ARTICLE VII
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Sec. 52. Powers and functions of the Commission on
Elections. - 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 ensuring 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 elections. In
addition, it may authorize CMT cadets eighteen
years of age and above to act as its deputies for the
purpose of enforcing its orders.
The Commission may relieve any officer or
employee referred 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.
(b) During the period of the campaign and ending
thirty days thereafter, when in any area of the
country there are persons committing acts of
terrorism to influence people to vote for or against
any candidate or political party, the Commission
shall have the power to authorize any member or
members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines,
the National Bureau of Investigation, the
Integrated National Police or any similar agency or
instrumentality of the government, except civilian
home defense forces, to act as deputies for the
purpose of ensuring the holding of free, orderly
and honest elections.
(c) Promulgate rules and regulations implementing the
A. IN GENERAL
Section 52.1.—Constitutional provisions Cayetano vs Monsod
ARTICLE IX-C Monsod was allegedly not in active litigation, not an active
Section 1. practitioner.
1. There shall be a Commission on Elections composed Court held any activity involving the use of law is considered
of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be as being in the active practice of law
natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the
time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years
of age, holders of a college degree, and must not
have been candidates for any elective positions in
the immediately preceding elections. However, a Appointed by President; requires confirmation by Commission
majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be on Appointments for a term of 7 years
members of the Philippine Bar who have been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
2. The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be Staggered: 7, 5, 3
appointed by the President with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments for a term of seven
years without reappointment. Of those first
appointed, three Members shall hold office for
seven years, two Members for five years, and the
last Members for three years, without
reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall
be only for the unexpired term of the predecessor.
In no case shall any Member be appointed or
designated in a temporary or acting capacity.
Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the
following powers and functions:
1. Enforce and administer all laws and regulations
relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite,
initiative, referendum, and recall.
2. Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all
contests relating to the elections, returns, and
qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and
city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all
contests involving elective municipal officials
decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or
involving elective barangay officials decided by trial
courts of limited jurisdiction.
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission
on election contests involving elective municipal and
barangay offices shall be final, executory, and not
appealable.
 provisions of this Code or other laws which the
Commission is required to enforce and administer,
and require the payment of legal fees and collect
the same in payment of any business done in the
Commission, at rates that it may provide and fix in
its rules and regulations.
Rules and regulations promulgated by the
Commission to implement the provisions of this
Code shall take effect on the sixteenth day after
publication in the Official Gazette or in at least
daily newspapers of general circulation. Orders and
directives issued by the Commission pursuant to
said rules and regulations shall be furnished by
personal delivery to accredited political parties
within forty-eight hours of issuance and shall take
effect immediately upon receipt.  denominations and sects shall not be registered.
In case of conflict between rules, regulations,
orders or directives of the Commission in the
exercise of its constitutional powers and those
issued by any other administrative office or agency
of the government concerning the same matter
relative to elections, the former shall prevail.
(d) Summon the parties to a controversy pending
before it, issue subpoena and subpoena duces
tecum, and take testimony in any investigation or
hearing before it, and delegate such power to any
officer of the Commission who shall be a member
of the Philippine Bar. In case of failure of a witness
to attend, the Commission, upon proof of service of
the subpoena to said witnesses, may issue a
warrant to arrest witness and bring him before the
Commission or the officer before whom his
attendance is required.
Any controversy submitted to the Commission
shall, after compliance with the requirements of
due process, be immediately heard and decided by
it within sixty days from submission thereof. No
decision or resolution shall be rendered by the
Commission either en banc or by division unless
taken up in a formal session properly convened for
the purpose.
The Commission may, when necessary, avail of the
3. Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all
questions affecting elections, including
determination of the number and location of polling
places, appointment of election officials and
inspectors, and registration of voters.
4. Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law
enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the
Government, including the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, for the exclusive purpose of ensuring
free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible
elections.
5. Register, after sufficient publication, political parties,
organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to
other requirements, must present their platform or
program of government; and accredit citizens' arms
of the Commission on Elections. Religious
Those which seek to achieve their goals through
violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and
adhere to this Constitution, or which are supported
by any foreign government shall likewise be refused
registration.
Financial contributions from foreign governments
and their agencies to political parties, organizations,
coalitions, or candidates related to elections,
constitute interference in national affairs, and, when
accepted, shall be an additional ground for the
cancellation of their registration with the
Commission, in addition to other penalties that may
be prescribed by law.
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.
7. Recommend to the Congress effective measures to
minimize election spending, including limitation of
places where propaganda materials shall be posted,
and to prevent and penalize all forms of election
frauds, offenses, malpractices, and nuisance
candidacies.
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.
9. Submit to the President and the Congress, a
comprehensive report on the conduct of each
 assistance of any national or local law enforcement
agency and/or instrumentality of the government
to execute under its direct and immediate
supervision any of its final decisions, orders,
instructions or rulings.
(e) Punish contempts provided for in the Rules of
Court in the same procedure and with the same
penalties provided therein. Any violation of any
final and executory decision, order or ruling of the
Commission shall constitute contempt thereof.
(f) Enforce and execute its decisions, directives, orders
and instructions which shall have precedence over
those emanating from any other authority, except
the Supreme Court and those issued in habeas
corpus proceedings.  thereof, including any government-owned or controlled
(g) Prescribe the forms to be used in the election,
plebiscite or referendum.
(h) Procure any supplies, equipment, materials or
services needed for the holding of the election by
public bidding: Provided, That, if it finds the
requirements of public bidding impractical to
observe, then by negotiations or sealed bids, and in
both cases, the accredited parties shall be duly
notified.
(i) Prescribe the use or adoption of the latest
technological and electronic devices, taking into
account the situation prevailing in the area and the
funds available for the purpose: Provided, That the
Commission shall notify the authorized
representatives of accredited political parties and
candidates in areas affected by the use or adoption
of technological and electronic devices not less
than thirty days prior to the effectivity of the use of
such devices.  Section 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions
(j) Carry out a continuing and systematic campaign
through newspapers of general circulation, radios
and other media forms to educate the public and
fully inform the electorate about election laws,
procedures, decisions, and other matters relative
to the work and duties of the Commission and the
necessity of clean, free, orderly and honest
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or recall.
Section 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in
two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in
order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-
proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be
heard and decided in division, provided that motions for
reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the
Commission en banc.
Section 4. The Commission may, during the election period,
supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of all
franchises or permits for the operation of transportation and
other public utilities, media of communication or information,
all grants, special privileges, or concessions granted by the
Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
corporation or its subsidiary. Such supervision or regulation
shall aim to ensure equal opportunity, time, and space ,and
the right to reply, including reasonable, equal rates therefor,
for public information campaigns and forums among
candidates in connection with the objective of holding free,
orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.
Section 5. No pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension of
sentence for violation of election laws, rules, and regulations
shall be granted by the President without the favorable
recommendation of the Commission. (lumalabas sa bar)
Section 6. A free and open party system shall be allowed to
evolve according to the free choice of the people, subject to
the provisions of this Article.
Section 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party,
organization, or coalition shall be valid, except for those
registered under the party-list system as provided in this
Constitution.
registered under the party-list system, shall not be
represented in the voters' registration boards, boards of
election inspectors, boards of canvassers, or other similar
bodies. However, they shall be entitled to appoint poll
watchers in accordance with law.
Section 9. Unless otherwise fixed by the Commission in special
cases, the election period shall commence ninety days before
 electoral processes. the day of election and shall end thirty days thereafter.

(k) Enlist non-partisan group or organizations of
citizens from the civic, youth, professional,
educational, business or labor sectors known for
their probity, impartiality and integrity with the
membership and capability to undertake a
coordinated operation and activity to assist it in
the implementation of the provisions of this Code
and the resolutions, orders and instructions of the
Commission for the purpose of ensuring free,
orderly and honest elections in any constituency.
Such groups or organizations shall function under
the direct and immediate control and supervision
of the Commission and shall perform the following
specific functions and duties:
Section 10. Bona fide candidates for any public office shall be
free from any form of harassment and discrimination.
Section 11. Funds certified by the Commission as necessary to
defray the expenses for holding regular and special elections,
plebiscites, initiatives, referenda, and recalls, shall be provided
in the regular or special appropriations and, once approved,
shall be released automatically upon certification by the
Chairman of the Commission
Section 52.2.—Administrative Code provisions
Section 52.3.—Rules of Court

A. Before Election Day:

1. Undertake an information campaign on

salient features of this Code and help in
the dissemination of the orders, decisions
and resolutions of the Commission
relative to the forthcoming election.
2. Wage a registration drive in their
respective areas so that all citizens of
voting age, not otherwise disqualified by
law may be registered.
3. Help cleanse the list of voters of illegal
registrants, conduct house-to-house
canvass if necessary, and take the
appropriate legal steps towards this end. January 9-June 8 ang election period for the May 2022
4. Report to the Commission violations of elections
the provisions of this Code on the
conduct of the political campaign,
election propaganda and electoral
expenditures.

B. On Election Day:

1. Exhort all registered voters in their

respective areas to go to their polling
places and cast their votes.
2. Nominate one watcher for accreditation
in each polling place and each place of
canvass who shall have the same duties,
functions and rights as the other watchers
Section 52.4.—Legislative control
 of political parties and candidates.
Members or units of any citizen group or
organization so designated by the
Commission except its lone duly
accredited watcher, shall not be allowed
to enter any polling place except to vote,
and shall, if they so desire, stay in an area
at least fifty meters away from the polling
place.
3. Report to the peace authorities and other
appropriate agencies all instances of
terrorism, intimidation of voters, and
other similar attempts to frustrate the
free and orderly casting of votes.
4. Perform such other functions as may be
entrusted to such group or organization
by the Commission.
The designation of any group or
organization made in accordance
herewith may be revoked by the
Commission upon notice and hearing
whenever by its actuations such group or
organization has shown partiality to any
political party or candidate, or has
performed acts in excess or in
contravention of the functions and duties
herein provided and such others which
may be granted by the Commission.
(l) Conduct hearings on controversies pending before
it in the cities or provinces upon proper motion of
any party, taking into consideration the materiality
and number of witnesses to be presented, the
situation prevailing in the area and the fund
available for the purpose.
(m) Fix other reasonable periods for certain pre-
election requirements in order that voters shall not
be deprived of their right of suffrage and certain
groups of rights granted them in this Code.
Unless indicated in this Code, the Commission is
hereby authorized for fix the appropriate period
for the various prohibited acts enumerated herein,
consistent with the requirements of free, orderly,
and honest elections.
Constitution:
Art. IX-A, Sec. 8. Each Commission shall perform such other
functions as may be provided by law.
Section 52.5.—History and purpose of Comelec
Commonwealth Act No. 607, Aug. 22, 1940
Dean Sinco: an independent body could better protect the
right of suffrage of our people. Hence, the enforcement of our
election laws, with an executive power, was transferred to the
Comelec.w
166. Pangarungan v. Comelec, 216 SCRA 522 (1992)
Facts: Petitioner and the private respondent were candidates
for the Office of the Provincial Governor of Lanao del Sur in
the 11 May 1992 elections. The private respondent objected
to the inclusion of the Certificate of Canvass. Nonetheless, the
Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) relied on the
Investigation Report of Atty. Clarita Callar and decided not to
include in the court/canvass the Certificate of Canvass of
Madamba said having been substituted and spurious. The
COMELEC, thereafter, ruled against the petitioner and quoted
the Callar Report despite the fact that Atty. Callar who was
never interviewed, questioned or interrogated by the
COMELEC.
Issue: Whether or not the exception of the hearsay rule
provided for under the Rules of Court can be applied in
election cases.
Ruling: Yes. Nowhere in petitioner’s pleadings did the
Supreme Court find any objections to the Callar report.
Petitioner purposely omitted the argument that the Callar
report is "hearsay because he knew only too well that the
Callar report is an official act of an officer of the COMELEC
made after an investigation conducted in the performance of
a lawful official duty. It thus enjoys the presumption of
regularity. More importantly, the Callar report falls under
Section 44, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court which provides for
an exception to the hearsay rule. The Rules of Court apply
suppletorily to proceedings before the COMELEC.
167. Occena v. Comelec, 95 SCRA 775 (1980)
Facts: Petitioner filed a petition for prohibition seeking to
restrain respondents from implementing Batas Pambansa Blg.
51-54, all laws pertaining to the conduct of elections alleging
that the Interim Batasang Pambansa has no power to
authorize the holding of local elections, and assuming it has
such power, whether it can authorize said elections without
enacting a local government code.
Issue: Whether or not the legislative body (particularly the
Interim Batasang Pambansa) has the power to regulate the
manner of conducting elections.
Ruling: Yes. The power to regulate the manner of conducting
elections, to prescribe the form of the official ballot, and to
provide for the manner in which candidates shall be chosen is
inherently and historically legislative.
168. Loong v. Comelec, 305 SCRA 832 (1999)
FACTS: Votes in favor of a mayoralty candidate were not

