RODULFO SARMIENTO, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF VIRAC and JOSE "CITO" ALBERTO II.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 105628
- Promulgated: 1992-08-06
Doctrine
A purposive reading of Article IX(C)(3) may treat its second sentence as directory rather than mandatory so as not to unduly constrain COMELEC's flexibility in expediting disposition of election cases (¶130).
The second sentence of Article IX(C)(3) can be read as applying only to election protests properly so called, not necessarily to all pre-proclamation controversies (¶131).
Where all members of the Commission En Banc are present when appeals are resolved, the dispositions by the En Banc may satisfy constitutional concerns about hearing by a Division and by the En Banc (¶80, ¶128).
Facts
Multiple petitions were filed by candidates (listed in ¶3) challenging COMELEC actions disposing of pre-proclamation controversies and related appeals from municipal and provincial Boards of Canvassers.
The Court dismissed the instant petitions and allowed petitioners to file regular election protests; running of protest periods is suspended while cases were pending (¶34).
Temporary Restraining Orders previously issued in several G.R. numbers were lifted by the Court (¶35).
The Commission En Banc resolved appeals directly; all members of the Commission En Banc (and thus of each Division) were present when the cases were disposed of (¶80, ¶128).
Issues
Whether the Commission En Banc acted with grave abuse of discretion or without/in excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the alleged pre-proclamation controversies without first requiring hearings in Division.
Whether the matters presented by petitioners constituted genuine pre-proclamation controversies within the meaning of Article IX(C)(3) of the 1987 Constitution.
Ruling
The petitions are dismissed without prejudice to filing regular election protests; time to file protests is suspended during pendency before COMELEC and this Court (¶34).
The Court held that the Commission En Banc did not act with grave abuse of discretion nor without or in excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the alleged pre-proclamation controversies without first hearing them in Division (¶132).
The Temporary Restraining Orders in specified G.R. numbers are lifted (¶35).
Keywords
G.R. No. 105628, G.R. No. 105725, G.R. No. 105727, G.R. No. 105730, G.R. No. 105771, G.R. No. 105778, G.R. No. 105797, G.R. No. 105919, G.R. No. 105977, special civil actions for certiorari, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, Commission on Elections (COMELEC), Resolutions of respondent Commission on Elections, Special Cases (SPC), election return exclusion, certificate of canvass, composition of Municipal Board of Canvassers, Section 20 of R.A. No. 7166, pre-proclamation petition, grave abuse of discretion