Mendoza vs Comelec, GR 188308, October 15, 2009

Facts: The petitioner and the private respondent Roberto M. Pagdanganan vied for the
position of Governor of the Province of Bulacan in the May 14, 2007 elections. The
petitioner was proclaimed winning candidate and assumed the office of Governor.

The respondent seasonably filed an election protest with the
COMELEC. Revision of ballots involving the protested and counter-protested precincts
soon followed. The revision was conducted at the COMELECs office in
Intramuros. The COMELEC later transferred the some ballot boxes, including those
involved in the provincial election contest, to the Senate Electoral Tribunal
(SET). Because of this, petitioner moved to suspend further proceedings but was
denied by the COMELEC, ruling that the COMELEC has plenary powers to find
alternative methods to facilitate the resolution of the election protest; thus, it concluded
that it would continue the proceedings after proper coordination with the SET. This
prompted petitioner to file a petition for certiorari asserting that the COMELEC,
exercising judicial power, conducted proceedings in the election contest within SET
premises for the gubernatorial position of the Province of Bulacan, between him and the
respondent Pagdanganan, without due regard to his fundamental due process rights of
notice and participation.

The COMELEC, claims that its decision-making deliberations are internal, confidential
and do not require notice to and the participation of the contending parties.
Issue: Whether or not COMELEC has judicial power.

Held: No. Judicial power in our country is vested in one Supreme Court and in such
lower courts as may be established by law.

The COMELECs adjudicative function is quasi-judicial since it is a constitutional
body, other than a court, vested with authority to decide election contests, and in the
course of the exercise of its jurisdiction, to hold hearings and exercise discretion of a
judicial nature; it receives evidence, ascertain the facts from these submissions,
determine the law and the legal rights of the parties, and on the basis of all these
decides on the merits of the case and renders judgment. Despite the exercise of
discretion that is essentially judicial in character, particularly with respect to election
contests, COMELEC is not a tribunal within the judicial branch of government and is not
a court exercising judicial power in the constitutional sense; hence, its adjudicative
function, exercised as it is in the course of administration and enforcement, is quasi-
judicial.
Under these terms, the COMELEC under our governmental structure is a constitutional
administrative agency and its powers are essentially executive in nature (i.e., to enforce
and administer election laws), quasi-judicial (to exercise original jurisdiction over
election contests of regional, provincial and city officials and appellate jurisdiction over
election contests of other lower ranking officials), and quasi-legislative (rulemaking on
all questions affecting elections and the promulgation of its rules of procedure).