Section 52.6.—Comelec as an independent constitutional
body
Art. XI-A, Sec. 1:
The Constitutional Commissions, which shall be independent,
… include the Commission on Elections.
Constitutional Provisions designed to secure such
independence:
1. The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be
appointed by the President with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments for a term of seven
years without reappointment. In no case shall any
Member be appointed or designated in a temporary
or acting capacity. (IX-C, Sec 1(2))
2. The salary of the Chairman and the Commissioners
shall be fixed by law and shall not be decreased
during their tenure. (IX-A, Sec 3)
3. Chairman and Commissioners can only be removed
by impeachment (XI, Sec 2)
4. Comelec appoints its own officials and employees
(IX-A, Sec4)
5. Enjoys fiscal autonomy; approved appropriations are
automatically released upon certification by the
Chairman (IX-A, Sec 5; IX-C, Sec 11)
reflected in the printed election returns in the municipality
of Pata, caused by the misalignment of the ovals opposite
the names of candidates in the local ballots. Thus, COMELEC
issued a resolution ordering a manual count therein.
Petitioner contends that the order for manual counting
violated R.A. No. 8436 (prescribing for the adoption of an
automated election system).
ISSUE: Whether or not Comelec’s order for the manual
counting of votes in Pata violated R.A. No. 8436.
RULING: NO. Section 2(1) of Article IX(C) of the Constitution
gives the COMELEC the broad power "to enforce and
administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of
an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall." The
COMELEC was organized under Commonwealth Act No. 607.
The power to enforce our election laws was originally vested
in the President and exercised through the Department of
Interior. However, an independent body could better protect
the right of suffrage of our people. Hence, the enforcement of
our election laws, while an executive power, was transferred
to the COMELEC. From a statutory creation, the COMELEC was
transformed to a constitutional body. Today, COMLEC
enforces and administers all laws and regulations relative to
the conduct of elections, plebiscites, initiatives, referenda and
recalls. Election contests involving regional, provincial and city
elective officials are under its exclusive original jurisdiction. All
contests involving elective municipal and barangay officials
are under its appellate jurisdiction.
169. Ututalum v. Comelec, 14 SCRA 465 (1965)
FACTS: Comelec issued the questioned resolution, which
provides for the holding of elections in certain precincts
in the municipalities of Tapul and Siasi, Sulu, on the
ground that the voters were terrorized away from the
polling places by gunfire. Ututalum alleges that the
Commission has no authority to direct the holding of
elections in the precincts mentioned therein.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Comelec was correct in
providing for the holding of elections in the said
municipalities.
RULING: NO. The authority to order the holding of
elections is legislative in character. The functions of the
Commission under the Constitution are essentially
executive and administrative in nature. Our fundamental
law has placed the agency charged with the enforcement
and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of
elections beyond the control of the Executive and
beyond the power of Congress to abolish it (the agency),

170. GAD v. Comelec, 150 SCRA 665 (1987)
171. Sumulong v. Comelec, 73 Phil. 288 (1941)
Section 52.7.—Composition; qualifications of Chairman and
members
IX-C Sec 1(1):
There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a
Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be:
1. natural-born citizens of the Philippines and,
2. at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five
years of age,
3. holders of a college degree, and
4. must not have been candidates for any elective
positions in the immediately preceding elections.
However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman,
shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been
172. Cayetano vs. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210, G.R. No. 100113
in addition to adopting other measures tending to give
thereto a reasonable degree of independence.
FACTS: In this special civil action for certiorari, Grand
Alliance for Democracy seeks to restrain respondent
COMELEC from canvassing the senatorial elections just
concluded and to declare a failure of such elections on
the ground of alleged irregularities in the conduct
thereof, among others, the said election body is claimed
to have conspired with the private respondents, official
candidates of the Lakas ng Bansa, to frustrate and falsify
the will of the electorate.
ISSUE/S: WON the Restraining Order against the
COMELEC should be issued.
RULING: No. The petition lacks merit and at best is
premature until after the COMELEC has heard and
resolved petitioner’s complained. The COMELEC should
be permitted to discharge its constitutional role without
obstruction or molestation, subject only to review by the
Supreme Court when and as the occasion may warrant.
FACTS: The Commission on Elections, acting under the
authority of section 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 657,
adopted a resolution providing for the appointment of
election inspectors to be proposed by the political parties
and persons named therein. He argues that under that
section 5 the Nationalista Party has the right to propose
one, and only one inspector for each precinct, and that
the COMELEC resolution has the effect of giving that
party two inspectors in each and every precinct within
those 53 legislative districts.
ISSUE/S: WON the Commission on Elections has acted
within the limits of the discretion given by section 5 of
Commonwealth Act No. 657 to the Commission on
Elections
RULING: YES. The Commission on Elections is a
constitutional body. In the discharge of its functions, it
should not be hampered with restrictions that would be
fully warranted in the case of a less responsible
organization. It should be allowed considerable latitude
in devising means and methods that will insure the
accomplishment of the objective for which it was created
– free, orderly and honest elections.
 engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
Section 52.8.—Appointment, term of office, and salary
IX-C Sec 1(1):
The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by
the President with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments for a term of seven years without
reappointment. Of those first appointed, three Members shall
hold office for seven years, two Members for five years, and
the last Members for three years, without reappointment.
Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired
term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be
appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.
XI Sec 2:
The Chairman and the Commissioners may be removed from
office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable
violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and
corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.
IX-A, Sec 3:
The salary of the Chairman and the Commissioners shall be
fixed by law and shall not be decreased during their tenure.
September 3, 1991
FACTS: Herein petitioner opposed the nomination of Christian
Monsod for COMELEC Chairman by the Former President
Corazon Aquino because he allegedly does not possess the
required qualification of having been engaged in the practice
of law for at least ten years. Monsod was a member of the Bar
since 1960.
ISSUE: Was the constitutional requirement of being “engaged
in the practice of law for at least ten years” satisfied?
RULING: YES. Atty. Monsod’s past work experiences as a
lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur
of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a Iawyer-
legislator of both the rich and the poor—verily more than
satisfy the constitutional requirement. Engaging in the
practice of law does not have to be habitual nor involve
courtroom practice.
173. Gaminde v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 140335,
December 13, 2000—p.88
174. Gaminde v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 140335,
December 13, 2000—p.89
FACTS: Petitioner, commission of CSC, remained in office even
after February 02, 1999, which is the date of expiration stated
in her appointment. She was appointed as such last June 11,
1993. She relied on the clarification from the Chief
Presidential Counsel that her term would expire on February
02, 2000. COA disallowed her salaries for the period beyond
February 02, 1999.
ISSUE: Whether the term of office of Atty. Thelma P. Gaminde,
as Commissioner of CSC, to which she was appointed on June
11, 1993, expired on February 02, 1999, as stated in the
appointment paper, or on February 02, 2000, as claimed by
her.
RULING: Her term expired on February 02, 1999. The
appropriate starting point of the terms of office of the first
appointees to the Constitutional Commissions under the 1987
Constitution must be on February 02, 1987, the date of the
adoption of the 1987 Constitution. Gaminde, being a second
appointee who succeeded a member with an original 5-year
term last Feb. 02, 1992, had her 7-year term expired on
February 02, 1999.
In the law of public officers, there is a settled distinction
between “term” and “tenure.” “[T]he term of an office must
be distinguished from the tenure of the incumbent. The term
means the time during which the officer may claim to hold
office as of right, and fixes the interval after which the several
incumbents shall succeed one another. The tenure represents
the term during which the incumbent actually holds the office.
The term of office is not affected by the hold-over. The tenure
may be shorter than the term for reasonswithin or beyond the
power of the incumbent.”

In concluding that February 02, 1987 is the proper starting

point of the terms of office of the first appointees to the
Constitutional Commissions of a staggered 7-5-3 year terms,
we considered the plain language of Article IX (B), Section 1
(2), Article IX (C), Section 1 (2) and Article IX (D), Section 1 (2)
of the 1987 Constitution that uniformly prescribed a seven-
year term of office for Members of the Constitutional
Commissions, without re-appointment, and for the first
appointees terms of seven, five and three years, without
reappointment. In no case shall any Member be appointed or
designated in a temporary or acting capacity. There is no need
to expressly state the beginning of the term of office as this is
understood to coincide with the effectivity of the Constitution
upon its ratification (on February 02, 1987).

175. Nacionalista Party v. De Vera, 85 Phil. 126 (1949)

FACTS: The Nacionalista party filed a complaint before
the Supreme Court in a special civil action for prohibition
for the appointment of Vicente de Vera, who was sitting
as a Commissioner of Comelec, and during as such, has
been appointed as the Chairman of the Comelec for the
November 8, 1949 elections. That this appointment
caused a “reappointment” which is specifically prohibited
under Section 1, Article X of the Constitution.
ISSUE: Whether or not there has been a violation of the
reappointment prohibition in the constitution in this
case.
RULING: NO. Reappointment is not prohibited when a
Commissioner has held office only for, say, three or six
years, provided his term will not exceed nine years in all.
A Commissioner may be promoted and appointed as
Chairman, provided his term as Commissioner and
Chairman is not increased to more than seven years in
all. When he is promoted, he leaves his fixes line of
succession, which becomes vacant, and enters the fixed
line of succession of the Chairman.

176. Republic v. Imperial, 96 Phil. 770 (1955)

FACTS: This is a quo warranto proceeding filed by the
Solicitor General questioning the legality of the
continuance of then Chairman and Member of the
Comelec, Domingo Imperial and Rodrigo Perez,
respectively.
 The cause of action arose when then Chairman Vito died
in 1947 and where Member Vera was then promoted to
the same and which term of office would expire in 1954.
Then Vera died which was succeeded by Imperial, with
term of office would expire on 1960. But this was
objected by the Solicitor General because the expiration
should’ve been in 1954 not in 1960. That since he only
succeeded the deceased Vera, he should only sit for the
term remaining. The same issue was raised for the
appointment of Perez as Member of the Commission.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Solicitor General is correct.

RULING: NO. The provision that of the first three

commissioners appointed "one shall hold office for 9
years, another for 6 years, and the third for 3 years,"
when taken together with the prescribed term of office
for 9 years, without reappointment, evidences a
deliberate plan to have a regular rotation or cycle in the
membership of the commission, by having subsequent
members appointable only once every three years. Now,
the operation of the rotational plan requires two
conditions, both indispensable to its workability: (1) that
the terms of the first three commissioners should start
on a common date, June 21, 1941; and (2) that any
vacancy due to death, resignation or disability before the
expiration of the term should only be filled only for the
unexpired balance of the term. Without satisfying these
conditions, the regularity of the intervals between
appointments would be destroyed, and the evident
purpose of the rotation (to prevent that a four-year
administration should appoint more than one permanent
and regular commissioner) would be frustrated.

A Commissioner may be promoted and appointed as

Chairman, provided his term as Commissioner and
Chairman is not increased to more than seven years in
all. When he is promoted, he leaves his fixes line of
succession, which becomes vacant, and enters the fixed
line of succession of the Chairman.

