Political law 1 digested case

DOUGLAS R. CAGAS v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and CLAUDE P. BAUTISTA

A party aggrieved by an interlocutory order issued by a COMELEC Division in an election protest may
not directly assail the order before the Supreme Court through a special civil action for certiorari. The
remedy is to to seek the review of said interlocutory order during the appeal of the decision of the
Division.
FACTS:
Petitioner Douglas R. Cagas was proclaimed the winner for the gubernatorial race for the province of
Davao del Sur. Respondent Claude P. Bautista, his rival, filed an electoral protest alleging fraud,
anomalies, irregularities, vote-buying and violations of election laws, rules and resolutions. The protest
was raffled to the COMELEC First Division.
In his affirmative defense, Cagas argued that Bautista did not make the requisite cash deposit on time
and that Bautista did not render a detailed specification of the acts or omissions complained of. The
COMELEC First Division denied the special affirmative defences. Thus, Cagas prayed that the matter be
certified to the COMELEC En Banc. Bautista countered that the assailed orders, being merely
interlocutory, could not be elevated to the COMELEC En Banc. The COMELEC First Division issued an
order denying Cagas motion for reconsideration, prompting him to file a petition for certiorari before
the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Supreme Court has the power to review on certiorari an interlocutory order issued
by a Division of the COMELEC
HELD:
Petition DENIED.
Although Section 7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution confers on the Court the power to review any
decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC, it limits such power to a final decision or resolution of the
COMELEC en banc, and does not extend to an interlocutory order issued by a Division of the COMELEC.
Otherwise stated, the Court has no power to review on certiorari an interlocutory order or even a final
resolution issued by a Division of the COMELEC.

There is no question, therefore, that the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petition for
certiorari assailing the denial by the COMELEC First Division of the special affirmative defenses of the
petitioner. The proper remedy is for the petitioner to 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 of his special
affirmative defenses to the COMELEC En Banc along with the other errors committed by the Division
upon the merits.
It is true that there may be an exception to the general rule, which is when an interlocutory order of a
Division of the COMELEC was issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion, as the Court conceded in Kho v. Commission on Elections. However, the said case has no
application herein because the COMELEC First Division had the competence to determine the lack of
detailed specifications of the acts or omissions complained of as required by Rule 6, Section 7 of
COMELEC Resolution No. 8804, and whether such lack called for the outright dismissal of the protest.

Requisites of Judicial Due Process

Case 1b & 1c
Chapter II
MALIKSI VS. COMELEC
March 12, 2013
During the 2010 Elections, the Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Saquilayan the winner for
the position of Mayor of Imus, Cavite. Maliksi, the candidate who garnered the second highest number
of votes, brought an election protest in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Imus, Cavite alleging that there
were irregularities in the counting of votes in 209 clustered precincts. Subsequently, the RTC held a
revision of the votes, and, based on the results of the revision, declared Maliksi as the duly elected
Mayor of Imus commanding Saquilayan to cease and desist from performing the functions of said
office. Saquilayan appealed to the COMELEC. In the meanwhile, the RTC granted Maliksis motion for
execution pending appeal, and Maliksi was then installed as Mayor.
In resolving the appeal, the COMELEC First Division, without giving notice to the parties, decided to
recount the ballots through the use of the printouts of the ballot images from the CF cards. Thus, it
issued an order dated March 28, 2012 requiring Saquilayan to deposit the amount necessary to defray
the expenses for the decryption and printing of the ballot images.
Later, it issued another order dated April 17, 2012 for Saquilayan to augment his cash deposit.
On August 15, 2012, the First Division issued a resolution nullifying the RTCs decision and declaring
Saquilayan as the duly elected Mayor.
Maliksi filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging that he had been denied his right to due process
because he had not been notified of the decryption proceedings. He argued that the resort to the
printouts of the ballot images, which were secondary evidence, had been unwarranted because there
was no proof that the integrity of the paper ballots had not been preserved.

