LEGASPI v.

COMELEC
April 19, 2016

FACTS:
Legaspi and Germar ran as mayoralty candidates in Bulacan. Legaspi filed a Petition for Disqualification against Germar saying
that Germar engaged in vote-buying. Comelec First Division by a 2-1 vote disqualified Germar from electoral race. Respondent
moved for reconsideration before the Comelec En Banc, who denied the motion (3-2-1-1 vote). Since Resolution was not
concurred by majority of four votes, re-deliberation took place. Still no majority vote. Comelec En Banc dismissed the original
Petition for Disqualification filed by Legaspi for “Failure to obtain the necessary majority vote.”

ISSUE:
Whether or not Germar should be disqualified

HELD: YES. Petition found to have merit

The Mendoza Doctrine (same facts of this case pero yung ruling baliktad) is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It circumvents the four-
vote requirement and diminishes the adjudicatory powers of the Comelec Divisions. The party moving for reconsideration
carries the burden of proving that the division committed reversible error.
The Mendoza ruling virtually allows the grant of a motion for reconsideration even if the movant fails to secure the four votes in
his favor. Parang ang mangyayari, porket hindi nagkaron ng majority vote yung Comelec Division/En Banc sa MR mo, pwede
na siya ma-grant. Which is mali, kasi in the first place, nagrule na yung Comelec in Legaspi’s favor. May clear decision na.
Also, Rule 56 sec. 7 of the Rules of Court: if opinion is equally divided or results in a tie, MR is deemed denied.

JALOSJOS v. COMELEC
June 26, 2012

FACTS:
Jalosjos ran for Mayor in Tampisilan and won. While serving as Tampisilan Mayor, he bought a residential house in Brgy.
Veterans Village and began occupying it. After 8 months, Jalosjos applied for the transfer of his voter’s registration to Brgy.
Veterans Village. Application approved. Erasmo filed petition to exclude Jalosjos. MTC excluded Jalosjos stating that the latter
did not abandon his domicile in Tampisilan since he continued to serve as Mayor. RTC affirmed. CA reversed. Jalosjos filed his
COC. Erasmo filed petition to cancel COC because Jalosjos made material misrepresentations (indicating that he resided in
Brgy. Veterans Village). Comelec Second Division dismissed petition. While Erasmo’s MR was pending before Comelec En
Banc, elections took place and Jalosjos won and was proclaimed winner on May 13, 2010. On June 3, 2010 En Banc declared
Jalosjos ineligible to seek election.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Comelec acted with jurisdiction.

HELD: NO.
While the Constitution vests in the Comelec the power to decide all questions affecting elections, such power is NOT without
limitation. It DOES NOT extend to contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the House
of Rep. and Senate. Consti vests the resolution of these contests on Electoral Tribunal.
The proclamation of a congressional candidate following the election DIVESTS the Comelec of jurisdiction over
disputes relating to election, returns, and qualifications.
Jalosjos was already proclaimed the winner. Comelec acted without jurisdiction when it still passed upon the issue.

AGGABAO v. COMELEC
January 26, 2005

FACTS:
Aggabao and Miranda were rival congressional candidates. During the canvassing of the Certificates of Canvass of Votes,
Miranda moved for the exclusion of the 1st copy of the COCV on grounds that it was tampered with. Aggabao objected arguing
that the grounds raised by Miranda are proper only for a pre-proclamation controversy which is NOT allowed in elections for
Members of House of Rep. PBC excluded the contested COCVs. Miranda won. On appeal with Comelec, Aggabao asserted
that PBC acted without jurisdiction. On June 14, 2004, Miranda was proclaimed as duly elected Congressman. Two days
after the proclamation, Aggabao filed a petition claiming that Comelec En Banc acted without jurisdiction when they ordered
Miranda’s proclamation considering that the Second Division has not yet resolved the appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Comelec has jurisdiction.

HELD: NO.
Art. VI Sec. 17 of Constitution: Senate and House of Rep. shall have an Electoral Tribunal.
The HRET has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relative to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of
the House of Rep.
Once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a Member of the House of Rep.
Comelec’s jurisdiction ends.
Remedy: file an electoral protest with the Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives.

SALVA v. MAKALINTAL
Sept. 18, 2000

FACTS:
Petitioners (officials and residents of brgy. San Rafael) filed a class suit against Sangguniang Panlalawigan/Pambayan and
Comelec for annulment of Ordianance No. 5 and Resolution No. 345 (abolition of Brgy. San Rafael and merger with Brgy.
Dacanlao). Comelec promulgated RN 2987 providing for the rules and regulations governing the required plebiscite to decide
the issue of the abolition and merger. Petitioners filed an ex parte motion for the issuance of a TRO to enjoin respondents from
enforcing the said Ordinance and Resolutions. Trial Court denied saying that TRO sought by petitioners directed only to the
Comelec Resolution 2987.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Respondent Court has jurisdiction to enjoin the Comelec from implementing Resolution No. 2987

HELD: NO. Appeal was given merit.

Sec. 7 Article IX-A of the Consti: any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the SC on certiorari by
the aggrieved party.
After the Comelec ascertained the issuance of the ordinance and resolution declaring the abolition, it issued a resolution calling
for a plebiscite. Resolution No. 2987 is a ministerial duty of the Comelec and is part and parcel of its administrative
functions. It involves no exercise of discretionary authority on part of Comelec. Thus, the said resolution may not be
deemed as a “final order” reviewable by certiorari by the Court.