177. Matibag v. Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036, April 2, 2002

FACTS: Respondent Benipayo issued a memorandum
removing Matibag as Acting Director IV and reassigning
her to the Law Department. Matibag filed the instant
petition questioning the appointment and the right to
 remain in office of herein respondents, claiming that
their ad interim appointments violate the constitutional
provisions on the independence of the COMELEC, as well
as on the prohibitions on temporary appointments and
reappointments of its Chairman and members
(respondents were reappointed as members of
COMELEC).

ISSUE: W/N respondents’ reappointment are valid.

RULING: No. The framers of the Constitution made it

quite clear that any person who has served any term of
office as COMELEC member – whether for a full term of
seven years, a truncated term of five or three years, or
even for an unexpired term of any length of time – can
no longer be reappointed to the COMELEC.
178. Nacionalista Party v. Bautista, 85 Phil. 101 (1949)
FACTS: Nacionalista Party alleges that the respondent
Solicitor General must desist forever from acting as
acting member of the Commission on Elections under the
designation rendered to him by President Quirino.
ISSUE: W/N Bautista’s appointment is proper.
RULING: No. A member of the Commission cannot at the
same time hold any other office; and because the
respondents as Solicitor General belongs to the executive
department and cannot assume the powers and duties of
a member in the Commission. The President’s
designation of the Solicitor General as an acting member
of the COMELEC in a temporary capacity is void.

179. Brillantes v. Yorac, 192 SCRA 358 (1990)

FACTS: The petitioner is challenging the designation by
the President of Haydee B. Yorac as Acting Chairman of
the Commission on Elections, in place of Chairman
Hilario B. Davide, who had been named chairman of the
fact-finding commission to investigate the December
1989 coup d' etat attempt. He invoked that such
appointment is an internal matter and that Article IX-C,
Section 1(2) of the Constitution provides that "(I)n no
case shall any Member (of the Commission on Elections)
be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting
capacity."
ISSUE: WON the appointment by the President is proper.
RULING & MP: NO. In the choice of the Acting Chairman,
the members of the Commission on Elections would
most likely have been guided by the seniority rule as they
themselves would have appreciated it. Designation by
the President of the Philippines of respondent Haydee B.

Section 52.9.—Prohibitions and disqualifications
IX-A Sec 2:
No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his
tenure,
1. hold any other office or employment.
2. Neither shall he engage in the practice of any
profession or in the active management or control
of any business which, in any way, may be affected
by the functions of his office,
3. nor shall he be financially interested, directly or
indirectly, in any contract with, or in any franchise or
privilege granted by the Government, any of its
subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities,
including government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries.
Section 52.10.—Sits en banc or division
IX-C, Sec. 3:
The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two
divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order
to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-
proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be
heard and decided in division, provided that motions for
reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the
Yorac as Acting Chairman of the Commission on Elections
is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. However, the
Commissioners may designate a temporary chairman
among themselves by a majority vote.
180. Barro v. Comelec, G.R. No. 186201, October 9, 2009
FACTS: Petitioner who lost by a margin of 1 vote in the
October 2007 election for Punong Barangay filed an
appeal to the Court and stated to have paid the
necessary fees for election contests. Her appeal was then
forwarded to COMELEC First Division which dismissed
the appeal on the ground of failure to pay the appeal fee
within the five (5)-day reglementary period. When she
filed for an MR, it was also the COMELEC First Division
who denied the same.
ISSUE: WON COMELEC committed GADALEJ in acting on
the MR without elevating the same to the COMELEC en
banc.
RULING & MP: YES. Section 3, Article IX-C of the
Constitution provides that all such election cases shall be
heard and decided in division, provided that motions for
reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the
Commission en banc. By arrogating unto itself a power
constitutionally lodged in the Commission en banc, the
First Division of the COMELEC exercised judgment in
excess of, or without, jurisdiction.25 Hence, the Order
Commission en banc.
IX-A, Sec. 7:
The Comelec shall decide by a majority vote of all its
Members, any case or matter brought before it within sixty
days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution.
A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or
resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or
memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by
the Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this
Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each
Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on
certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from
receipt of a copy thereof.
issued by the First Division of the COMELEC dated
January 9, 2009, denying petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration, is null and void.
181. Estrella v. Comelec, G.R. No. 160465, May 27, 2004, 429
SCRA 789
Facts: Rolando Salvado proclaimed winner in a mayoralty
case. His opponent, Romeo Estrella, filed an election
protest before the RTC which annulled Salvador‘s
proclamation and declared Estrella as the duly elected
mayor. While Salvador filed a petition for certiorari
before the Commission on Elections raffled to the Second
Division thereof, Estrella moved for inhibition of
Commissioner Ralph, voluntarily inhibited himself and
designated another Commissioner to substitute him.
Salvador filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was
elevated to the COMELEC En Banc, in which this time,
Commissioner Lantion participated by virtue of Status
Quo Ante Order issued by the COMELEC En Banc.
Issue: W/N the COMELEC shall decide a case or matter by
a majority vote of “all its members”
Ruling: Yes. The provisions of the constitution is clear
that decisions of the Comelec en banc should be the
majority vote of all its members and not only those who
participated and took part in the deliberation
182. Marcoleta v. Comelec, G.R. No. 181377, April 24, 2009
FACTS: When the party-list group Alagad first won a seat
in the House of Representatives in 1998, Diogenes S.
Osabel sat as the party's representative in Congress. In
2004, when the party again won one seat, Rodante D.
Marcoleta sat as Alagads representative. Due to
infighting within Alagads ranks Osabel and Marcoleta
parted ways. each filed a separate list of nominees for
Alagad for the 2007 elections. With Alagad again winning
a part-list seat in the House of Representatives, both
parties contested the right to represent the party in the
14th Congress. Osabel, purportedly the bona fide
president of Alagad, sought the cancellation of the
certificates of nomination of the Marcoleta group. By
Omnibus Resolution of 2007, the Comelecs First Division,
resolved the dispute in favor of osabel. Marcoleta
elevated the controversyto the Comelec En Banc which
reversed the First Divisions Omnibus Resolution and
reinstated the certificates of nomination of the
Marcoleta , however, there were only two (2)
commissioners who concurred in the Resolution while
three (3) commissioners dissented.
ISSUE: Whether the Comelec En Banc committed grave
abuse of discretion in ordering a rehearing of the
controversy; and in suspending the implement
 RULING: No. When the Commission en banc is equally
divided in opinion, or the necessary majority cannot be
had, the case shall be reheard, and if on rehearing no
decision is reached, the action or proceeding shall be
dismissed if originally commenced in the Commission; in
appealed cases, the judgment or order appealed from
shall stand affirmed; and in all incidental matters, the
petition or motion shall be denied.

183. Balindong v. Comelec, G.R. Nos. 153991-92, October 16,

2003-p.92 par. 1
FACTS: Anwar Balindong was candidate for Mayor of
Malabang, Lanao del Sur against his half brother, Amir
Balindong. During the canvassing, Aklima (another
candidate for mayoralty) filed an objection of the
inclusion of the election returns of 2 precincts due to the
illegal proceedings of the Board of Canvassers, but MBC
denied the objection and proclaimed Anwar winning as
Mayor. Aklima filed an appeal before the COMELEC, to
which COMELEC en banc awarded to Amir Balindong all
the votes in the election return which were earlier
credited by the MBC to Anwar.
ISSUE: W/N COMELEC en banc acted with GADLEJ in
taking cognizance of the consolidated cases in the first
instance without referring them to either one of its
divisions.
RULING: YES. The requirement mandating the hearing
and decision of election cases, including pre-
proclamation controversies, at the first instance by a
division of the COMELEC, and not by the poll body as a
whole, is mandatory and jurisdictional (pursuant to Sec.
3, Art IX-C of Consti). This provision is couched in simple
language and yields to no other interpretation than what
its plain meaning presents. COMELEC en banc does not
have the requisite authority to hear and decide pre-
proclamation controversies at the first instance.
184. Sarmiento v. Comelec, 212 SCRA 307 (1992)
FACTS: Sarmiento et.al impugn the resolutions of
Comelec en Banc reversing the ruling of the City Board of
Canvassers of Iriga City excluding from the canvass, six
(6) election returns and ordered their inclusion.
Petitioners averred that the matter should first be
referred to any of its Divisions before the en Banc can
take cognizance.
ISSUE: w/n Comelec acted in GAD in issuing the assailed
resolutions?
RULING: YES. It is clear from Art. IX-C, Sec 3, of 1987
Constitution that election cases include pre-proclamation
 controversies, and all such cases must first be heard and
decided by a Division of the Commission. The
Commission, sitting en banc, does not have the authority
to hear and decide the same at the first instance.
185. Balindong v. Comelec, G.R. Nos. 153991-92, October 16,
2003-p.92 par. 3
ISSUE: W/N the hearing and decision of election cases at
the first instance by a division is jurisdictional.
RULING: YES. SEC. 3 of Art. IX-C of the Consti which
clearly mandates that pre-proclamation controversies
must be first heard and decided by a division of the
COMELEC, and then by the en banc if an MR were filed.
This Court has consistently ruled that the requirement
mandating the hearing and decision of election cases,
including pre-proclamation controversies, at the first
instance by a division of the COMELEC, and not by it as a
whole, is mandatory and jurisdictional.
186. Baytan v. Comelec, G.R. No. 153945, February 4, 2003,
396 SCRA 703, 716
FACTS: Baytan registered as a voter in two precincts.
COMELEC en banc affirmed the recommendation of its
Law Department to file information of double
registration in violation of the Election Code.
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC en banc’s
assumption of original jurisdiction over the case violated
Sec. 3, Art. IX-C of the Constitution.
RULING: NO. Indeed, the COMELEC’s exercise of its
quasi-judicial powers is subject to Section 3 of Article IX-
C which expressly requires that all election cases,
including pre-proclamation controversies, shall be
decided by the COMELEC in division, and the motion for
reconsideration shall be decided by the COMELEC en
banc. However, such rule is not applicable in this case,
this being an exercise of COMELEC’s administrative
power. There is no constitutional requirement that the
filing of the criminal information be first decided by any
of the divisions of the COMELEC
187. Jaramilla v. Comelec, G.R. No. 155717, October 23, 2003
FACTS: Suyat and Jaramilla both ran for the position of
Member of the Sangguniang Bayan in the Municipality of
Sta. Cruz, Ilocos Sur. Jaramilla won. Suyat discovered that
petitioner was credited with fifty 50 votes more than
what he actually obtained . Suyat filed before the
COMELEC en banc an Urgent Motion for Issuance of
Order to Reconvene, which the latter treated as a
Petition for Correction of Manifest Error
ISSUE: WON the COMELEC en banc properly assumed
jurisdiction over the case
RULING: Yes. Section 3 of Article IX-C of the 1987
 Constitution which clearly mandates that pre-
proclamation controversies must first be heard and
decided by a division of the COMELEC, and then by the
en banc if a motion for reconsideration were filed. This
Court has consistently ruled that the requirement of
hearing and decision of election cases including pre-
proclamation controversies, at the first instance by a
division of the COMELEC< and not by it as a whole, is
mandatory and jurisdictional error in the tabulation of
the results, merely requires a clerical correction,
demands only the exercise of the administrative power
of the COMELEC en banc
188. Arbonida v. Comelec, G.R. No. 167137, March 14, 2007
FACTS: Arbonida filed a motion to dismiss arguing that
the COMELEC First Division had no jurisdiction based on
Section 5, Rule 27 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure,
stating that pre-proclamation controversies are to be
heard and decided by the Commission en banc.
ISSUE: Whether or not COMELEC First Division has
jurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies.
RULING: YES. The Constitution clearly mandates that pre-
proclamation controversies must be first heard and
decided by a division of the COMELEC, and then by the
en banc if a motion for reconsideration were filed. The
constitutional provision yields to no other interpretation
other than what its plain meaning presents.
189. Municipal Board of Canvassers of Glan v. Comelec, G.R.
No. 150946, October 23, 2003
FACTS: A pre-proclamation controversy was instituted by
respondent Benzonan, a mayoralty candidate in the
Municipality of Glan, Sarangani, with COMELEC en banc.
Benzonan sought to declare null and void the canvass
conducted by the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC)
of Glan, Sarangani and nullify the proclamation of
petitioners as victors. COMELEC en banc issued a
resolution declaring that the proclamations of the
winning candidates were declared null and void and a re-
canvass of the election returns was ordered.
ISSUE: Whether respondent Benzonan’s direct recourse
to the COMELEC En Banc was proper.
ENTIRE RULING LIFTED FROM TIPON: NO. It is not
disputed that what is involved here is a pre-proclamation
controversy, hence such requires the exercise of
COMELEC's quasi-judicial powers as the illegality of the
composition and proceedings of the MBC including the
falsification of election returns and COC were alleged to
be in issue. The procedure therefore, taken by
respondent, which resulted in a resolution in her favor,
must be null and void and set aside. COMELEC sitting En
 Banc does not have the requisite authority to hear and
decide election cases in the first instance. This power
pertains to the divisions of the Commission and any
decision of the COMELEC en banc as regards election
cases decided in the first instance is null and void for lack
of jurisdiction.
190. Abad v. Comelec, 378 Phil. 253
FACTS: Due to a dismissed election protest of vote-
buying and fraud in a SK-election by the MCTC, petitioner
appealed to the RTC of Cabanatuan city but was denied
by said court since under COMELEC Resolution No. 2824,
the decision of the MCTC, insofar as the SK election is
concerned, can only be elevated to the COMELEC en
banc through a petition for review and only in
meritorious cases.
ISSUE: W/N the denial was valid
RULING: No. COMELEC Resolution No. 2824 is not in
accord but in conflict with Section 3, Article IX-C of the
1987 Constitution. The Supreme Court hereby sets aside
the Resolution of the COMELEC en banc and orders the
Comelec to assign the case to one of its division
191. Soller v. Comelec, G.R. No. 139853, September 5, 2000,
339 SCRA 685
FACTS: Soller and Saulong were both candidates for
mayor. Soller won. Saulong filed with the Comelec a
petition a pre-proclamation case, however, it was
denied. Soller moved to dismiss Saulong’s election
protest. However, it was denied.
ISSUE: W/N COMELEC GADLEJ in not ordering the
dismissal of Saulong’s election protest.
RULING: YES. In our view, the authority to resolve
petition for certiorari involving incidental issues of
election protest, like the questioned order of the trial
court, falls within the division of the COMELEC and not
on the COMELEC en banc.
MAIN POINT: The power to hear and decide election
cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, at the
first instance pertains to the divisions of the Commission
and any decision by the Commission en banc as regards
election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies,
and incidents thereof decided or resolved by it at the
first instance is null and void.
192. Canicosa v. Comelec, 282 SCRA 512 (1977)
FACTS: Petition to Declare Failure of Election and to
Declare Null and Void the Canvass and Proclamation of
Mayor Lajara was filed by defeated candidate Canicosa.
Comelec en banc dismissed the petition on the ground
that the allegations did not justify a declaration of failure
of election. Petitioner maintained that his petition should
 have first been heard by a division of Comelec and later
by the COMELEC en banc upon MR pursuant to Section 3
Article IX-C of the Constitution.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition should first be heard
by COMELEC division before it can be acted upon by
COMELEC en banc
RULING: No. It is only in the exercise of its adjudicatory
or quasi-judicial powers that the COMELEC is mandated
to hear and decide cases first by Division and then, upon
motion for reconsideration, by the COMELEC en banc.
Questions within the administrative jurisdiction of
Comelec may be acted upon directly by Comelec en banc
without having to pass through any of its divisions. In the
instant case, the issues presented demand only the
exercise by the COMELEC of its administrative functions.
193. Bantayan v. Comelec, G.R. No. 153945, February 4, 2003
Facts: Batayan et al erroneously registered himself in
Brgy 18 and registered again in his right brgy 28. He then
wanted to annul his registration in Brgy 18 but an
information for double registration was decided by
COMELEC en banc.
Issue: W/N COMELEC en banc committed GADALEJ in
deciding pet’s case as en banc before deciding in
division?
Ruling: No. the COMELEC exercises both administrative
and quasi-judicial powers. The COMLEC en banc cam sit
directly on matters falling within as administrative. It is
only when the exercise of quasi- judicial power are
involve that the COMELEC is mandated to sit in division
then upon consideration, enbanc.

