G.R. No.

192474               June 26, 2012 reinstated in the voter's list pending resolution of the petition.

ROMEO M. JALOSJOS, JR., Petitioner, Jalosjos filed  his Certificate of Candidacy for the position of
vs.
Representative of the Second District of Zamboanga Sibugay for
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and DAN ERASMO,
SR., Respondents. the May 2010 national elections. This prompted Erasmo to file a
petition with the COMELEC to deny or cancel said COC. His
petition was denied by the COMELEC for insufficiency in form and
substance.
FACTS:

Pending Erasmo's motion for reconsideration before the

While serving as Mayor of Tampilasan Zamboanga del Norte,
COMELEC en banc, Jalosjos won the elections and was proclaimed
Petitioner, Romeo Jalosjos sought the transfer of his voter's
representative.
registration record to Precint 0051F of Barangay Veterans Village,
Zamboanga Sibugay.
Meanwhile, CA rendered in his favor judgement on the pending
petition. Erasmo filed a petition for review of the CA's decision
Dan Erasmo filed a petition with the MCTC which rendered
before the Supreme Court.
judgement excluding Jalosjos from the list of voters in question on
the ground that he did not abandon his domicile in Tampilasan
Thereafter, COMELEC en banc granted Erasmo's motion anf
and is still the incumbent mayor.
declared Jalosjos ineligible to seek election as representative for
not satisfying the residency requirement because of his
Jalosjos appealed the decision to the RTC but the MCTC ruling was
incumbency as mayor of Tampilisan.
affirmed.

Thus, the instant petition.

