AR

CASE NO. 311

ART. VII. SEC. 52.74. HEARINGS
Geromo v. Comelec 118 SCRA 165 (1982)

FACTS: Geromo won by a plurality of 107 votes over Guillen and was proclaimed duly elected Mayor of Molave, Zamboanga del
Sur. Guillen filed an election protest. Trial Court annulled the proclamation of petitioner and declared Guillen as the duly elected
Mayor. Geromo questions the admissibility of Exhibit "B" (a certification issued by the Election Registrar attesting to the votes
obtained by both parties), alleging that it is incompetent evidence, the primary evidence being the election returns themselves.

ISSUE/S: W/N Comelec is strictly bound by the rules of evidence.

RULING: NO. After proper verification and checking, the Court found Exhibit `B’ as a correct and exact certification showing the
number of votes received by candidates. In upholding the admissibility of Exhibit "B", the Court ruled that the COMELEC, by
virtue of its broad powers to ascertain the true results of the election by means available to it, is not strictly bound by
the rules of evidence.

AR
CASE NO. 312
ART. VII. SEC. 52.75. DECISIONS
Mangca v. Comelec 112 SCRA 273

FACTS: Balindong and Mangca vied for mayor of Sultan Gumander, Lanao del Sur. Balindong won. Mangca filed for the
suspension of proclamation of winning candidates. COMELEC issued a resolution allowing Balindong to sit as Mayor. Mangca
claims that the same did not express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based and, therefore, null and void.

ISSUE/S: W/N the Comelec resolution is null and void for failure to express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which
it is based.

RULING: NO. Since the Comelec is not a court of justice, the constitutional requirement that no decision shall be
rendered by a court of record without clearly and distinctly stating the facts and the law on which it is based is not
applicable to the Comelec, Nevertheless, the questioned resolution has clearly and distinctly expressed the facts and the law
on which it is based. The factual basis is the proclamation of Balindong; while the legal basis is the settled judicial doctrine that
once a proclamation has been held, a pre-proclamation case should no longer be viable.

AR
CASE NO. 313
ART. VII. SEC. 52.75. DECISIONS
Pangandaman v. Comelec 134340 (1999)

FACTS: Petitioner asserts that the COMELEC acted with GAD in issuing the assailed Omnibus Order by insisting on holding
special elections on July 18 and 25, 1998 more than thirty (30) days after the failure to elect, in certain municipalities, in
contravention of the clear and explicit provisions of Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code. Petitioner argues that the provision
is mandatory because of the word "shall."

ISSUE/S: W/N the 30-day limit as provided in Section 6 of the OEC is mandatory.

RULING: NO. The Constitution gives the COMELEC the broad power to "enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative
to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall." It gives COMELEC all the necessary and incidental
powers for it to achieve the objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections. The legal compass from
which COMELEC should take its bearings in acting upon election controversies is the principle that “clean elections
control the appropriateness of the remedy.