On September 14, 2012, the COMELEC En Banc resolved to deny Maliksis motion for reconsideration.
Maliksi then came to the Court via petition for certiorari, reiterating his objections to the decryption,
printing, and examination of the ballot images without prior notice to him, and to the use of the
printouts of the ballot images in the recount proceedings conducted by the First Division.
In the decision promulgated on March 12, 2013, the Court, by a vote of 8-7, dismissed Maliksis petition
for certiorari. The Court concluded that Maliksi had not been denied due process because: (a) he had
received notices of the decryption, printing, and examination of the ballot images by the First Division
referring to the orders of the First Division directing Saquilayan to post and augment the cash
deposits for the decryption and printing of the ballot images; and (b) he had been able to raise his
objections to the decryption in his motion for reconsideration. The Court then pronounced that the First
Division did not abuse its discretion in deciding to use the ballot images instead of the paper ballots,
explaining that the printouts of the ballot images were not secondary images, but considered original
documents with the same evidentiary value as the official ballots under the Rule on Electronic
Evidence; and that the First Divisions finding that the ballots and the ballot boxes had been tampered
had been fully established by the large number of cases of double-shading discovered during the
revision.
Hence, Maliksi filed the petition before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: W/O Maliksi was deprived of due process when the COMELEC First Division ordered on appeal
the decryption, printing, and examination of the ballot images in the CF cards.
HELD: The petition was dismissed. Maliksi alleged that he was denied due process when the COMELEC
First Division directed the decryption, printing, and examination of the ballot images in the CF cards for
the first time on appeal without notice to him, thus depriving him of his right to be present and
observe the decryption proceedings.
The records also showed that Maliksi was aware of the decryption, printing, and examination of the
ballot images by the COMELEC First Division. The COMELEC First Division issued an Order dated 28
March 2012 directing Saquilayan to deposit the required amount for expenses for the supplies,
honoraria, and fee for the decryption of the CF cards, and a copy of the Order was personally delivered
to Maliksis counsel. Maliksis counsel was likewise given a copy of Saquilayans Manifestation of
Compliance with the 28 March 2012 Order. In an Order dated 17 April 2012, the COMELEC First Division
directed Saquilayan to deposit an additional amount for expenses for the printing of additional ballot
images from four clustered precincts, and a copy of the Order was again personally delivered to
Maliksis counsel. The decryption took weeks to finish.
Clearly, Maliksi was not denied due process. He received notices of the decryption, printing, and
examination of the ballot images by the COMELEC First Division. In addition, Maliksi raised his
objections to the decryption in his motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc. The Court
has ruled:
x x x. The essence of due process, we have consistently held, is simply the
opportunity to be heard; as applied to administrative proceedings, due process is
the opportunity to explain ones side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of
the action or ruling complained of. A formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times
and in all instances essential. The requirement is satisfied where the parties are
afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy at
hand. x x x.
There is no denial of due process where there is opportunity to be heard, either through oral
arguments or pleadings. It is settled that opportunity to be heard does not only mean oral arguments
in court but also written arguments through pleadings. Thus, the fact that a party was heard on his
motion for reconsideration negates any violation of the right to due process. The Court has ruled that
denial of due process cannot be invoked where a party was given the chance to be heard on his motion
for reconsideration.
MALIKSI VS. COMELEC

April 11, 2013

In Maliksis Extremely Urgent Motion for Reconsideration he argued that the Supreme Court en banc
gravely erred in dismissing the instant petition despite a clear violation of petitioners constitutional
right to due process of law considering that decryption, printing and examination of the digital images
of the ballots, which is the basis for the assailed 14 September 2012 resolution of the public
respondent, which in turn affirmed the 15 August 2012 resolution of the COMELEC First Division, were
done inconspicuously upon a motu proprio directive of the COMELEC First Division sans any notice to
the petitioner, and for the first time on appeal.
HELD: The Court grants Maliksis Extremely Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, and reverses the
decision promulgated on March 12, 2013 on the ground that the First Division of the COMELEC denied
to him the right to due process by failing to give due notice on the decryption and printing of the ballot
images. Consequently, the Court annuls the recount proceedings conducted by the First Division with
the use of the printouts of the ballot images.
It bears stressing at the outset that the First Division should not have conducted the assailed recount
proceedings because it was then exercising appellate jurisdiction as to which no existing rule of
procedure allowed it to conduct a recount in the first instance. The recount proceedings authorized
under Section 6, Rule 15 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8804, as amended, are to be conducted by the
COMELEC Divisions only in the exercise of their exclusive original jurisdiction over all election protests
involving elective regional (the autonomous regions), provincial and city officials.
As we see it, the First Division arbitrarily arrogated unto itself the conduct of the recount proceedings,
contrary to the regular procedure of remanding the protest to the RTC and directing the reconstitution
of the Revision Committee for the decryption and printing of the picture images and the revision of the
ballots on the basis thereof. Quite unexpectedly, the COMELEC En Banc upheld the First Divisions
unwarranted deviation from the standard procedures by invoking the COMELECs power to take such
measures as [the Presiding Commissioner] may deem proper, and even citing the Courts minute
resolution in Alliance of Barangay Concerns (ABC) Party-List v. Commission on Elections5 to the effect
that the COMELEC has the power to adopt procedures that will ensure the speedy resolution of its
cases. The Court will not interfere with its exercise of this prerogative so long as the parties are amply
heard on their opposing claims.
Based on the pronouncement in Alliance of Barangay Concerns (ABC) v. Commission on Elections, the
power of the COMELEC to adopt procedures that will ensure the speedy resolution of its cases should
still be exercised only after giving to all the parties the opportunity to be heard on their opposing
claims. The parties right to be heard upon adversarial issues and matters is never to be waived or
sacrificed, or to be treated so lightly because of the possibility of the substantial prejudice to be
thereby caused to the parties, or to any of them. Thus, the COMELEC En Banc should not
have upheld the First Divisions deviation from the regular procedure in the guise of speedily resolving
the election protest, in view of its failure to provide the parties with notice of its proceedings and an
opportunity to be heard, the most basic requirements of due process.