Through a petition for certiorari with an application for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, Jalosjos elevated the
ISSUE:
case to the CA. His application was granted and his name was
Whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to pass upon On election day of 2010 the COMELEC En Banc had as yet to
the question of Jalosjos’ residency qualification considering that resolve Erasmo’s appeal from the Second Division’s dismissal of
he has been proclaimed winner in the election and has assumed the disqualification case against Jalosjos.  Thus, there then existed
the discharge of that office. no final judgment deleting Jalosjos’ name from the list of
candidates for the congressional seat he sought.  The last standing
RULING: official action in his case before election day was the ruling of the
COMELEC’s Second Division that allowed his name to stay on that
While the Constitution vests in the COMELEC the power to decide list.  Meantime, the COMELEC En Banc did not issue any order
all questions affecting elections, such power is not without suspending his proclamation pending its final resolution of his
limitation.  It does not extend to contests relating to the election, case.  With the fact of his proclamation and assumption of office,
returns, and qualifications of members of the House of any issue regarding his qualification for the same, like his alleged
Representatives and the Senate.  The Constitution vests the lack of the required residence, was solely for the HRET to consider
resolution of these contests solely upon the appropriate Electoral and decide.
Tribunal of the Senate or the House of Representatives.
Consequently, the Court holds in G.R. 192474 that the COMELEC
The proclamation of a congressional candidate following the En Banc exceeded its jurisdiction in declaring Jalosjos ineligible
election divests COMELEC of jurisdiction over disputes relating to for the position of representative for the Second District of
the election, returns, and qualifications of the proclaimed Zamboanga Sibugay, which he won in the elections, since it had
Representative in favor of the HRET. ceased to have jurisdiction over his case.  Necessarily, Erasmo’s
petitions (G.R. 192704 and G.R. 193566) questioning the validity
After Jalosjos' proclamation, the COMELEC acted without of the registration of Jalosjos as a voter and the COMELEC’s
jurisdiction when it still passed upon the issue of his qualification failure to annul his proclamation also fail.  The Court cannot usurp
and declared him ineligible for the office of Representative of the the power vested by the Constitution solely on the HRET.
Second District of Zamboanga Sibugay.
Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the
respondent COMELEC En Banc’s order, and REINSTATES the
Commission’s Second Division resolution.
G.R. Nos. 179431-32               June 22, 2010
LUIS K. LOKIN, JR., as the second nominee of CITIZENS
BATTLE AGAINST CORRUPTION (CIBAC), Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and the HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, Respondents.
FACTS: The Citizen’s Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC), a duly
registered party-list organization, manifested their intent to
participate in the May 14, 2004 synchronized national and local
elections. They submitted a list of five nominees from which its
representatives would be chosen should CIBAC obtain the number
of qualifying votes. However, prior to the elections, the list of
nominees was amended: the nominations of the petitioner Lokin,
Sherwin Tugna and Emil Galang were withdrawn; Armi Jane Borje
was substituted; and Emmanuel Joel Villanueva and Chinchona
Cruz-Gonzales were retained.
Election results showed that CIBAC was entitled to a second seat
and that Lokin, as second nominee on the original list, to a
proclamation, which was opposed by Villanueva and Cruz-
Gonzales.
The COMELEC resolved the matter on the validity of the
amendment of the list of nominees and the withdrawal of the
nominations of Lokin, Tugna and Galang. It approved the
amendment of the list of nominees with the new order as follows:
1. Emmanuel Joel Villanueva
2. Cinchona Cruz-Gonzales
3. Armi Jane Borje
The COMELEC en banc proclaimed Cruz-Gonzales as the official
second nominee of CIBAC. Cruz-Gonzales took her oath of office as
a Party-List Representative of CIBAC.
Lokin filed a petition for mandamus to compel respondent
COMELEC to proclaim him as the official second nominee of
CIBAC. Likewise, he filed another petition for certiorari assailing
Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 alleging that it expanded
Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941 by allowing CIBAC to change its
nominees.
ISSUES:  different causes of action and the reliefs they sought were
1. Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction over the controversy;
2. Whether or not Lokin is guilty of forum shopping;
3. Whether or not Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 is
unconstitutional and violates the Party-List System Act; and
4. Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in approving
the withdrawal of the nominees of CIBAC and allowing the
amendment of the list of nominees of CIBAC without any basis in
fact or law and after the close of polls.
RULING: The Court ruled that it had jurisdiction over the case.
Lokin’s case is not an election protest nor an action for quo
warranto. Election protest is a contest between the defeated and
the winning candidates, based on the grounds of electoral frauds
and irregularities, to determine who obtained the higher number
of votes entitling them to hold the office. On the other hand, a
special civil action for quo warranto questions the ineligibility of
the winning candidate. This is a special civil action for certiorari
against the COMELEC to seek the review of the resolution of the
COMELEC in accordance with Section 7 of Article IX-A of the 1987
Constitution.
Petitioner is not guilty of forum shopping because the filing of the
action for certiorari and the action for mandamus are based on
different. Forum shopping consists of the filing of multiple suits
involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either
simultaneously or successively to obtain a favorable judgment.
The Court held that Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 was invalid.
The COMELEC issued Resolution No. 7804 as an implementing
rules and regulations in accordance with the provisions of the
Omnibus Election Code and the Party-List System Act. As an
administrative agency, it cannot amend an act of Congress nor
issue IRRs that may enlarge, alter or restrict the provisions of the
law it administers and enforces. Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941
provides that: Each registered party, organization or coalition
shall submit to the COMELEC not later than forty-five (45) days Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 expanded the exceptions under
before the election a list of names, not less than five (5), from Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941 when it provided four instances by
which party-list representatives shall be chosen in case it obtains adding “nomination is withdrawn by the party” as statutory
the required number of votes. ground for substituting a nominee. COMELEC had no authority to
A person may be nominated in one (1) list only. Only persons who expand, extend, or add anything to law it seeks to implement. An
have given their consent in writing may be named in the list. The IRR should remain consistent with the law it intends to carry out
list shall not include any candidate of any elective office or a not override, supplant or modify it. An IRR adopted pursuant to
person who has lost his bid for an elective office in the the law is itself law but in case of conflict between the law and the
immediately preceding election. No change of names or IRR, the law prevails.
alteration of the order of nominees shal be allowed after the same
shall have been submitted to the COMELEC except in cases where The petitions for certiorari and mandamus were granted. Section
the nominee dies, or withdraws in writing his nomination, 13 of Resolution No. 7804  was declared invalid and of no effect to
becomes incapacitated in which case the name of the substitute the extent that it authorizes a party-list organization to withdraw
nominee shall be placed last in the list. Incumbent sectoral its nomination of  a nominee once it has submitted the nomination
representatives in the House of Representatives who are to the COMELEC.
nominated in the party-list system shall not be considered
resigned.
The above provision is clear and unambiguous and expresses a
single and definite meaning, there is no room for interpretation or
construction but only for application. Section 8 clearly prohibits
the change of nominees and alteration of the order in the list of
nominees’ names after submission of the list to the COMELEC. It
enumerates only three instances in which an organization can
substitute another person in place of the nominee whose name has
been submitted to the COMELEC : (1) when the nominee fies; (2)
when the nominee withdraws in writing his nomination; and (3)
when the nominee becomes incapacitated. When the statute
enumerates the exception to the application of the general rule, the
exceptions are strictly but reasonably construed.