CAGAS v. COMELEC
January 24, 2012

FACTS:
Cagas and Bautista contested the position of Governor of Davao in the automated elections. Cagas was proclaimed winner.
Bautista filed electoral protest alleging fraud, irregularities, and vote-buying. Cagas averred that Bautista did not make the
requisite cash deposits on time and did not render a detailed specification of the acts or omissions complained of. Comelec First
Division denie saying that Bautista complied. Cagas moved to reconsider on the ground that the order did not discuss whether
the protest specified the alleged irregularities in the conduct of the elections. Bautista countered that the assailed orders, being
merely interlocutory, could not be elevated to the Comelec En Banc. Comelec denied Cagas for failing to show that first order
was contrary to law.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Comelec committed GADLEJ in refusing to dismiss the protest.

HELD: YES.
Although the Consti confers the Court the power to review any decision, order, or ruling of the Comelec, it limits such power to
FINAL decisions or resolution of the Comelec En Banc and does not extend to an interlocutory order issued by a
Division of the Comelec.
Remedy: wait for the Comelec First Division to first decide the protest on its merits, and if the result should aggrieve
him, to appeal the denial to the Comelec En Banc along with the other errors.
In short: Pag decision ng Division ng Comelec, di pwede rekta SC. Hintayin muna yung FINAL decision ng Comelec EN BANC.

MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF GLAN v. COMELEC

Oct. 23, 2003

FACTS:
Benzonan sought to declare null and void the canvass conducted by the MBC and to recall the proclamation of the Petitioners.
Benzonan argued that the canvassing proceedings were held at a place that is different from the original place. Comelec En
Banc agreed with Benzonan. Thus, the proclamations of the winning candidates were declared null and void and a re-canvass
of the election returs was ordered.

ISSUE: whether or not Comelec En Banc has jurisdiction to resolve the case.

HELD: NO.
Not all cases relating to election laws filed before the Comelec are required to be first heard by a division. Comelec En Banc can
act directly on matters falling within its administrative powers.
Only when the exercise of quasi-judicial powers are involved that the Comelec is mandated to decide cases first in the
division, and then, upon motion for reconsideration, En Banc.
This case involves a pre-proclamation controversy. Eh si Benzonan finile directly with En Banc. Eh si En Banc walang
jurisdiction to decide cases na may ganitong controversies.

SALVADOR v. COMELEC

FACTS:
Salvador, a member of the political party Bagong Lakas ng Nueva Ecija, was a mayoralty candidate in San Jose City, Nueva
Ecija in 2010.[7] Marivic Violago-Belena, private respondent Alexander Belena’s (Belena) wife, won over the petitioner in said
mayoralty election.
On December 4, 2014, Belena filed a Complaint-Affidavit for overspending or violation of Section 100 in relation to Section 262
of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), as amended by Section 13 of R.A. No. 7166 against Salvador.
Belena averred that according to Section 13 of R.A. No. 7166, a candidate, other than for presidency and vice presidency, is
allowed to spend an amount of P3.00 for every voter currently registered in the constituency where he filed his certificate of
candidacy. However, if a candidate without any political party and without any support from any political party, he may be
allowed to spend P5.00 for every such voter.

ISSUE: Did the COMELEC En Banc commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction when it
recommended the filing of an appropriate information against Salvador?

HELD: We rule in the negative.

Section 13 of R.A. No. 7166, a provision which provides for the allowable expenses of a candidate and political parties, is an
amendment to Section 100 of the OEC.
In enacting these provisions, the legislature intended to ensure equality between and among aspirants with deep pockets and
those with less financial resources, as the legislature understood the apparent disparity between candidates who are members
of political parties and candidates who are not members of political parties. The political advantages which necessarily goes
with a candidate’s membership in a political party include the machinery, goodwill, representation, and resources of the political
party. As said advantages are not enjoyed by non-members of a political party, it is necessary that an independent candidate,
whose candidacy does not evoke sympathy from any political party or organized group, be afforded equal chances.

MATURAN v. COMELEC
FACTS:
On October 16, 2015, the petitioner filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of Provincial Governor of Basilan to be
contested in the 2016 National and Local Elections. Allan Patiño, claiming to be a registered voter of Basilan, filed a petition for
the disqualification of the petitioner on the ground that based on the list issued by the COMELEC Campaign Finance Officer the
latter had failed to file his SOCE corresponding to the 2010 and 2013 elections.

The petitioner opposed the petition for his disqualification by arguing that the petition had been rendered moot on account of his
withdrawal from the mayoralty race during the 2013 elections; and that, consequently, he could only be held accountable for the
failure to file his SOCE corresponding to the 2010 elections when he ran for Provincial Governor of Basilan, and for which he
had already paid a fine of ₱l5,000.00.

ISSUE: Whether or not Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion when it declared that petitioner is perpetually disqualified
to hold public office.

HELD: Ruled against Maturan.

The petitioner's allegation of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC for imposing upon him the penalty of
perpetual disqualification to hold public office is hollow. In imposing the penalty, the COMELEC clearly acted within the bounds
of its jurisdiction in view of the clear language of Section 14 of R.A. No. 7166, viz.:
Section 14. Statement of Contributions and Expenditures: Effect of Failure to File Statement. - Every candidate and treasurer of
the political party shall, within thirty (30) days after the day of the election, file in duplicate with the offices of the Commission the
full, true and itemized statement of all contributions and expenditures in connection with the election.

The petitioner should have paid heed to the 1995 ruling in Pilar v. Commission of Elections, which the COMELEC properly cited
in its assailed resolution. Based on Pilar, every candidate, including one who meanwhile withdraws his candidacy, is required to
file his SOCE by Section 14 of R.A. No. 7166. Accordingly, the petitioner could not invoke good faith on the basis of his having
withdrawn his candidacy a day before the 2013 elections.