PA 1 6

LAW
FRANCELLE BOCO
Reporter
SECTION 4
A L B A Ñ A V. C O M E L E C
GR No. 163302, 2005
This case explored the principle of
exhaustion of administrative remedies,
emphasizing that before a party can seek
judicial intervention, they must first
exhaust all available administrative
remedies provided by law.
Introduction
The case titled "G.R. No. 163302" dated July 23, 2004
involves a petition brought before the Philippine Supreme
Court. The petitioners, consisting of several individuals,
contested a resolution by the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) that nullified their proclamation as duly-
elected municipal officials of Panitan, Capiz, following the
May 14, 2001 elections.
Parties Involved
Petitioners: Roberto Albaña, Katherine Belo,
Generoso Derramas, Vicente Duran, Ricardo Araque,
Lilia Aranas, Merlinda Degala, Gabriel Aranas,
Ernesto Bito-on, and Juvic Deslate

Respondents: Commission on Elections, Pio Jude S.

Belo, Rodolfo Deocampo, and Lorencito B. Diaz.
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
During the May 14, 2001 elections, the petitioners and private
respondents ran for the positions of Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and
Members of the Sangguniang Bayan in the Municipality of
Panitan, Capiz.

On May 18, 2001, the petitioners were duly elected and

proclaimed winners.

On June 23, 2001, the private respondents filed a complaint

against the petitioners with the COMELEC Law Department,
alleging that the latter committed acts of terrorism and
engaged in vote-buying.
THE COMPLAINT
On June 23, 2001, Private respondents
filed a complaint with the COMELEC,
alleging election offenses and vote-
buying by the petitioners.

The complaint was docketed

as Election Offense
Case No. 01-111.
COMELEC’s ACTIONS
On January 15, 2002, COMELEC's Law
Department recommended filing charges
against the petitioners and their disqualification.
On February 28, 2003, COMELEC En Banc
directed the filing of charges but also
ordered the disqualification.
The petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration.
Resolution and Appeal

On June 3, 2003, COMELEC

denied the motion for
reconsideration.
The disqualification case was
docketed as SPA No. 03-006.
The Annulling Resolution
On October 21, 2003, COMELEC First
Division annulled the petitioners'
proclamation on the ground that they
violated Section 261(a) and (e) of the
Omnibus Election Code and ordered a
new municipal board of canvassers to
proclaim the winners.

Petitioners' motion for reconsideration

was denied on May 5, 2004.
The New Municipal Officials

On June 10, 2004, New

municipal officials
were proclaimed after
the May 10, 2004
elections.
Legal Issues:
01 02
Whether the Whether
petition is moot COMELEC's
due to the resolutions were
election and issued with
proclamation of grave abuse of
new officials. discretion.
Court's Ruling
The Court held that the first
issue was moot due to the
election of new officials.

However, the Court decided to

address the case to prevent
future issues.
RDisqualification
E S O LU T I O N S A N D&DElection
E C I S I O N SOffenses
:

The petitioners argued that

COMELEC should have dismissed
the disqualification complaint
because it was filed after
their proclamation.
Violation of COMELEC Resolution
The Court cited COMELEC
Resolution No. 2050, which
mandated the dismissal of
disqualification cases filed after
a candidate's proclamation.

The petitioners' disqualification

case should have been deferred
until the criminal case was
decided.
COMELEC's Error
The COMELEC committed a grave
abuse of discretion by
prematurely disqualifying the
petitioners before the criminal
case's conclusion.
It also wrongly ordered the
proclamation of new officials.
Court's Decision

The COMELEC Resolutions of

October 21, 2003, and May 5,
2004, were nullified.