G.R. No. 178413             March 13, 2008
AQUILINO L. PIMENTEL III, petitioner,
vs.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC SITTING
AS THE NATIONAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS, THE
SPECIAL PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS FOR
MAGUINDANAO CHAIRED BY ATTY. EMILIO S.
SANTOS, and JUAN MIGUEL F. ZUBIRI, respondents.
Facts : The Petition stemmed from the 14 May 2007 national
elections for 12 senatorial posts. At the time of filing of the
Petition, around two months after the said elections, the 11
candidates with the highest number of votes had already been
officially proclaimed and had taken their oaths of office as
Senators. With other candidates conceding, the only remaining
contenders for the twelfth and final senatorial post were Pimentel
and private respondent Juan Miguel F. Zubiri (Zubiri). Public
respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc, acting
as the National Board of Canvassers (NBC), continued to conduct
canvass proceedings so as to determine the twelfth and last
Senator-elect in the 14 May 2007 elections.
Pimentel assailed the proceedings before the NBC and its
constituted Special Provincial Board of Canvassers for
Maguindanao (SPBOC-Maguindanao) in which the Provincial and
Municipal Certificates of Canvass (PCOC and MCOCs) from the
province of Maguindanao were respectively canvassed. The
SPBOC-Maguindanao was created because the canvass
proceedings held before the original Provincial Board of
Canvassers for Maguindanao (PBOC-Maguindanao)
Task Force Maguindanao, headed by COMELEC Chairman
Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr. and Commissioner Nicodemo T. Ferrer,
retrieved and collected 21 MCOCs from the municipalities of
Maguindanao, mostly copy 2, or the copy intended to be posted on
the wall. Due to the consistent denial by the SPBOC-Maguindanao
of the repeated and persistent motions made by Pimentel’s counsel
to propound questions to PES Bedol and the Chairpersons of the
MBOCs-Maguindanao regarding the due execution and
authenticity of the Maguindanao MCOCs, Pimentel’s counsel
manifested her continuing objection to the canvassing of the said
MCOCs.
On 29 June 2007, the SPBOC-Maguindanao submitted to the NBC
the second PCOC for Maguindanao. In the proceedings before the
NBC, Pimentel’s counsel reiterated her request to propound
questions to PES Bedol and the Chairpersons of the MBOCs-
Maguindanao and the SPBOC-Maguindanao. The NBC, however,
refused to grant her request. Pimentel’s counsel thereafter moved
for the exclusion of the second Maguindanao PCOC from the
canvass
Pimentel averred that said canvass proceedings were conducted by
the NBC and SPBOC-Maguindanao in violation of his
constitutional rights to substantive and procedural due process
and equal protection of the laws, and in obvious partiality to Zubiri
In the meantime, without any TRO and/or Status Quo Ante Order
from the Court, the canvass proceedings before the NBC
continued, and by 14 July 2007, Zubiri (with 11,004,099 votes)
and Pimentel (with 10,984,807 votes) were respectively ranked as
the twelfth and thirteenth Senatorial candidates with the highest
number of votes in the 14 May 2007 elections.
After a close scrutiny of the allegations, arguments, and evidence
presented by all the parties before this Court, this Court rules to
dismiss the present Petition
ISSUE
HELD : A pre-proclamation controversy has been defined by Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus Election
Code of the Philippines, as follows:
SEC. 241. Definition. – A pre-proclamation controversy is any
question pertaining to or affecting the proceeding of the board of
canvassers which may be raised by any candidate or by any
registered political party or coalition of political parties before the
board or directly with the Commission, or any matter raised under
Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 in relation to the preparation,
transmission, receipt, custody and appearance of the election
returns.
Under Republic Act No. 7166, providing for synchronized national
and local elections, pre-proclamation controversies refer to
matters relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody
and appearance of election returns and certificates of canvass
Similarly, the COMELEC en banc acting as the NBC for the
election for Senators, did not violate Section 30 of Republic Act
No. 7166, as amended by Republic Act No. 9369, when it denied
Pimentel’s request to question PES Bedol and the Chairpersons of
the MBOCs-Maguindanao and SPBOC-Maguindanao, and his
subsequent motion to exclude the second Maguindanao PCOC.
The SPBOC-Maguindanao, in the conduct of its canvass
proceedings, properly refused to allow Pimentel to contest the
Maguindanao MCOCs at that stage by questioning PES Bedol and
the Chairpersons of the MBOCs-Maguindanao and presenting
evidence to prove the alleged manufactured nature of the said
MCOCs, for such would be tantamount to a pre-proclamation case
still prohibited by Section 15 of Republic Act No. 7166, even after
its amendment by Republic Act No. 9369.
According to Section 30 of Republic Act No. 7166, as amended by
Republic Act No. 9369, Congress and the COMELEC en banc,
acting as the NBC, shall determine the authenticity and due
execution of the certificates of canvass for President, Vice-
President and Senators, respectively, as accomplished and
transmitted to them by the local boards of canvassers. For the
province of Maguindanao, it is the PBOC which transmits the
PCOC to the NBC.
Given the foregoing, there is indeed no merit in Pimentel’s request
before the NBC to still question PES Bedol and the Chairpersons of
the MBOCs-Maguindanao and SPBOC-Maguindanao regarding the
Maguindanao MCOCs. There is also no reason to exclude the
second Maguindanao PCOC from the national canvass of votes for
Senators after its authenticity and due execution had been
determined by the NBC in accordance with the criteria provided by
the law.
additional exception to the prohibition against pre-proclamation
controversies in elections for President, Vice-President, and
Senators, this Court has already established in the preceding
discussion that Pimentel cannot invoke the same in his Petition.
The provisions in question did not materially change the nature of
canvass proceedings before the boards of canvassers, which still
remain summary and administrative in nature for the purpose of
canvassing the votes and determining the elected official with as
little delay as possible and in time for the commencement of the
new term of office

