Friday, July 27, 2018

Sarmiento vs. Comelec

RODULFO SARMIENTO vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF VIRAC and JOSE "CITO" ALBERTO II
G. R. No. 105628 August 6, 1992

The special civil actions for certiorari hereby jointly resolved, filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seek to set aside the Resolutions of respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in the following Special Cases (SPC): 1) G.R. No. 105628 — SPC No. 92-266 granting the appeal from the ruling of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Virac, Catanduanes which ordered the exclusion from the canvass of one (1) election return; 2) G.R. No. 105725 — SPC No. 92-323 reversing the ruling of the City Board of Canvassers of Iriga City which ordered the exclusion from the canvass of six (6) election returns and in UND No. 92-243 ordering the said Board of Canvassers to include in the canvass the election returns involved therein; 3) G.R. No. 105727 — SPC No. 92-288 dismissing the appeal of petitioner from the ruling of the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Catanduanes which ordered the inclusion in the canvass the certificate of canvass for the municipality of Virac, excluding the returns from 48 precincts; 4) G.R. No. 105730 — SPC No. 92-315 affirming the ruling of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte which dismissed petitioner's opposition to the composition of the said Municipal Board of Canvassers; 5) G.R. No. 105771 — SPC No. 92-271 affirming the ruling of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Cabusao, Camarines Sur which, among others, rejected petitioner's objection to certain election returns; 6) G.R. No. 105778 — SPC No. 92-039 dismissing said case for non-compliance with Section 20 of R.A. No. 7166; 7) G.R. No. 105797 — SPC No. 92-153 affirming the rulings of the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Davao Oriental which rejected petitioner's objections to the canvass of some certificates of canvass; 8) G.R. No. 105919 — SPC No. 92-293 dismissing petitioner's appeal from the ruling of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Upi Nuro, Maguindanao; 9) G.R. No. 105977 — SPC No. 92-087 denying the amended pre-proclamation petition, which is an appeal from the rulings of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Ternate, Cavite, and denying a subsequent motion to resolve the issues raised in said amended petition. 

Petitioners question the resolutions for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion for violating Section 3, subdivision C, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution which provides that: “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.”

ISSUE:
Whether or not the resolutions issued by the COMELEC violate Section 3(C), Article IX of the 1987 Constitution?

RULING:
Article IX Section 3(C) of the 1987 Constitution provides that election cases including 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. 

The COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, when it resolved the appeals of petitioners in the abovementioned Special Cases without first referring them to any of its Divisions. Said resolutions are, therefore, null and void and must be set aside. Consequently, the appeals are deemed pending before the Commission for proper referral to a Division.

Accordingly, the instant petitions are DISMISSED without prejudice to the filing by petitioners of regular election protests. If the winning candidates for the positions involved in the Special Cases subject of these petitions have already been proclaimed, the running of the period to file the protests shall be deemed suspended by the pendency of such cases before the COMELEC and of these petitions before this Court.

No comments:

Post a Comment