194. Municipal Board of Canvassers of Glan v. Comelec, G.R.

No. 150945, October 23, 2003
FACTS: Private Respondent Benzonan, a mayoralty
candidate, filed a pre-proclamation case, to declare null
and void the canvass conducted by the MBC of Glan,
Sarangani and to recall the proclamation of petitioners,
directly with the COMELEC en banc and the case was
subsequently decided by the COMELEC, sitting en banc,
in her favor.
ISSUE: W/N the COMELEC en banc has jurisdiction in a
pre-proclamation controversy.
RULING: NO. SPC No. 01-032 is one that involves a pre-
proclamation controversy that requires the exercise of
the COMELEC's quasi-judicial powers, as the illegality of
the composition and proceedings of the MBC, including
the falsification of election returns and certificate of
canvass, were alleged to be in issue. OEC, §§ 241 and
 242. The procedure taken by Benzonan resulted in a
resolution in her favor that the Court must declare null
and void and set aside. The COMELEC sitting en banc
does not have the requisite authority to hear and decide
election cases in the first instance. This power pertains to
the divisions of the Commission and any decision by the
Commission en banc as regards election cases decided by
it in the first instance is null and void for lack of
jurisdiction.

195. Borja v. Comelec, 160 SCRA 604 (1996)

FACTS: Borja and Capco vied for mayor of Pateros. Capco
won. Borja filed a petition to declare failure of election
because of lack of notice of the date and time of canvass,
fraud, violence terrorism. COMELEC en banc dismissed
the petition because the grounds relied upon by Borja
were warranted only in an election contest.

ISSUE/S: W/N the Comelec en banc may dismiss a

petition claimed to be a pre-proclamation case when it
fact it is an election protest.

RULING: YES. A petition to declare a failure of election is

neither a pre-proclamation controversy, nor an election
case. The grounds averred by Borja, however, are proper
only in an election contest but not in a petition to declare
a failure of election and to nullify a proclamation. The
Comelec en banc may dismiss a petition claimed to be a
pre-proclamation case when in fact it is an election
protest.
196. Cua v. Comelec, 156 SCRA 582 (1987)
Facts: The First Division of the COMELEC rendered a 2-1
decision favoring herein petitioner Cua as winner in the
lone congressional district of Quirino caused Puzon to
appeal said decision with the COMELEC en banc, where
3-2 voted to sustain the First Division’s decision.
However, the COMELEC, upon request of private
respondent issued a restraining telegram enjoining Cua
from assuming the office of member of the House of
Representatives. Hence, petitioner filed this case before
the Supreme Court to enjoin the COMELEC from
enforcing its restraining order becauase both the 2-1 and
3-2 decisions were valid on the basis of the Constitution,
providing that "each Commission shall decide by a
majority vote of all its members any case or matter
brought before it."
Issue: Whether or not 2-1 decision by a division or a 3-5
decision be en banc of the COMELEC is valid.
 Ruling: Yes. A 2-1 decision rendered by a division of the
COMELEC is a valid decision under the Constitution. A 3-5
decision of the COMELEC en banc affirming the decision
of the division is also valid.

197. Reyes v. RTC of Oriental Mindoro, 244 SCRA 41 (1995)

NOTE: Aquiles Reyes and Adolfo Comia were candidates
for the position of member of the Sangguniang Bayan of
Oriental Mindoro.
FACTS: Comia moved for the exclusion of certain election
returns because votes cast for “Reyes” were counted in
favor of petitioner only, when there was also another
candidate surnamed Reyes. Nonetheless, petitioner was
proclaimed as winner. Comia then filed an election
protest before the RTC, which annulled the proclamation
of petitioner Aquiles. Thus, petitioner filed a notice of
appeal to the Comelec’s 1st Division, which was
dismissed. Petitioner then filed the instant petition for
Certiorari alleging that Comelec committed GADALEJ in
dismissing his appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the filing of the present petition
for certiorari, without petitioner first filing a motion for
reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc, violates
Art. IX, A, §7 of the Constitution 1 because under this
provision only decisions of the COMELEC en banc may be
brought to the Supreme Court on Certiorari.
RULING: YES. It is advisable for counsel to file a motion
for reconsideration of a decision, order, or ruling of the
Comelec sitting as a division with the Comelec en banc,
before filing a petition for certiorari with the SC. A
decision, order or ruling of the Comelec which may be
brought to the SC on certiorari refers to that of the
Comelec en banc. A decision, order, or ruling of a division
may not be brought to the SC on certiorari directly.
198. Lozano v. Yorac, 203 SCRA 256 (1991)
FACTS: Petitioner Oliver L. Lozano filed a special civil
action for certiorari which prays for a reversal of
COMELEC en banc’s minute resolution of August 15,
1990 denying due course to petitioner's motion for
reconsideration. He contends that the minute resolution
of August 15, 1990 is null and void for having been issued
without prior notice to the parties and without fixing a
date for the promulgation thereof.
ISSUE: WON prior notice to the parties of the
promulgation of COMELEC en banc’s resolutions is
required.
RULING: NO. The requirement of notice in the
promulgation of resolutions and decisions of the
 COMELEC embodied in Sec. 5 of Rule 18 of the Rules
does not apply in the case at bar for the simple reason
that a motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling,
resolution, order or decision of the COMELEC is NOT
allowed under sec. 1, rule 13 thereof. Hence, notice to
the parties is not required.
199. ABS-CBN v. Comelec, G.R. No. 133486, January 28, 2000
FACTS: When COMELEC got knowledge of the plan of
ABS-CBN with other PR groups to conduct a TV-Radio
coverage of the election and to conduct exit survey of
the vote for the Presidential and Vice-Presidential race,
issued a TRO enjoining petitioner from continuing with
their plan. Thus, Petitioner filed before the supreme
court, petition for certiorari, questioning the validity of
the Comelec’s resolution.
ISSUE: Whether or not, due to allege procedural defect
of not filing a motion for reconsideration with the
COMELEC regarding the TRO resolution, is a ground to
dismiss the petition by petitioners before the Supreme
Court.
RULING: NO. The solicitor general further contends that
the Petition should be dismissed for petitioner’s failure
to exhaust available remedies before the issuing forum,
specifically the filing of a motion for reconsideration. This
Court, however, has ruled in the past that this procedural
requirement may be glossed over to prevent a
miscarriage of justice, when the issue involves the
principle of social justice or the protection of labor, when
the decision or resolution sought to be set aside is a
nullity, or when the need for relief is extremely urgent
and certiorari is the only adequate and speedy remedy
available.

Section 52.11.—Practice tip

 B. KINDS OF POWERS AND FUNCTIONS
Section 52.12.—Express and implied powers
200. Guevarra v. Comelec, 104 Phil. 268 (1958)
FACTS: 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.
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.
RULING: No. It could not exercise the power to punish
for contempt as postulated in the law, for such power is
inherently judicial in nature. The OEC supplements what
other powers may be exercised by COMELEC.
201. De Leon v. Imperial, 96 Phil. 849 (1954)
FACTS: Four months and twenty-four days after
petitioner’s proclamation, respondent, filed a petition
alleging that due to a mistake in addition the municipal
board of canvassers and prayed that the municipal board
of canvassers be ordered to make a new canvass and a
new proclamation declaring him the eighth councilor-
elect in lieu of petitioner. COMELEC granted the petition.
ISSUE: WON the COMELEC has the power to order the

202. Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop v. Ferrer, 135
Section 52.13.—Administrative, legislative, and judicial or
quasi-judicial powers
203. Guevarra v. Comelec, 104 Phil. 268 (1958)
municipal board of canvassers of Makati to correct a
mistake committed in addition in the canvass it has made
after the candidate erroneously proclaimed had assumed
office and the period to contest his election had expired.
RULING & MP: NO. The action of the COMELEC is a clear
circumvention of the law which is destructive of the very
essence and spirit which underlies the summary nature
of an election proceeding while it sets a precedent which
enlarges to a dangerous extreme the administrative
powers conferred upon the Commission on Elections by
the Constitution. The powers of the Commission on
Elections are defined in the Constitution and powers not
expressly or impliedly granted to it are deemed withheld.
SCRA 25 (1985)
FACTS
COMELEC issued and invitation to bid for the 1969
elections calling for the submission of sealed proposals
for the manufacture and delivery of 1 1,000 units of
voting booths; among the bidders was petitioner, who
lost to Acme, another bidder. COMELEC filed a motion to
dismiss petitioner’s motion for injuction on the grounds
that the lower court has no jurisdiction over the nature
of suit, and that the complaint states no cause of action.
RULING
The powers and functions of the COMELEC may be
classified as administrative or executive, legislative, and
judicial or quasi-judicial.The COMELEC resolution
awarding the contract in favor of Acme was not issued
pursuant to its quasi-judicial functions but merely as an
incident of its inherent administrative functions over the
conduct of elections, and hence, the said resolution may
not be deemed as a "final order" reviewable by certiorari
by the Supreme Court. Being non-judicial in character, no
contempt may be imposed by the COMELEC from said
order, and no direct and exclusive appeal by certiorari.
FACTS
Petitioner was ordered by COMELEC to show cause
why he should not be punished for contempt for having
published in the Sunday Times issue of June 2, 1957 an
article entitled "Ballot Boxes Contract Hit", which tended
to interfere with and influence COMELEC. Petitioner,
answering summons issued to him by the Commission,
appeared and filed a motion to quash on grounds of
excess of jurisdiction
 RULING
COMELEC has no power nor authority to submit
petitioner to contempt proceedings. it could not exercise
the power to punish for contempt as postulated in the
law, for such power is inherently judicial in nature. The
difficulty lies in drawing the demarcation line between a
duty which is inherently administrative in character and
those which call for judicial action.

204. Masangcay v. Comelec, 6 SCRA 27 (1962)

FACTS
Masangcay, with several others, were charged
before the COMELEC with contempt for having opened
three boxes containing official and sample ballots for the
municipalities of the province of Aklan, in violation of the
instructions. Commission rendered its decision finding
petitioner guilty. Petitioner brought the present case;
raising as main issue the constitutionality of Section 5 of
the Revised Election Code which grants the Commission
on Elections as well as its members the power to punish
acts of contempt against said body
RULING
No. COMELEC exceeded its jurisdiction in punishing
him for contempt, and so its decision is null and void.
COMELEC has the duty to enforce and administer all laws
to the conduct of elections, but also the power to try,
hear and decide any controversy that may be submitted
to it in connection with the elections. Commission
exercises a ministerial function it cannot exercise the
power to punish contempt because such power is
inherently judicial in nature.
205. Sandoval v. Comelec, G.R. No. 133842, January 26, 2000
—p. 95, par. 3
206. Sandoval v. Comelec, G.R. No. 133842, January 26, 2000
—p. 95, par. 4
FACTS: Petitioner and PR were candidates for the
congressional seat for the Malabon-Navotas legislative
district; petitioner was proclaimed the winner. PR sought
for the annulment of petitioner's proclamation because
there was a (1) verbal order from the COMELEC
Chairman to suspend the canvass and proclamation of
the winning candidate, and that there was (2) non-
inclusion of 19 election returns in the canvass, which
would result in an incomplete canvass of the election
returns. COMELEC en banc issued an order setting aside
the proclamation of petitioner and ruled the
proclamation as void without notice and hearing,
because according to it, procedural due process need not
 be observed in this case because it was merely exercising
its administrative power to review, revise and reverse
the actions of the board of canvassers.

ISSUE: W/N COMELEC’s order to set aside the

proclamation of petitioner is invalid for having been
rendered without due process of law.
RULING: YES. Taking cognizance of PR’s petitions for
annulment of petitioner's proclamation; COMELEC was
not merely performing an administrative function. The
administrative powers of the COMELEC include the
power to determine the number and location of polling
places, appoint election officials and inspectors, conduct
registration of voters, deputize law enforcement
agencies and government instrumentalities to ensure
free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections,
register political parties, organizations or coalitions,
accredit citizens' arms of the Commission, prosecute
election offenses, and recommend to the President the
removal of or imposition of any other disciplinary action
upon any officer or employee it has deputized for
violation or disregard of its directive, order or decision. In
addition, the Commission also has direct control and
supervision over all personnel involved in the conduct of
election.

However, the resolution of the adverse claims of PR and

petitioner as regards the existence of a manifest error in
the questioned certificate of canvass requires the
COMELEC to act as an arbiter. It behooves the
Commission to hear both parties to determine the
veracity of their allegations and to decide whether the
alleged error is a manifest error. Hence, the resolution of
this issue calls for the exercise by the COMELEC of its
quasi-judicial power. It has been said that where a power
rests in judgment or discretion, so that it is of judicial
nature or character, but does not involve the exercise of
functions of a judge, or is conferred upon an officer other
than a judicial officer, it is deemed quasi-judicial. The
COMELEC therefore, acting as quasi-judicial tribunal,
cannot ignore the requirements of procedural due
process in resolving the petitions filed by private
respondent.
207. Nacionalista Party v. Vera, 85 Phil. 126 (1949)
FACTS:
This is the special action for prohibition filed by the
Nacionalista Party and its official candidates for senators
against de Vera, Chairman of COMELEC, to enjoin him
 from sitting or taking part in the deliberations of said
Commission in connection with the elections because he
is the father of Teodoro de Vera one of the candidates of
the Liberal Party for the position of senator in the last
election and, for that reason, he is disqualified from
acting on all matters connected with said elections; Rule
126, section 1, of the Rules of Court, invoked by
petitioners to disqualify the respondent.
ISSUE: W/N rules in ROC are applicable to the COMELEC.
RULING: NO. Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
granted to the SC "the power to promulgate rules
concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all
courts, and the admission to the practice of law.” The
COMELEC is not a court of justice within the meaning of
the Constitution, since courts are those vested with
judicial power by the Constitution. COMELEC, in a
separate Article (X) of the Constitution, is created as an
independent administrative body with the "exclusive
charge of the enforcement and administration of all laws
relative to the conduct of elections." Under the
Constitution the SC has no general powers of supervision
over the COMELEC except those specifically granted by
the Constitution, that is, to review the decisions, orders
and rulings of the Commission which may be brought up
properly before the SC.
208. Ututalum v. Comelec, 14 SCRA 465 (1965)
FACTS: Nacionalista, due to gunshot attending the
election in Tapul Sulu, filed a petition with the Comelec
which passed a resolution, ordering that voting in Tapul
and Siasi be held in another date. Ututalum opposed for
the Commission has no authority to direct such.
ISSUE: w/n the Commission has no authority to direct the
holding of elections, in said precincts
RULING: NO. There is no such statutory grant of
authority to the Commission on Elections. The Comelec is
not a Court of Justice within the meaning of the
Constitution, since courts are those bodies vested with
judicial power by the Constitution.

209. Sumbing v. Comelec, G.R. No. 91545, June 18, 1990

*case cannot be found*
210. Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop v. Ferrer, 135
SCRA 25 (1985)
FACTS: An invitation to bid for manufacture of voting
booths was made where Filipinas and Acme responded.
COMELEC awarded Filipinas the contract. Later, after
conducting ocular inspection, the COMELEC awarded the

211. Ramos v. Comelec, 80 Phil 722 (1948)
212. Masangcay v. Comelec, 6 SCRA 27 (1962)
Section 52.14.—Discretionary and ministerial functions
213. Ramos v. Comelec, 80 Phil. 722 (1948)
contract to Acme. Filipinas sued Comelec and Acme
before the CFI dismissed the injunction.
ISSUE: w/n SC has jurisdiction to hear an order of the
COMELEC involving an award of contract?
RULING: No. What is contemplated by the term "final
orders, rulings and decisions" of the COMELEC
reviewable by certiorari by the Supreme Court as
provided by law are those taken cognizance of by
COMELEC in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-
judicial powers. The powers vested in the Comelec may
either be discretionary or ministerial.
FACTS: Posugac and Ramos ran for Mayoralty. Ramos
won. MBC using a falsified copy of returns of precinct 10
proclaimed Posugac. Ramos sued in the CFI seeking to
nullify the proclamation. He also sued with Comelec
seeking for investigation and the annulment of the
canvass. Comelec abstained pending CFI action. Ramos
thus, brought action for mandamus, for the Comelec to
investigate the fraud committed.
ISSUE: w/n Comelec may be compelled by mandamus, to
look into and act on all election frauds?
RULING: No. The duty involved is discretionary. Where
the duty of the Comelec is ministerial, mandamus lies to
compel it to perform the duty, but not where it is
discretionary.
FACTS: Masangcay, with several others, was charged
before COMELEC with contempt for having opened three
boxes containing official and sample ballots without the
presence of the division superintendent, the provincial
auditor, and the authorized representatives of the
political parties.
ISSUE: Whether or not COMELEC has the power to
punish for contempt.
RULING: NO. COMELEC, in the exercise of its ministerial
functions, such as the distribution of ballots and other
election paraphernalia among the different
municipalities, has no power to punish for contempt,
because such power is inherently judicial in nature
FACTS: Posugac was proclaimed mayor-elect of Bato,
Camarines Sur by the municipal board of canvassers.
Petitioner addressed a complaint to COMELEC requesting
an investigation and the annulment of the canvass made
by the said board of canvassers on the ground that
 instead of counting the genuine election return included
in the canvass a falsified return. COMELEC abstained
from said request. Ramos then filed an action for
mandamus, praying for the reversal of the ruling of
COMELEC.
ISSUE: Whether or not mandamus would lie on
COMELEC’s duty to investigate and act on a matter such
as in this case.
RULING: NO. The duty of COMELEC to investigate and act
on the propriety or legality of a canvass of election made
by the municipal board of canvassers is discretionary and
said commission may not therefore be compelled to
perform such duty through mandamus proceedings.
214. Nacionalista Party v. Comelec, 85 Phil. 149 (1949)
FACTS: Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus to
compel COMELEC to exclude the votes cast for senators
in the provinces of Negros Occidental and Lanao in the
canvass to be performed by it. This is in view of the state
of terrorism and political persecutions existing in said
provinces against the members of the petitioners.
ISSUE: Whether or not the function of COMELEC is
ministerial in this case and, thus, mandamus may lie.
RULING: YES. The COMELEC, when it performs its
function as board of canvassers of senators, act as a
ministerial body. However, despite such ministerial
function, the returns were not rejected because the
canvassers were satisfied with the genuineness of said
returns.

Section 52.15.—Illustrations

C. PARTICULAR POWERS AND FUNCTIONS

1. ADMINISTRATIVE
Section 52.16.—Enforce and administer election laws
215. Gallardo v. Comelec, 218 SCRA 253 (1993)
FACTS: Tabamo Jr fied a petition and writ of preliminary
injuction against Gallardo on the illegal acts as it
allegedly illegally induced people to vote for Gallardo in
consideration of their employment in these projects.
Tabamo also filed a TRO. Petitioner filed a petition for
certiorari and prohibition alleging that tabamo has no
right to file special civil action no. 465 intended to enjoin
an alleged violation of the OEC, the authority to
prosecute belongs to the COMELEC
ISSUE: WON the trial court has jurisdiction for the
enforcement of laws involving the conduct of elections
RULING: No. Special Civil Action No. 465 before the court
a quo are matters falling within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Commission. The present Constitution and extant
election laws have further strengthened the foundation
for the above doctrine; there can be no doubt that the
present COMELEC has broader powers than its
predecessors the assumption of jurisdiction by the trial
court over a case involving the enforcement of the
Election Code "is at war with the plain constitutional
command, the implementing statutory provisions, and
the hospitable scope afforded such grant of authority so
clear and unmistakable in recent decisions."
216. Pacis v. Comelec, 22 SCRA 540 (1968)
FACTS: one set of BOC proclaimed Pacis as Mayor-elect
of Mira, Cagayan and another BOC upon authority of the
COMELEC proclaimed Negre the mayor-elect. Negre filed
a petition to suspend or annul canvass of votes due to
alleged threats, terrorism, forcible seizure of ballots,
keys, tally sheets. Later, the COMELEC telegraphed an
order to fill and substitute vacancies in the BOC which
prompt Negre to file in the CFI, that the LP was not asked
to recommend substitute members & was not notifed.
COMELEC proclaimed negre as mayor. Later it was found
that Returns from Precincts 18, 19, 21 and 22, which
were not canvassed
ISSUE: WON proclamation of Negre as mayor is valid
RULING: No. proclamation of respondent Atanacio Negre
as Mayor-elect is a realistic portrayal of hurry-before-
injunction pattern. It is null and void. In case the election
returns were tampered, "it is certainly within the power
of the Commission on Elections to issue such order as
would ascertain the existence of the genuine, authentic
and untampered election returns." The broad sweep of
the comelec’s duty to administer and enforce the
election law gives it ample authority to prescribe
 appropriate remedies for electoral frauds and anomalies,
the diversity of which often surpasses legislative
anticipations and the appropriateness of the remedy is
controlled by the objective of insuring clean and honest
elections.
217. Loong v. Comelec, 305 SCRA 832 (1999)—p. 97 par. 1
FACTS: There were discrepancies between the election
returns and the votes cast for the mayoralty candidates
in the municipality of Pata, ARMM. To avoid a similar
situation, Comelec suspended the automated counting of
ballots in Pata. COMELEC issued Minute Resolution No.
98-1747 ordering a manual count but only in the
municipality of Pata.
ISSUE/S: W/N COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion in ordering a manual count.
RULING: NO. In enacting R.A. No. 8436, Congress
obviously failed to provide a remedy where the error in
counting is not machine-related for human foresight is
not all-seeing. Section 2(1) of Article IX(C) of the
Constitution gives the COMELEC the broad power "to
enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative
to the conduct of an election xxx." The text and intent of
this provision is to give COMELEC all the necessary and
incidental powers for it to achieve the objective of
holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible
elections. A manual count was the only way to count the
decisive local votes in the municipalities.
218. Sumulong v. Comelec, 73 Phil. 288 (1941)
FACTS: Sumulong is the President of Pagkakaisa Ng
Bayan seeks to nullify COMELEC resolution Act no. 657 “
an act to re-organize the Comelec” for being
unconstitutional in so far as it requires that a political
party must have polled at least ten per centum of the
total number of votes cast in the preceding election in
order to have the right to propose the appointment of
one inspector and his substitute. In the instant case, it
appears that none of the minority parties obtained in the
preceding election the minimum number of votes
required to entitle it to propose the appointment of
election inspectors.
ISSUE/S: WON petitioner is correct
RULING: No. COMELEC should be allowed considerable
latitude in devising means and methods that will insure
the accomplishment of the great objective for which it
was created—free, orderly and honest elections and
should not be hampered with restrictions that would be
fully warranted in the case of a less responsible
organization. Politics is a practical matter, and political
question must be dealt with realistically not from the
 standpoint of pure theory. The COMELEC, because of its
fact-finding facilities, its contacts with political strategists
and its knowledge derived from actual experience is
dealing with political controversies, is in a peculiarly
advantageous position to decide complex political
questions, there are no ready-made formulas for solving
public problems. Time and experience are necessary to
evolve patterns that will serve the ends of good
government. In the matter of the administration of laws
relative to the conduct of election, the SC must not by
any excessive zeal take way from the COMELEC the
initiative which by constitutional and legal mandates
properly belongs to it.
219. Loong v. Comelec, 305 SCRA 832 (1999)—p. 97 par. 2
FACTS: There were discrepancies between the election
returns and the votes cast for the mayoralty candidates
in the municipality of Pata, ARMM. To avoid a similar
situation, Comelec suspended the automated counting of
ballots in Pata. COMELEC issued Minute Resolution No.
98-1747 ordering a manual count but only in the
municipality of Pata.
ISSUE/S: W/N COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion in ordering a manual count.
RULING: NO. This Court has not been niggardly in
defining the parameters of powers of COMELEC in the
conduct of our elections. Thus, we held in Sumulong v.
COMELEC: Politics is a practical matter, and political
questions must be dealth with realistically not from the
standpoint of pure theory. The Comelec, because of its
fact-finding facilities, its contacts with political
strategists, and its knowledge derived from actual
experience in dealing with political controversies, is in a
peculiarly advantageous position to decide complex
political questions. There are no ready-made formulas
for solving public problems. Time and experience are
necessary to evolve patters that will serve the ends of
good government. In the matter of the administration of
laws relative to the conduct of election, the SC must not
by any excessive zeal take away from the Comelec the
initiative which wby constitutional and legal mandates
properly belongs to it.
220. Dipatuan v. Comelec, 47 SCRA 258 (1972)
FACTS: Dipatuan and Alawi seeks to set aside a
resolution of Comelec for grave abuse of discretion.
Notwithstanding the failure of respondent Balindong and
Api to raise an objection before the Municipal Board of
Canvassers of Bacolod, Lanao del Sur, as to the inclusion
of returns in certain precincts, Comelec entertained their
petition for excluding such returns. What is worse, the

221. Abcede v. Imperial, 103 Phil. 136 (1958)
222. Pungutan v. Comelec, 43 SCRA 1 (1972)
Section 52.17.—Decide all questions affecting elections,
except right to vote
previous proclamation as to their having been elected
was nullified.
ISSUE/S: W/N the writs for certiorari and prohibition
prayed for should be granted.
RULING: YES. The power of the Commission in the
language of the Constitution is to "have exclusive charge
of the enforcement and administration of all laws
relative to the conduct of elections and shall exercise all
other functions which may be conferred upon it by law."
It is thus manifest that it has no competence to act
outside the statutes and administrative orders in
pursuance thereof. Its scope of activity is circumscribed
by the Election Code. Broad as the powers of the
Comelec might be, they are circumscribed by the
Constitution and the election laws.
FACTS: Petitioner Alfredo Abcede filed with the
COMELEC his COC for the Office of the President of the
Philippines. After due hearing, his COC and the
certificates of other candidates were not given due
course. A reconsideration of such resolution having been
denied, Abcede filed with the SC this petition.
ISSUE: Whether COMELEC has the discretion to give or
not to give due course to petitioner’s certificate of
candidacy.
RULING: NO. On the contrary, the Commission has,
admittedly, the "ministerial" duty to receive said
certificate of candidacy. While the Constitution has given
the Commission on Elections the "exclusive charge" of
the enforcement and administration of all laws relative
to the conduct of elections," the power of decision of the
Commission is limited to purely "administrative
questions." (Art. X, Sec. 2, Constitution.) It has no
authority to decide matters "involving the right to vote."
It may not even pass upon the legality of a given vote.
For more reason, it cannot determine who among those
possessing the qualifications prescribed by the
Constitution, who have complied with the procedural
requirements relative to the filing of certificates of
candidacy - should be allowed to enjoy the full benefits
intended by law therefor.
FACTS: The resolution of respondent Comelec assailed in
this petition for review excluded from the canvass for the
election of delegates for the province of Sulu the election
returns from 4 towns of Sulu for being spurious of
 manufactured and therefore no returns at all. Petitioner
Puñgutan would have been entitled to the last remaining
seat for delegates to the ConCon if the election returns
were included. Petitioner thus disputed the power of
respondent Commission to exclude such returns.
ISSUE: Whether respondent COMELEC committed
GADLEJ in issuing such resolution.
RULING: NO. The right to vote, a denial of which should
find redress in the judiciary as the guardian of
constitutional rights, is excluded from the authority
vested in respondent Commission. If the exclusion of the
returns from the four towns in Sulu involved a question
as to such a right, then, clearly, what the Commission did
was beyond its competence. Such is not the case
however. What is deemed outside such a sphere is the
determination of whether or not a person can exercise or
is precluded from exercising the right of suffrage. How
such a right is to be exercised is regulated by the Election
Code. Its enforcement under the Constitution is, as
noted, vested in respondent Commission. Such a power,
however, is purely executive or administrative.
223. Nacionalista Party v. Comelec, 85 Phil. 149 (1949)
FACTS: This is a petition to compel COMELEC to exclude
the votes cast for senators in the provinces of Negros
Occidental and Lanao because of alleged terrorism.
ISSUES:
(1) Who has jurisdiction over the case?
(2) Whether the Commission on Elections is empowered
to annul an election.
RULING:
(1) The jurisdiction over such case is expressly and
exclusively vested by the Constitution in the Electoral
Tribunal of the Senate.
(2) NO. The power to decide questions involving the
right to vote is expressly withheld from the Commission
although the right to vote is provided in the Election Law,
the enforcement and administration of which is placed in
the exclusive charge of the Commission. Parallel to the
withholding of such power from the Commission is the
vesting in other agencies of the more inclusive power to
decide all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of the members of Congress, namely, the
Electoral Tribunal of the Senate in the case of the
senators and the Electoral Tribunal of the House of
Representatives in the case of the members of the latter.
224. Monroy v. CA, 20 SCRA 620 (1967)
FACTS: Petitioner, incumbent Mayor of Navotas, Rizal,
filed his COC as representative of first district of Rizal but
subsequently withdrew it 3 days after it was approved,
 per resolution, by the COMELEC. Taking the said
withdrawal as a forfeiture of Monroy’s office, respondent
Felipe, then vice-mayor, assumed the said office.
ISSUE/S: W/N COMELEC has jurisdiction to determine if
Felipe’s assumption was correct.
RULING (Main point in bold): No. The COMELEC has no
jurisdiction over the Felipe’s assumption since the power
of COMELEC is limited to controversies connected with
the conduct of the elections. In this case, there was no
dispute before the Commission and respondent never
contested the filling of petitioner’s COC. What the parties
are actually controverting is whether or not petitioner
was still the municipal mayor after the withdrawal. The
matter should be resolved by the courts.

225. Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Comelec, 262 SCRA

492 (1996)
FACTS: Sangguniang Bayan ng Morong requested the
amendment of certain provisions of RA 7227 which
created SBMA. Not satisfied, and within 30 days from
submission of their petition, respondents resorted to
their power of initiative under the LGC. Instead of an
initiative, COMELEC adopted a calendar of activities for a
local referendum and provided rules and regulations for
such.
ISSUE/S: W/N there was grave abuse of discretion on the
part of COMELEC
RULING (Main point in bold): Yes. The process started by
private respondents was an INITIATIVE but respondent
Comelec made preparations for a REFERENDUM only.
Due to its complexity, COMELEC must supervise an
initiative more closely compared to a referendum. In
initiative and referendum, the Comelec exercises
administration and supervision of the process itself, akin
to its powers over the conduct of elections. These law-
making powers belong to the people; hence, the
respondent Commission cannot control or change the
substance or the content of legislation.
226. Cayetano v. Comelec, G.R. Nos. 1166388 & 166652,
January 23, 2006
FACTS: Petitioner, Congressman of Taguig, filed a motion
to dismiss the plebiscite conducted by the COMELEC
wherein what was in question was the conversion of
Taguig into a Highly urbanized City. He claimed that
COMELEC has no jurisdiction over an action involving the
conduct of plebiscite as it cannot be the subject of an
election protest.

227. Tan v. Comelec, 142 SCRA 727 (1986)
Section 52.18.—Conduct plebiscite, initiative, referendum
and recall
228. McCoy v. Fisher, 67 S.E. 2d 543 (1951)
ISSUE/S: W/N COMELEC has jurisdiction over plebiscites
RULING (Main point in bold): Yes. The controversy on the
conduct of the Taguig plebiscite "is a matter that involves
the enforcement and administration of a law relative to a
plebiscite. It falls under the jurisdiction of the COMELEC
under Section 2 (1), Article IX (C) of the Constitution
authorizing it ‘to enforce and administer all laws and
regulations relative to the conduct of an election,
plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall.’
FACTS: This case is a petition contesting the
constitutionality of BP 885, An Act Creating a New
Province in the Island of Negros to be known as the
Province of Negros del Norte. Pursuant to this law, the
COMELEC scheduled a plebiscite on the proposed new
province. Petitioners opposed, filing a case for
prohibition contending that the BP 885 is
unconstitutional and not in complete accord with the
LGC because voters of the parent province of Negros
Occidental were not included in the plebiscite.
ISSUE: W/N the citizens, as residents of the parent
province, should be included in the plebiscite as the
constitution provides that it should be conducted in the
affected area.
RULING: YES. Under the Consti, Art XI Sec 3, providing
that “No province, city, municipality or barrio may be
created, divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary
substantially altered, except in accordance with the
criteria established in the LGC, and subject to the
approval by majority of the votes in a plebiscite in the
unit or units affected,” the voters belonging to an
existing political unit will be derived cannot be excluded
from participating in the plebiscite conducted for the
purpose of determining the formulation of another new
political unit, and in such a case, the conduct of a new
plebiscite cannot be ordered as there is no legal basis to
do so.
FACTS: Prior to the general election, D.W. Riddle was
appointed by the county court to the Office of Justice of
the Peace to fill a vacancy until a person is elected to fill
the vacancy. At the general election, McCoy had been
duly elected to the Office of Justice of the Peace of Salt
Lick District in that county. Riddle contested and claimed
that the election of McCoy was illegal and void on the
grounds that he was not a candidate for the office at the
general election and that no notice of any kind or
character was given that persons would vote for any one
for either office at that election.
 ISSUE: W/N the failure of an officer to provide notice of
the election in a general election invalidate the election.
RULING: NO. In a special election to fill a vacancy, the
rule is that a statute that expressly provides that an
election to fill a vacancy shall be held at the next general
elections fixes the date at which the special election is to
be held and operates as the call for the election.
Consequently, an election held at the time thus
prescribed is not validated by the fact that the body
charged by law with the duty of calling the election failed
to do so. This is because the right and duty to hold the
election emanate from the statute and not from any call
for the election by some authority and the law thus
charges voters with knowledge of the time and place of
the election.
229. Tolentino and Mojica v. Comelec, G.R. No. 148334,
January 21, 2004
FACTS: PGMA nominated Sen. Guingona as VP, thus,
leaving a vacancy in the Senate. Resolution 84 was
passed calling on COMELEC to fill the said vacancy
through a special election to be held simultaneously with
the regular elections and that the candidate with the
13th highest number of votes shall serve for the
unexpired term of former Senator (3 years).
COMELEC issued a resolution provisionally proclaiming
12 senators (w/ 6-year term) and the 13th senator
(Honasan). Petitioners filed a petition for prohibition
against COMELEC, enjoining them from the final
proclamation of the 13th senator and for nullification of
the special elections for COMELEC’s failure to give notice
as to the time of the special election.
ISSUE: W/N the special election was validly held.
RULING: YES. In the instant case, Section 2 of RA No 6645
itself provides that in case of vacancy in the Senate, the
special election to fill such vacancy shall be held
simultaneously with the next succeeding regular election.
Accordingly, the special election to fill the vacancy in the
Senate arising from Senator Guingona’s appointment as
VP in February 2001 could not be held at any other time
but must be held simultaneously with the next
succeeding regular elections on 14 May 2001. The law
charges the voters with knowledge of this statutory
notice and COMELEC’s failure to give the additional
notice did not negate the calling of such special election,
much less invalidate it.
Section 52.19.—Comment
230. Paredes v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
55628, March 2, 1984
231. Tan v. Comelec, 142 SCRA 727 (1986)

Section 52.20.—Postpone elections

Section 52.21.—Declare failure of elections

232. Mayor Cawasa v. Comelec, 433 Phil. 312
(2002)
233. Banaga v. Comelec, 391 Phil. 596 (2000)
234. Mutilan v. Comelec, G.R. No. 171248, April
2, 2007

Section 52.22.—Annul elections

Section 52.23.—Call for holding or continuation of elections

Section 52.24.—Call special elections

235. Lozada v. Comelec, 120 SCRA 337 (1983)
Section 52.25.—Fix election period

Section 52.26.—Fix periods for pre-election requirements

236. Akbayan v. Comelec, G.R. No. 147066,
March 26, 2001

Section 52.27.—Fix periods for prohibited acts

Section 52.28.—Exercise supervision and control over

election officials
237. Aratuc v. Comelec, 88 SCRA 251 (1979)
238. Sumulong v. Comelec, 70 Phil. 703 (1940)

Section 52.29.—Appoint and relieve election officials

239. Garces v. CA, 259 SCRA 99 (1996)
240. Javier v. Comelec, 13 SCRA 156 (1965)
241. Municipal Board on Canvassers of Bansud
v. Comelec, 5 SCRA 1154 (1962)
242. Matibag v. Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036,
April 2, 2002

Section 52.30.—Deputize other government agencies

243. People v. Basilla, 179 SCRA 87 (1987)

Section 52.31.—Recommend disciplining of deputies

244. People v. Basilla, 179 SCRA 87 (1989)
245. Tan v. Comelec, 237 SCRA 353 (1994)—p.
104, par. 6
246. Tan v. Comelec, 237 SCRA 353 (1994)—p.
104, par. 7

Section 52.32.—Adjust reapportionment of districts

247. Montejo v. Comelec, 242 SCRA 415 (1995)

Section 52.33.—Register political parties; accredit citizens’

arms
248. Santos v. Comelec, 103 SCRA 628 (1981)

Section 52.34.—Determine validity of certificates of

candidacy

Section 52.35.—Determine eligibility of candidates

Section 52.36.—Regulate election propaganda

Section 52.37.—Regulate and control media and surveys

 249. Sanidad v. Comelec, 181 SCRA 529 (1990)
250. Unido v. Comelec, 104 SCRA 17 (1981)
251. Philippine Press Institute, Inc. v. Comelec,
244 SCRA 272 (1995)
252. ABS-CBN v. Comelec, G.R. No. 133486,
January 28, 2000

Section 52.38.—Conduct information campaign

Section 52.39.—Regulate contributions and expenditures

Section 52.40.—Prescribe forms and purchase supplies

253. Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop v.
Ferrer, 135 SCRA 25 (1985)
254. Grand Alliance for Democracy v. Comelec,
150 SCRA 665 (1987)

Section 52.41.—Decide questions on voter registration

255. Feliciano v. Lugay, 93 Phil. 744 (1953)

Section 52.42.—Order production of voter records

256. Macabago v. Comelec, G.R. No. 152163,
November 18, 2002

Section 52.43.—Establish precincts and polling places

257. Cortez v. Comelec, 79 Phil. 352 (1947)

Section 52.44.—Conduct automated or manual elections

258. Loong v. Comelec, 305 SCRA 832 (1999)

Section 52.45.—Decide questions concerning returns and

counting
259. Geronimo v. Comelec, 118 SCRA 165 (1982)
260. Villaroya v. Comelec, 155 SCRA 633 (1987)
261. Cauton v. Comelec, 19 SCRA 911 (1967)
262. Abes v. Comelec, 21 SCRA 911 (1967)
263. Bulaong v. Comelec, 241 SCRA 180 (1995)
264. Erni v. Comelec, 243 SCRA 706 (1995)
265. Arao v. Comelec, 210 SCRA 290 (1992)
266. Tagoranao v. Comelec, 22 SCRA 978 (1968)

Section 52.46.—Comment
267. Arao v. Comelec, 210 SCRA 290 (1992)

Section 52.47.—Supervise and control canvassers

268. Abes v. Comelec, 21 SCRA 1252 (1967)
 269. Aratuc v. Comelec, 88 SCRA 251 (1979)

Section 52.48.—Transfer canvassing venue

270. Tagoranao v. Comelec, 22 SRA 978 (1968)

Section 52.49.—Suspend or annul canvass and proclamation

271. Albano v. Arranz, 4 SCRA 386 (1962)
272. Agbayani v. Comelec, 186 SCRA 484 (1990)
273. Demafiles v. Comelec, 21 SCRA 1462 (1967)
274. Espino v. Zaldivar, 21 SCRA 1204 (1967)
275. Digman v. Comelec, 120 SCRA 650 (1983)—
p.111, par. 6
276. Digman v. Comelec, 120 SCRA 650 (1983)—
p.111, par. 7
277. Sandoval v. Comelec, G.R. No. 133842,
January 26, 2000

Section 52.50.—Comment
278. Antonio v. Comelec, 32 SCRA 319 (1970)

Section 52.51.—Practice tip

279. Abes v. Comelec, 21 SCRA 1252 (1967)

Section 52.52.—Effect of assuming office

280. Agbayani v. Comelec, 186 SCRA 484 (1990)

Section 52.53.—Caution
281. Guevarra v. Comelec, 104 Phil. 268 (1958)

Section 52.54.—Serve as board of canvassers of senators

282. Nacionalista Party v. Comelec, 85 Phil. 149
(1949)

Section 52.55.—Supervise barangay elections

Section 52.56.—Investigate and prosecute election offenses

283. Romualdez v. Comelec, G.R. No. 167011,
April 30, 2008

Section 52.57.—Recommend pardon of election offenses

Section 52.58.—Prescribe use of latest technological devices

Section 52.59.—Enlist non-partisan groups to implement

laws
Section 52.60.—Supervise and regulate franchises during
elections
284. Sanidad v. Comelec, 181 SCRA 529 (1990)

Section 52.61.—Submit recommendations and reports.

2. LEGISLATIVE

Section 52.62.—Promulgate rules and regulations

285. Cabrera v. Comelec, G.R. No. 182084,
October 6, 2008
286. Llana v. Comelec, G.R. No. 152080,
November 28, 2003
287. Akbayan-Youth v. Comelec, G.R. Nos.
147066 & 147179, March 26, 2001
288. Kabataan Party-List represented by
Palatino v. Comelec, G.R. No. 189868,
December 15, 2009

Section 52.62.1.—Comelec rule cannot supplant or vary

legislative enactments
289. Loong v. Comelec, G.R. No. 93986,
December 22, 1992
290. Aquino v. Comelec, G.R. No. 120265,
September 18, 1995—see dissent of Justice
Davide
291. Romualdez-Marcos v. Comelec, G.R. No.
119976, September 18, 1995—see
separate opinion of Justice Mendoza
292. Fermin v. Comelec, G.R. No. 179695 & G.R.
No. 182369, December 18, 2008
293. Sahali v. Comelec, G.R. No. 134169,
February 2, 2000
294. Jaafar v. Comelec, G.R. No. 134188, March
15, 1999
295. Marcoleta v. Comelec, G.R. No. 181377
296. Alagad Party-List v. Comelec, G.R. No.
181726, April 24. 2009

Section 52.62.2.—Liberal construction of Comelec rules

297. Baddiri v. Comelec, G.R. No. 165677, June
8, 2005

Section 52.63.—Effectivity of regulations and orders

3. JUDICIAL
Section 52.64.—Exercise original jurisdiction over regional,
provincial, and city election contests

Section 52.64.1.—Hearing and proceedings

Section 52.65.—Conduct hearings in provinces

Section 52.66.—Exercise appellate jurisdiction over

municipal and barangay election contests
298. Rivera v. Comelec, 199 SCRA 178 (1991)

Section 52.67.—Caution
299. Guieb v. Fontanilla, 247 SCRA 348 (1995)

Section 52.68.—Decide pre-proclamation controversies

Section 52.69.—Issue extraordinary writs

300. Relampagos v. Cumba, 243 SCRA 690
(1995)

Section 52.70.—Caution
301. Relampagos v. Cumba, 243 SCRA 690
(1995)

Section 52.71.—Issue summons, subpoena, and warrant of

arrest

Section 52.72.—Grant immunity from criminal prosecution

Section 52.73.—Punish for contempt

302. Bedol v. Comelec, G.R. No. 179830,
December 3, 2009
303. Masangcay v. Comelec, 6 SCRA 27 (1962)—
p. 121 par.3
304. Geronimo v. Ramos 136 SCRA 435 (1985)
305. Masangcay v. Comelec, 6 SCRA 27 (1962)—
p. 121 par. 4 (1st Masangcay)
306. Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop v.
Ferrer, 135 SCRA 25 (1985)
307. Masangcay v. Comelec, 6 SCRA 27 (1962)—
p. 121 par. 4 (2nd Masangcay)
308. Guevarra v. Comelec, 104 Phil. 268 (1968)