This Court finds Pimentel’s argument of deprivation of due process

problematic since he has not established what he is being deprived
of: life, liberty, or property. He was a candidate in the senatorial
elections. At the time he filed the instant Petition, he might have
been leading in the canvassing of votes, yet the canvass
proceedings were still ongoing, and no winner for the twelfth and
last senatorial post had been proclaimed. May he already claim a
right to the elective post prior to the termination of the canvass
proceedings and his proclamation as winner, and may such a right
be considered a property right which he cannot be deprived of
without due process? These were clearly substantial and weighty
issues which Pimentel did not address. Unfortunately, this Court
cannot argue and settle them for him.

Finally, while Section 15, in relation to Section 30, of Republic Act

No. 7166, as amended by Republic Act No. 9369, did introduce an
G.R. Nos. 166143-47             November 20, 2006 G.R. No. 192474               June 26, 2012

ABDUSAKUR M. TAN and BASARON ROMEO M. JALOSJOS, JR., Petitioner,

BURAHAN, Petitioners, vs.
vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and DAN ERASMO,
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE PROVINCIAL SR., Respondents.
BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF SULU, THE MUNICIPAL
BOARDS OF CANVASSERS OF MAIMBUNG, LUUK, x-----------------------x
TONGKIL, PANAMAO, ALL PROVINCE OF SULU,
BENJAMIN LOONG and NUR-ANA G.R. No. 192704
SAHIDULLA, Respondents.
DAN ERASMO, SR., Petitioner,
vs.
ROMEO M. JALOSJOS, JR. and HON. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, Respondents.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 193566

DAN ERASMO, SR., Petitioner,

vs.
ROMEO M. JALOSJOS, JR., Respondent.

FACTS:

While serving as Mayor of Tampilasan Zamboanga del Norte,

Petitioner, Romeo Jalosjos sought the transfer of his voter's
registration record to Precint 0051F of Barangay Veterans Village, representative.
Zamboanga Sibugay.
Meanwhile, CA rendered in his favor judgement on the pending
Dan Erasmo filed a petition with the MCTC which rendered petition. Erasmo filed a petition for review of the CA's decision
judgement excluding Jalosjos from the list of voters in question on before the Supreme Court.
the ground that he did not abandon his domicile in Tampilasan
and is still the incumbent mayor. Thereafter, COMELEC en banc granted Erasmo's motion anf
declared Jalosjos ineligible to seek election as representative for
Jalosjos appealed the decision to the RTC but the MCTC ruling was not satisfying the residency requirement because of his
affirmed. incumbency as mayor of Tampilisan.

Through a petition for certiorari with an application for the Thus, the instant petition.
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, Jalosjos elevated the
case to the CA. His application was granted and his name was ISSUE:
reinstated in the voter's list pending resolution of the petition.
Whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to pass upon
Jalosjos filed  his Certificate of Candidacy for the position of the question of Jalosjos’ residency qualification considering that
Representative of the Second District of Zamboanga Sibugay for he has been proclaimed winner in the election and has assumed
the May 2010 national elections. This prompted Erasmo to file a the discharge of that office.
petition with the COMELEC to deny or cancel said COC. His
petition was denied by the COMELEC for insufficiency in form and RULING:
substance.
While the Constitution vests in the COMELEC the power to decide
Pending Erasmo's motion for reconsideration before the all questions affecting elections, such power is not without
COMELEC en banc, Jalosjos won the elections and was proclaimed limitation.  It does not extend to contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of members of the House of
Representatives and the Senate.  The Constitution vests the
resolution of these contests solely upon the appropriate Electoral
Tribunal of the Senate or the House of Representatives.
The proclamation of a congressional candidate following the
election divests COMELEC of jurisdiction over disputes relating to
the election, returns, and qualifications of the proclaimed
Representative in favor of the HRET.
After Jalosjos' proclamation, the COMELEC acted without
jurisdiction when it still passed upon the issue of his qualification
and declared him ineligible for the office of Representative of the
Second District of Zamboanga Sibugay.
On election day of 2010 the COMELEC En Banc had as yet to
resolve Erasmo’s appeal from the Second Division’s dismissal of
the disqualification case against Jalosjos.  Thus, there then existed
no final judgment deleting Jalosjos’ name from the list of
candidates for the congressional seat he sought.  The last standing
official action in his case before election day was the ruling of the
COMELEC’s Second Division that allowed his name to stay on that
list.  Meantime, the COMELEC En Banc did not issue any order
suspending his proclamation pending its final resolution of his
case.  With the fact of his proclamation and assumption of office,
any issue regarding his qualification for the same, like his alleged
lack of the required residence, was solely for the HRET to consider
and decide.
Consequently, the Court holds in G.R. 192474 that the COMELEC
En Banc exceeded its jurisdiction in declaring Jalosjos ineligible
for the position of representative for the Second District of
Zamboanga Sibugay, which he won in the elections, since it had
ceased to have jurisdiction over his case.  Necessarily, Erasmo’s
petitions (G.R. 192704 and G.R. 193566) questioning the validity
of the registration of Jalosjos as a voter and the COMELEC’s
failure to annul his proclamation also fail.  The Court cannot usurp
the power vested by the Constitution solely on the HRET.
Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the
respondent COMELEC En Banc’s order, and REINSTATES the
Commission’s Second Division resolution.
G.R. No. 207264               June 25, 2013
REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JOSEPH SOCORRO
B. TAN, Respondents.
taken her oath, she has not yet assumed office. The Constitution
provides that the assumption of office is at noon on the thirtieth
day of June next following their election.  Reyes has not assumed
office yet, hence COMELEC still has jurisdiction.