The proclamation of new

officials was also annulled.
 A N A LY
ANALYSIS S I S
First Issue: Whether the petition is moot due to the
election and proclamation of new officials.
Section 2 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2050 is as clear:
COMELEC is mandated to dismiss a complaint for the
disqualification of a candidate who has been charged with
an election offense but who has already been proclaimed
as winner by the Municipal Board of Canvassers
Second, as laid down in paragraph 2, a complaint for disqualification
filed after the election against a candidate (a) who has not yet been
proclaimed as winner, or (b) who has already been proclaimed as
winner. In both cases, the complaint shall be dismissed as a
disqualification case but shall be referred to the Law Department of
the COMELEC for preliminary investigation.
In the case at bar, the complaint for disqualification was filed 7
days after the elections. Thus, the disqualification case should
have been dismissed and instead referred for preliminary
investigation to the Law Department.
Therefore, if the COMELEC finds no probable cause, it is mandated to
dismiss the complaint for disqualification.
If the COMELEC finds probable cause, it shall still dismiss the complaint
for disqualification without prejudice to the outcome of the dismissal
case but shall order the Law Department to file the appropriate
Information with the RTC which has territorial jurisdiction
If the RTC finds the accused guilty, then it shall order the
disqualification pursuant to Section 264 of the Omnibus Election Code.
Second Issue: Whether COMELEC's resolutions
were issued with grave abuse of discretion.

The COMELEC committed a grave

abuse of its discretion amounting to
excess or lack of jurisdiction in issuing
its assailed resolutions disqualifying
the petitioners from the positions they
were respectively elected, in defiance
of Resolution No. 2050.
The COMELEC, likewise, committed a
grave abuse of its discretion when it
ordered the Municipal Election Officers to
convene a new Board of Canvassers and
proclaim the winners after the petitioners
were declared disqualified.
To simplistically assume that the second placer would
have received the other votes would be to substitute our
judgment for the mind of the voter. The second
placer is just that, a second placer.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
• The Philippine Constitution – The legal framework of this case is
grounded in the Philippine Constitution, which establishes the
framework for the country's political and electoral system. It
includes provisions related to elections, government structure, and
the rule of law.

• Omnibus Election Code – The Omnibus Election Code is a

significant piece of Philippine legislation that governs various
aspects of the electoral process, including the conduct of elections,
campaign rules, election offenses, and procedures for resolving
election-related disputes.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
• Republic Act No. 6646 – This law amended the Omnibus Election
Code and introduced changes to the electoral process, such as
campaign finance regulations and the disqualification of
candidates based on election offenses.

• COMELEC Resolutions – The Commission on Elections

(COMELEC) issues resolutions that provide detailed guidelines
and procedures for the conduct of elections and the resolution
of election-related cases. COMELEC Resolutions are an
important part of the legal framework for elections.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
COMELEC Resolution No. 2050 – outlines the procedures and
guidelines for handling cases of disqualification of candidates
based on Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code. Section 68
deals with the disqualification of candidates for certain election-
related offenses.

It also includes referral for preliminary investigation and potential

suspension of proclamation, to ensure that the disqualification
process aligns with the legal principles and procedures
established in the Omnibus Election Code.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
• Jurisprudence – Legal decisions made by the Philippine Supreme Court, as
reflected in the case discussed (G.R. No. 163302), establish legal precedents
and interpretations of election laws and constitutional principles.

• Legal Procedures – The legal framework outlines procedures for filing

election-related complaints, conducting investigations, and adjudicating
cases before the COMELEC and the courts, including the Philippine Supreme
Court.

• Constitutional Principles – The legal framework is influenced by

constitutional principles such as due process, equal protection, and the right
to suffrage, which guide the interpretation and application of election laws.
C O N C LU S I O N

The petition of ROBERTO ALBAÑA, et. al. was

GRANTED.

The Court's decision upheld the proper

procedure outlined in COMELEC
Resolution No. 2050.

The case serves as a precedent for

similar situations in the future.
The principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies is a legal
doctrine that generally requires parties to pursue available
administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention. In
the context of this case, it might have been relevant if the
parties had specific administrative remedies available to
address their concerns related to election disqualification.
However, the case does not seem to focus on or provide a
detailed exploration of this doctrine. Instead, it primarily
addresses the timing of disqualification cases and the proper
procedures for disqualifying candidates based on alleged
election offenses.
THANK YOU!