TITLE:

WILMER GREGO, petitioner, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND HUMBERTO BASCO,

respondents

G.R. NO. 125955 DATE: June 19, 1997

PONENTE: NATURE:
FACTS:

FACTS:

In 1981, Basco was removed from his position as Deputy Sheriff for serious misconduct. Subsequently,
he ran as a candidate for councilor in the Second District of the City of Manila during the 1988, local
elections. He won and assumed office. After his term, Basco sought re-election. Again, he won.
However, he found himself facing lawsuits filed by his opponents who wanted to dislodge him from his
position.

Petitioner argues that Basco should be disqualified from running for any elective position since he had
been “removed from office as a result of an administrative case” pursuant to Section 40 (b) of Republic
Act No. 7160.

For a third time, Basco was elected councilor in 1995. Expectedly, his right to office was again
contested. In 1995, petitioner Grego filed with the COMELEC a petition for disqualification. The
COMELEC conducted a hearing and ordered the parties to submit their respective memoranda.

However, the Manila City BOC proclaimed Basco in May 1995, as a duly elected councilor for the
Second District of Manila, placing sixth among several candidates who vied for the seats. Basco
immediately took his oath of office.

COMELEC resolved to dismiss the petition for disqualification. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of
said resolution was later denied by the COMELEC,, hence, this petition.

ISSUE/S:

1
ISSUE:

Whether or not COMELEC acted in with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for
disqualification.

DOCTRINES | HELD:

RULING:

RULING:

No. The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of COMELEC in dismissing the
petition for disqualification, however, the Court noted that they do not agree with its conclusions and
reasons in the assailed resolution.

The Court reiterated that being merely an implementing rule, Sec 25 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure must not override, but instead remain consistent with and in harmony with the law it seeks to
apply and implement. Administrative rules and regulations are intended to carry out, neither to supplant
nor to modify, the law. The law itself cannot be extended to amending or expanding the statutory
requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute. An administrative agency cannot amend
an act of Congress.

In case of discrepancy between the basic law and a rule or regulation issued to implement said law, the
basic law prevails because said rule or regulations cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the
basic law. Since Section 6 of Rep. Act 6646, the law which Section 5 of Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules
of Procedure seeks to implement, employed the word “may,” it is, therefore, improper and highly
irregular for the COMELEC to have used instead the word “shall” in its rules.

Still, the Court DISMISSED the petition for lack of merit.

NOTES: