election
offenses committed by officials and employees
of government outside the regular employ of
the COMELEC would be to deny to it the proper
and sound exercise of such recommendatory

power and a possible denial of due process to

the official or employee concerned.
Nevertheless, the COMELEC may merely issue
a recommendation for disciplinary action but it
its still the executive department to which the
charged official or employee belongs which has
the ultimate authority to impose disciplinary
penalty.
Lastly, there is no forum shopping committed
by Alterado because the proceedings before
the Ombudsman and the COMELEC are
independent of each other. An absolution from
a criminal charge is not a bar to an
administrative prosecution.

MONTEJO V COMELEC
1995 || Puno, J.
Facts:

Montejo, representative of the first district

of Leyte seeks to annul Sec. 1 of COMELEC
Resolution No. 2736 redistrciting certain
municipalities in Leyte on the ground that it
violates the principle of equality of
representation.. Thus, Montejo seeks to
transfer the municplaity of Tolosa from his
district to the second district of the
province. Apostol, representative of the 2nd
district opposed the inclusion of Tolosa in
his district.

Leyte initially had 5 legislative districts. By

virtue of RA 2141 enacted in 1959, the
municipality of Biliran belonging to the
third district became a subprovince. On
January 1, 1992, the Local Government
took effect and thus, Biliran became a
province because Sec. 462 of LGC provided
that existing subprovinces are converted
into regular provinces upon approval by a
majority of votes cast in a plebiscite to be
held in the subprovinces and the original
provinces directly affected. When Biliran
(belonging to the third district) was
converted into a regular province, the 3 rd
district was reduced to 5 municipalities
with a total population of 145, 067. One
municipality (Capoocan was removed from
the 2nd district and added to the 3 rd district.
Palompon was also removed from the 4th
district to be assigned to the 3rd district.

Montejo filed a motion for reconsideration

calling the attention of COMELEC to the
inequitable distribution of inhabitants and
voters between the 1st and 2nd districts. He
alleged that the first district has 178, 688
registered voters while the second district
has 156, 462 registered voters or a
difference of 22,226 registered voters.

COMELEC denied the motion ruling that:

(1) Its
adjustment
of
municipalities
involved the least disruption of the
territorial composition of each district
(2) Said adjustment complied with the
constitutional requirement that each
legislative district shall comprise as far
as practicable contiguous, compact
and adjacent territory.

Montejo now argues that Section 1 of

COMELEC Resolution 2736 violates the

principle of equality of representation

ordained in the Constitution.
Issue:/ Held:
Whether COMELEC Resolution 2736 which
redistricts certain municipalities in Leyte is
void? YES
Ratio:
RE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF COMELEC TO
TRANSFER
MUNICIPALITIES
FROM
ONE
LEGISLATIVE
DISTRCIT
TO
ANOTHER
LEGISLATIVE DISTRCIT IN THE PROVICNE OF
LEYTE:
The basic powers of COMELEC as enforcer and
administrator of election laws are spelled out in
Section 2(c), Article IX of the 1987
Consititution. And yet, COMELEC does not
invoke this provision and instead invokes the
Ordinance Appended to the 1987 Consititution
as the source of its power of redistricting which
is traditionally regarded as part of the power to
make laws. The Ordinance is entitled
Apportioning Seats of the Hpouse of
Representatives of the Congress of the
Philippines to the Different Legisaltive Districts
in Provicens and Cities and the Metropolitan
Manila Area.
The Ordinance was made necessary because
Proclamation No. 3 of Pres. Cory Aquino
ordaining the Provisional Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines abolished the
Batasang Pambansa. She then exercised
legislative powers under the Provisional
Constitution.
Section 2 of the Ordinance provides:
Sec. 2. The Commission on Elections is hereby
empowered to make minor adjustments of the
reapportionment herein made.
The Constitutional Commission denied to the
COMELEC the major power of legislative
apportionment as itself exercised the power.
Section 2 of the Ordinance only empowered the
COMELEC to make minor adjustments of the
reapportionment herein made. The meaning
of thr phrase minor adjustments was again
clarified in the debates of the Commission.

DAVIDE: The authority conferred would be on

minor corrections or amendments, meaning to
say, for instance, that we may have forgotten
an
intervening
municipality
in
the
enumeration , which ought to be include in one
district. That we shall consider a minor
amendment.
DE CASTRO: Can it be possible that one
municipality in a district be transferred to
another district and call it a minor adjustment?
DAVIDE: That cannot be done. Minor, meaning,
that there should be no change in the
allocation per district. Example of minor
change: There may be an error in the correct
name of a particular municipality because of
changes made by the interim Batasang
Pambansa
and
the
Regular
Batasang
Pambansa.
Consistent with the limits of its power to make
minor adjustments, Section 3 of the Ordinance
did not also give COMELEC any authority to
transfer municpilaties from one legislative
district to another district. The power granted
by Section 3 to COMELEC is to adjust the

number of members
(not municipalities)
apportioned to the province out of which such
new province was created
Thus, COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction
when it promulgate Section 1 of COMELEC
Resolution 2736 transferring the municipality of
Cappocan of the second district and the
municipality of Palompon of the 4 th district to
the 3rd district of Leyte.
The
issue
involves
a
problem
of
reapportionment of legislative districts and
Montejos remedy lies with Congress. Section 5
(4) Article GI of the Constitution categorically
gives Congress the power to reapportion, thus:
within 3 years following the return of every
census,
the
Congres
shall
make
a
reapportionment of legislative districts based
on the standards provided in this section.
However, the Court cannot by itself make the
reapportionment and thus cannot grant the
prayer of Montejo for Tolosa to be transferred
from the 1st district to the 2nd district.