1. Aratuc vs.

COMELEC

FACTS:
The instant proceedings are sequels of the Court’s decision in GR no. L-48097 wherein Aratuc et
al sought the suspension of the canvass then being undertaken by the respondent Board in Cotabato City.
The petitioners in the instant case filed complaints re allege irregularities in the election records
in the voting centers in the whole of Lanao Del Sur, Marawi, parts of Lanao del Norte, Maguindanao, North
Cotabato and Sultan Kudarat. Before the start of the hearings, the canvass was suspended but after the
supervisory panel presented its report, COMELEC filed its order of suspension and directed the
resumption of the canvass to be done in Manila. The petitioners presented their objection with supporting
handwritten report of finger print experts.
Soon after, the COMELEC rendered its resolution declaring the final result of the canvass. Hence,
this instant case.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the COMELEC grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

RULING:
NO. Under Section 168 of the Revised Election Code of 1978, “the Commission on Elections shall
have direct control and supervision over the board of canvassers”. Also, it was stated under administrative
law that a superior body or office having supervision or control over another may do directly what the
latter is supposed to do or ought to have done. The petition is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.