Facts. Reyes was running as representative of Marinduque. Tan, a

registered voter, filed in COMELEC a petition to deny Reyes a
Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for material misrepresentation on
her status, birthdate, residence, and citizenship. COMELEC
granted Tan’s petition and cancelled Reyes’s COC. Reyes filed an
MR. COMELEC en banc dismissed it.

Incidentally, four days after the COMELEC en banc decision,

Reyes won the election. On June 5, 2013, the House of
Representatives proclaimed her the winner and thereafter she took
her oath. She is yet to assume office.

Reyes filed in the present court arguing that HRET, not

COMELEC, has jurisdiction.

Issue. Does the COMELEC has jurisdiction? -Yes

Ratio. COMELEC has jurisdiction because Reyes is not a member

of the House yet. To be member of the House, the representative
should have been proclaimed, taken her oath, and assumed office.
In this case, although Reyes has indeed been proclaimed and had
G.R. No. 196355               September 18, 2012
BIENVENIDO WILLIAM D. LLOREN, Petitioner,
vs.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ROGELIO PUA,
JR., Respondents.
FACTS: Petitioner Bienvenido William Lloren (Lloren) and
respondent Rogelio Pua, Jr. (Pua) were the candidates for Vice-
Mayor of the Municipality of Inopacan, Leyte in the May 10, 2010
Automated National and Local Elections. The Municipal Board of
Canvassers proclaimed Pua as the winning candidate with a
plurality of 752 votes for garnering 5,682 votes as against Lloren's
4,930 votes.
pertinently provides as follows: "Section 10. Contents of the
protest or petition. xxxx c. An election protest shall also state: (ii)
the total number of precincts in the municipality."
As the findings of the RTC show, petitioner did not indicate the
total number of precincts in the municipality in his election
protest. The omission rendered the election protest insufficient in
form and content, and warranted its summary dismissal, in
accordance with Section 12, Rule 2 of the Rules in A.M. No. 10-4-1-
SC, to wit: "(b) The petition is insufficient in form and content as
required under Section 10."

Alleging massive vote-buying, intimidation, defective PCOS

machines in all the clustered precincts, election fraud, and other
election-related manipulations, Lloren commenced an election
protest before the RTC. Lloren, however, failed to indicate in his
petition the total number of precincts in the municipality where he
ran as vice-mayor. Thus, the RTC dismissed the election protest
for insufficiency in form and substance. Both the COMELEC First
Division and the COMELEC En Banc dismissed Lloren's appeal.

ISSUE: Should Lloren's election protest prosper?