Section 52.74.—Hearings
 309. Masangcay v. Comelec, 6 SCRA 27 (1962)
310. Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop v.
Ferrer, 135 SCRA 25 (1985)
311. Geromo v. Comelec, 118 SCRA 165 (1982)

Section 52.75.—Decisions
312. Mangca v. Comelec, 112 SCRA 273
313. Pangandaman v. Comelec, G.R. No. 134340
November 25, 1999
314. Pacis v. Comelec, 25 SCRA 377 (1968)
315. Maruhom v. Comelec, G.R. No. 139357,
May 5, 2000

Section 52.76.—Period for rendering decisions

316. Marcelino v. Cruz, 121 SCRA 51

Section 52.77.—Motion for reconsideration

317. Sahali v. Comelec, G.R. No. 134169,
February 2, 2000
318. Velayo v. Comelec, G.R. No. 135613, March
9, 2000
319. Bulalong v. Comelec, 220 SCRA 745 (1993)
320. Coquilla v. Comelec, G.R. No. 151914, July
31, 2002—p.123
321. Coquilla v. Comelec, G.R. No. 151914, July
31, 2002—p. 124 par. 1
322. Coquilla v. Comelec, G.R. No. 151914, July
31, 2002—p. 124 par. 2
323. Bernardo v. Abalos, G.R. No. 137266,
December 5, 2001
324. Loong v. Comelec, 305 SCRA 832 (1999)
325. Ambil v. Comelec, 344 SCRA 358 (2000)
326. Macabago v. Comelec, G.R. No. 152163,
November 18, 2002

Section 52.78.—Execution and enforcement of decisions

Section 52.79.—Constitutional provisions

327. Nacionalista Party v. Vera, 85 Phil. 126
(1949)
328. Lozada v. Comelec, 120 SCRA 337 (1983)
329. Loong v. Comelec, 305 SCRA 832 (1999)
330. Reyes v. RTC, 244 SCRA 41 (1995)—p. 126,
par. 6
331. Reyes v. RTC, 244 SCRA 41 (1995)—p. 126,
par. 7
332. Aratuc v. Comelec, 88 SCRA 1979
 333. Padilla v. Comelec, 137 SCRA 429 (1985)
334. Faelnar v. People, G.R. Nos. 140850-51,
May 4, 2000
335. Concepcion Jr. v. Comelec, G.R. No.
178624, June 30, 2009

Section 52.80.—Action for certiorari and appeal by certiorari

distinguished
336. Padilla v. Comelec, 137 SCRA 429 (1985)
337. Arao v. Comelec, 210 SCRA 290 (1992)
338. Reyes v. RTC, 244 SCRA 41 (1995)
339. Aratuc v. Comelec, 88 SCRA 251 (1979)
340. Loong v. Comelec, 305 SCRA 832 (1999)
341. Macabago v. Comelec, G.R. No. 152163,
November 18, 2002

Section 52.81.—Procedural rules

342. Salva v. Makalintal, 340 SCRA 506 (2000)
343. Macabago v. Comelec, G.R. No. 152163,
November 18, 2002

Section 52.82.—Scope and standard of review

344. Sahali v. Comelec, G.R. No. 134169,
February 2, 2000
345. Sumulong v. Comelec, 73 Phil. 288 (1941)
346. Arao v. Comelec, 210 SCRA 290 (1992)
347. Aratuc v. Comelec, 88 SCRA 251 (1979)
348. Padilla v. Comelec, 137 SCRA 429 (1985)
349. Montescarlos v. Comelec, G.R. No. 152295,
July 9, 2002

Section 52.83.—Issues not raised in Comelec

350. Claudio v. Comelec, G.R. No. 140560, May
4, 2000

Section 52.84.—Reviewability of findings of fact

351. Grand Alliance for Democracy v. Comelec,
150 SCRA 665 (1987)
352. Benito v. Comelec, G.R. No. 134913,
January 19, 2001
353. Padilla v. Comelec, 137 SCRA 429 (1985)
354. Pasandalan v. Comelec, G.R. No. 150312,
July 18, 2002
355. Cawasa v. Comelec, G.R. No. 150469, July
3, 2002
356. Socrates v. Comelec, G.R. No. 154512,
November 12, 2002
 357. Mohammad v. Comelec, 320 SCRA 258
(1999)
358. Pangarungan v. Comelec, 216 SCRA 522
(1992)
359. Lozano v. Yorac, 203 SCRA 256 (1991)
360. Sahali v. Comelec, G.R. No. 134169,
February 2, 2000
361. Padilla v. Comelec, 137 SCA 429 (1985)—
p.132, par. 6
362. Padilla v. Comelec, 137 SCA 429 (1985)—
p.132, par. 7
363. Baddiri v. Comelec, G.R. No. 165677, June
8, 2005
364. Haji Adap v. Comelec, G.R. No. 161984,
February 21, 2007

Section 52.85.—Reviewability of administrative decisions

365. Loong v. Comelec, 305 SCRA 832 (1999)
366. Chavez v. Comelec, 211 SCRA 315 (1992)
367. Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop v.
Ferrer, 135 SCRA 25 (1985)
368. Information Technology Foundation of the
Philippines v. Comelec, G.R. No. 159139,
January 13, 2004

Section 52.86.—Presumption of regularity

369. Montescarlos v. Comelec, G.R. No. 152295,
July 9, 2002
370. Pangkat Laguna v. Comelec, G.R. No.
148075, February 4, 2002

Section 52.87.—Mandamus as a remedy

371. Abes v. Comelec, 21 SCRA 1252 (1967)
372. Lozada v. Comelec, 120 SCRA 337 (1983)
373. Akbayan v. Comelec, G.R. No. 147066,
March 26, 2001
374. Comelec v. Judge Padilla, G.R. No. 151992,
September 18, 2002

Section 52.88.—Mootness
375. Lozano v. Yorac, 203 SCRA 256 (1991)
376. Baldo v. Comelec, G.R. No. 176135, June
16, 2009
377. Basmala v. Comelec, G.R. No. 176724,
October 6, 2007—p. 135 par. 3
378. Sales v. Comelec, G.R. No. 174668,
September 12, 2007
379. Basmala v. Comelec, G.R. No. 176724,
 October 6, 2007—p. 135 par. 5
380. Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop v.
Ferrer, 135 SCRA 25 (1985)
381. ABS-CBN v. Comelec, G.R. No. 133486,
January 28, 2000

Section 52.89.—Practice tip

382. Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop v.
Ferrer, 135 SCRA 25 (1985)
383. Ocampo v. Comelec, G.R. No. 136282,
February 15, 2000

Section 52.90.—Relationship with lower courts

384. Comelec v. Datuimam, 304 SCRA 106
(1999)
385. Albano v. Arranz, 4 SCRA 386 (1962)
386. Gallardo v. Comelec, 218 SCRA 253 (1993)
—p.137 par. 1
387. Comelec v. Judge Padilla, G.R. NO. 151992.
September 18, 2002
388. Gallardo v. Comelec, 218 SCRA 253 (1993)
—p.137 par. 2

Section 52.91.—Caution
389. Libardo v. Cesar, 234 SCRA 13 (1994)

Section 52.92.—Practice tip

390. Comelec v. Datuimam, 304 SCRA 106
(1999)

Section 52.93.—Comment
391. Cua v. Comelec, 156 SCRA 583 (1987)

Sec. 53. Field offices of the Commission. - The Commission

shall have the following field offices:

(1) Regional Election Office, headed by the Regional Election

Director and assisted by the Assistant Regional Director and
such other subordinate officers or employees as the
Commission may appoint.

(2) Provincial Election Office, headed by the Provincial

Election Supervisor and assisted by such other subordinate
officers or employees as the Commission may appoint.

(3) City/Municipal Election Office, headed by the

City/Municipal Registrar who shall be assisted by an election
clerk and such other employees as the Commission may
appoint.

The Commission may delegate its powers and functions or

order the implementation or enforcement of its orders,
rulings, or decisions through the heads of its field offices.

Sec. 54. Qualifications. - Only members of the Philippines Bar

shall be eligible for appointment to the position of regional
director, assistant regional director, provincial election
supervisor and election registrar: Provided, however, That if
there are no members of the Philippine Bar available for
appointment as election registrar, except in cities and capital
towns, graduates of duly recognized schools of law, liberal
arts, education or business administration who possess the
appropriate civil service eligibility may be appointed to said
position. 

Sec. 55. Office space. - The local government concerned shall

provide a suitable place for the office of the provincial
election supervisor and his staff and the election registrar
and his staff: Provided, That in case of failure of the local
government concerned to provide such suitable place, the
provincial election supervisor or the election registrar, as the
case may be, upon prior authority of the Commission and
notice to the local government concerned, may lease
another place for office and the rentals thereof shall be
chargeable to the funds of the local government concerned.

Sec. 56. Changes in the composition, distribution or Section 56.1.—Supplemental statute

assignment of field offices. - The Commission may make 1. De Guzman v. Comelec, G.R. No. 129118,
changes in the composition, distribution and assignment of July 19, 2000
field offices, as well as its personnel, whenever the
exigencies of the service and the interest of free, orderly,
and honest election so require: Provided, That such changes
shall be effective and enforceable only for the duration of
the election period concerned and shall not affect the tenure
of office of the incumbents of positions affected and shall
not constitute a demotion, either in rank or salary, nor result
in change of status: and Provided, further, That there shall
be no changes in the composition, distribution or assignment
within thirty days before election, except for cause and after
due notice and hearing, and that in no case shall a regional
or assistant regional director be assigned to a region; a
provincial election supervisor to a province; or a city or
municipal election registrar to a city or municipality, where
he and/or his spouse are related to any candidate within the
fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity as the case
may be.

Sec. 57. Measures to ensure enforcement. - For the effective

enforcement of the provisions of this Code, the Commission
is further vested and charged with the following powers,
duties and responsibilities:

1. To issue search warrants after examination under oath or

affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses

2. To stop any illegal election activity, or confiscate, tear

down, and stop any unlawful, libelous, misleading or false
election propaganda, after due notice and hearing.

3. To inquire into the financial records of candidates and any

organization or group of persons, motu proprio or upon
written representation for probable cause by any candidate
or group of persons or qualified voter, after due notice and
hearing.

For purposes of this section, the Commission may avail itself

of the assistance of the Commission on Audit, the Central
Bank, the National Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of
Internal Revenue, the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the
Integrated National Police of the Philippines, barangay
officials, and other agencies of the government.

Sec. 58. Disqualifications of members of the Commission. - Section 58.1.—Grounds

The chairman and members of the Commission shall be 1. Javier v. Comelec, 1444 SCRA 194 (1986)
subject to the canons of judicial ethics in the discharge of 2. Lozano v. Yorac, 203 SCRA 256 (1991)
their functions.
Section 58.2.—Impleading disqualified official
No chairman or commissioner shall sit in any case in which 3. Pangarungan v. Comelec, 216 SCRA 522
he has manifested bias or prejudice for or against or (1992)
antagonism against any party thereto and in connection
therewith, or in any case in which he would be disqualified
under the Rules of Court. If it be claimed that the chairman
or a commissioner is disqualified as above provided, the
party objecting to his competency may file his objection in
writing with the Commission stating the ground therefor.
The official concerned shall continue to participate in the
hearing or withdrawn therefrom in accordance with his
determination of the question of his disqualification. The
decision shall forthwith be made in writing and filed with the
other papers of the case in accordance with the Rules of
Court. If a disqualification should result in a lack of quorum
in the Commission sitting en banc, the Presiding Justice of
the Intermediate Appellate Court shall designate a justice of
said court to sit in said case for the purpose of hearing and
reaching a decision thereon.

Sec. 59. Publication of official ballots and election returns

and printing thereof. - The Commission shall publish at least
ten days before an election in a newspaper of general
circulation certified data on the number of official ballots
and election returns and the names and addresses of the
printers and the number printed by each.