HELD: Section 10(c), Rule 2 of the Rules in A.M. No. 10-4-1-SC

G.R. No. 118861 April 27, 1995
EMMANUEL M. RELAMPAGOS, petitioner,
vs.
ROSITA C. CUMBA and the COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, respondents.
Facts: In the synchronized elections of May 11, 1992, the
petitioner and private respondent were candidates for the position
of Mayor in the municipality of Magallanes, Agusan del Norte. The
latter was proclaimed the winning candidate. Unwilling to accept
defeat, the petitioner filed an election protest with the RTC of
Agusan del Norte. On June 29, 1994, the trial court, per Judge
Rosario F. Dabalos, found the petitioner to have won with a
margin of six votes over the private respondent and rendered
judgement in favor of the petitioner.
The private respondent appealed the decision to the COMELEC
which was later on given a due course by the trial court. The
petitioner then filed with the trial court a motion for execution
pending appeal. The trial court granted the petitioner's motion for
execution pending appeal despite the opposition of the private
respondent. The corresponding writ of execution was forthwith
issued. Thereafter, the private respondent filed a motion for a
reconsideration which was later on denied. The private respondent
then filed with the respondent COMELEC a petition
for certiorari to annul the aforesaid order of the trial court
granting the motion for execution pending appeal and the writ of
execution. The COMELEC granted the petition on February 9,
1995, ordering the petitioner Rosita Cumba is ordered restored to
her position as Municipality Mayor of Magallanes, Agusan del
Norte, upholding its exclusive authority to decide petitions
for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus where the COMELEC
maintains that there is a special law granting it such jurisdiction
Section 50 of B.P. Blg. 697, which remains in full force as it was
not expressly repealed by the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg.
881).
Issue: Whether or not the Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
has jurisdiction over petitions for, certiorari, prohibition,
and mandamus in election cases where it has exclusive appellate
jurisdiction
Held: Section 50 of B.P. Blg. 697 remains in full force and effect
but only in such cases where, under paragraph (2), Section 1,
Article IX-C of the Constitution, it has exclusive appellate
jurisdiction. Simply put, the COMELEC has the authority to issue
the extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition,
and mandamus only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
G.R. No. L-12596             July 31, 1958
JOSE L. GUEVARA, petitioner,
vs.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
FACTS:
Guevara was ordered by the COMELEC to show cause why he
should not be punished for contempt for having published in the
newspaper an article which tended to interfere with and influence
the COMELEC awarding the contracts for the manufacture and
supply of ballot boxes; and which article likewise tended to
degrade, bring into disrepute, and undermine the exclusive
constitutional function of this Commission and its Chairman.
Petitioner, filed a motion to quash on the following ground that the
Commission has no jurisdiction to punish as contempt the
publication of the alleged contemptuous article, as neither in the
Constitution nor in statutes is the Commission granted a power to
so punish the same.
Although the negotiation conducted by the Commission has
resulted in controversy between several dealers that however
merely refers to a ministerial duty, which the Commission has
performed in its administrative capacity. It only discharged a
ministerial duty; it did not exercise any judicial function. Such
being the case, it could not exercise the power to punish for
contempt as postulated in the law, for such power is inherently
judicial in nature. As this Court has aptly said: “The power to
punish for contempt is inherent in all courts; its existence is
essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings, and
to the enforcement of judgments, orders and mandates of courts,
and, consequently, in the administration of justice”. We are
therefore persuaded to conclude that the Commission on Elections
has no power nor authority to submit petitioner to contempt
proceedings if its purpose is to discipline him because of the
publication of the article mentioned in the charge under
consideration.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the COMELEC has the power and jurisdiction to
conduct contempt proceedings against Guevara in connection with
the publication of an article.

HELD:
G.R. No. 150469               July 3, 2002 Whether or not the result of the special election was valid due to
the transfer of polling places in adjacent areas.
MAYOR JUN RASCAL CAWASA, COUNCILORS
MAASIRAL DAMPA, H. ACKIL MAMANTUC, HELD:
MOMOLAWAN MACALI, ANDAR TALI, ALLAN No. The Comelec ruled that the result of the special elections in the
SANAYON, and AMIN SANGARAN, petitioners, 4 contested precincts were declared annulled, so as the
vs. proclamation of the winning candidates, as such election was not
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ABDULMALIK genuinely held and resulted in failure to elect on account of fraud.
M. MANAMPARAN, respondents. As clearly provided by the law, the location of polling places shall
be the same as that of the preceding regular election. While the
proclamation of a candidate has the effect of terminating pre-
FACTS: proclamation issues, a proclamation that is a result of an illegal act
is void and cannot be ratified by such proclamation and
Jun Rascal Cawasa and private respondent Adbulmalik M. subsequent assumption of office.
Manamparan were among the candidates for mayor in the
Municipality of Nunungan, Lanao Del Norte. Out of the forty (40)
precincts in Nunungan, only thirty-six (36) functioned, as there
was a failure of election in the remaining four (4) precincts. Thus
the proclamation was deferred as the number of registered voters
would affect the election results. A special election was set for the
remaining (4) precincts. After the special election, Cawasa was
proclaimed Mayor. Manamparan filed an appeal and petition for
the annulment of the proclamation of petitioner Cawasa and for
the annulment of the special election results. The Comelec en banc
promulgated a resolution annulling the results of the special
elections of the 4 precincts and annulling the proclamation of the
winning candidates.
ISSUE:
G.R. No. 192249               April 2, 2013
SALIC DUMARPA, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
FACTS:
Dumarpa was a congressional candidate for the 1st District of
Lanao del Sur at the 10 May 2010 elections. The COMELEC
declared a total failure of elections in seven (7) municipalities,
including the three (3) Municipalities of Masiu, Lumba Bayabao
and Kapai, which are situated in the 1st Congressional District of
Province of Lanao del Sur. The conduct of special elections in the
seven (7) Lanao del Sur municipalities was originally scheduled for
29 May 2010.
On 25 May 2010, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8946, resetting
the special elections to 3 June 2010. Subsequently, COMELEC
issued the herein assailed resolution which provided, among
others, the constitution of Special Board of Election Inspectors
(SBEI) in Section 4 and Clustering of Precincts in Section 12.
Dumarpa filed a Motion for Reconsideration concerning only
Sections 4 and 12 thereof as it may apply to the Municipality of
Masiu, Lanao del Sur. The COMELEC did not act on Dumarpas
motion.
A day before the scheduled special elections, on 2 June 2010,
Dumarpa filed the instant petition alleging that "both provisions
on Re-clustering of Precincts (Section 12) and constitution of
SBEIs [Special Board of Election Inspectors] (Section 4) affect the
Municipality of Masiu, Lanao del Sur, and will definitely doom
petitioner to certain defeat, if its implementation is not restrained
or prohibited by the Honorable Supreme Court."
Parenthetically, at the time of the filing of this petition, Dumarpa
was leading by a slim margin over his opponent Hussin
Pangandaman in the canvassed votes for the areas which are part
of the 1st Congressional District of Lanao del Sur where there was
no failure of elections.
A temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction
was not issued. Thus, the special elections on 3 June 2010
proceeded as scheduled.
 regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite,
initiative, referendum and recall,carries with it all necessary and
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition has become moot and incidental powers for it to achieve the objective of holding free,
academic orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections.

HELD: Yes.
The Commission on Elections, by constitutional mandate, must do
Remedial Law- A moot and academic case is one that everything in its power to secure a fair and honest canvass of the
ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of votes cast in the elections. In the performance of its duties, the
supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would Commission must be given a considerable latitude in adopting
be of no practical value. means and methods that will insure the accomplishment of the
great objective for which it was created - to promote free, orderly,
Indeed, the special elections held on 3 June 2010 mooted the and honest elections. The choice of means taken by the
issues posed by Dumarpa. The opponent of Dumarpa, Hussin Commission on Elections, unless they are clearly illegal or
Pangandaman, was proclaimed winner in the 1st Congressional constitute grave abuse of discretion, should not be interfered with.
District of Lanao del Sur. We see this as a supervening event
which, additionally, mooted the present petition as the issues Dumarpas objections conveniently fail to take into account that
raised herein are resolvable in the election protest. COMELEC Resolution No. 8965, containing the assailed
provisions on re-clustering of the precincts and the designation of
In any event, the petition is unmeritorious. special board of election inspectors, was issued precisely because
of the total failure of elections in seven (7) Municipalities in the
Political law- COMELEC's power to enforce and Province of Lanao del Sur, a total of fifteen (15) Municipalities
administer all laws and regulations relative to the where there was a failure of elections. Notably, the COMELEC's
conduct of an election declaration of a failure of elections is not being questioned by
Dumarpa. In fact, he confines his objections on the re-clustering of
COMELEC issued the assailed Resolution, in the exercise of its precincts, and only as regards the Municipality of Masiu.
plenary powers in the conduct of elections enshrined in the
Constitution and statute. Thus, it brooks no argument that the
COMELEC's broad power to "enforce and administer all laws and Plainly, it is precisely to prevent another occurrence of a failure of
elections in the fifteen (15) municipalities in the province of Lanao
del Sur that the COMELEC issued the assailed Resolution No.
8965. The COMELEC, through its deputized officials in the field, is
in the best position to assess the actual condition prevailing in that
area and to make judgment calls based thereon. Too often,
COMELEC has to make snap judgments to meet unforeseen
circumstances that threaten to subvert the will of our voters. In the
process, the actions of COMELEC may not be impeccable, indeed,
may even be debatable.We cannot, however, engage in an
academic criticism of these actions often taken under very difficult
circumstances.

Petition dismissed.