COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

August 22, 1940 - Organized under Commonwealth

Act No. 607

Originally vested the President to enforce election

laws and exercise through the Department of
Interior.

December 2, 1940 Amended the 1935 Constitution

that saw the COMELECs transformation from a
statutory creation to a constitutional body.

Granted the power to have exclusive charge of the

enforcement and administration of all laws relative to
the conduct of elections.

1973 constitution further broadened the powers of
COMELEC making it the sole judge of all election
contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of members of the national legislature
and elective provincial and city officials. COMELEC
was given judicial power aside from its traditional
administrative and executive functions.
Today, the COMELEC enforces and administers
ALL laws and regulations relative to the conduct of
elections, plebiscites, initiatives, referenda and
recalls.

This includes election contests involving regional,

provincial and city elective officials are under its
EXCLUSIVE original jurisdiction.
ALL contests involving municipal and barangay officials
are under its appellate jurisdiction. (Loong v.
COMELEC, 1999)
 Qualification and Terms of Office:

As to the Chairman and the Commissioners - as

provided in Art. IX, Sec. 1 of the Philippine 1987
Constitution. There shall be six (6)
Commissioners who shall be:

A natural-born citizens of the Philippines and ,

At the time of their appointment, at least thirty-
five years of age and,A holder of a college
degree and,

Must not have been candidates for any elective
positions in the immediately preceding elections.
Chairman who shall possess the same
qualifications. However, a majority thereof,
including the Chairman, shall be members of the
Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years.
 How are they appointed?

The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be

appointed by the President with the consent of
the Commission on Appointments for a term of
seven (7) years without reappointment. Of those
first appointed, three (3) Members shall hold
office for seven (7) years, two (2) Members for
five (5) years, and the last Members for three (3)
years, without reappointment. Appointment to any
vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of
the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be
appointed or designated in a temporary or acting
capacity (Art. IX, Sec. 1 Par. 2).
 Why is it staggered?

The staggering of the term also makes the

Commission a continuing and self-perpetuating
body and consequently, its members would have
the benefit of the experience and expertise of the
older members in the performance of its
functions. The continuity of its tenure as a body
makes the greater of its policies and decisions
and serves as a guarantee arbitrary action which
is likely to occur in body partisan questions.
 Is it possible to serve more than
once?

NO. The framers of the constitution made it quite

clear that any person who has served any term of
office as Comelec member whether for a full
term of serven years, a truncated term of five or
three years, or even for an unexpired term of any
length of time can no longer be reappointed to
the Comelec. (Matibag v. Benipayo, 2002)
 What are their disabilities?
Section 2. No member of a Constitutional
Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any
other office or employment. Neither shall he
engage in the practice of any profession or in the
active management or control of any business
which, in any way, may be affected by the
functions of his office, nor shall he be financially
interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract
with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by the
Government, any of its subdivisions, agencies, or
instrumentalities, including government-owned or
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.
 Are there implied or expressed
powers vested by the Constitution in
the COMELEC?
Yes.
As to the expressed powers: Art. IX (A), Sec. 2
of the Philippine 1987 Constitution states that, the
Commission on Elections shall exercise the
following powers and functions:
(1) Enforce and administer all laws and
regulations relative to the conduct of an election,
plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall.
(2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all
contests relating to the elections, returns, and
qualifications of all elective regional, provincial,
and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over
all contests involving elective municipal officials
decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or
involving elective barangay officials decided by
trial courts of limited jurisdiction.
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the
Commission on election contests involving
elective municipal and barangay offices shall be
final, executory, and not appealable.
(3) Decide, except those involving the right to vote,
all questions affecting elections, including
determination of the number and location of
polling places, appointment of election officials
and inspectors, and registration of voters.
(4) Deputize, with the concurrence of the
President, law enforcement agencies and
instrumentalities of the Government, including
the Armed Forces of the Philippines, for the
exclusive purpose of ensuring free, orderly,
honest, peaceful, and credible elections.
(5) Register, after sufficient publication, political
parties, organizations, or coalitions which, in
addition to other requirements, must present
their platform or program of government; and
accredit citizens' arms of the Commission on
Elections. Religious denominations and sects
shall not be registered. Those which seek to
achieve their goals through violence or unlawful
means, or refuse to uphold and adhere to this
Constitution, or which are supported by any
foreign government shall likewise be refused
registration.
Financial contributions from foreign governments
and their agencies to political parties,
organizations, coalitions, or candidates related to
elections, constitute interference in national
affairs, and, when accepted, shall be an
additional ground for the cancellation of their
registration with the Commission, in addition to
other penalties that may be prescribed by law.
(6) File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own
initiative, petitions in court for inclusion or
exclusion of voters; investigate and, where
appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of
election laws, including acts or omissions
constituting election frauds, offenses, and
malpractices.
(7) Recommend to the Congress effective
measures to minimize election spending,
including limitation of places where propaganda
materials shall be posted, and to prevent and
penalize all forms of election frauds, offenses,
malpractices, and nuisance candidacies.
8) Recommend to the President the removal of any
officer or employee it has deputized, or the
imposition of any other disciplinary action, for
violation or disregard of, or disobedience to, its
directive, order, or decision.
9) Submit to the President and the Congress, a
comprehensive report on the conduct of each
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or
recall.
As to its implied powers: as provided in
Sec. 2 of the COMELEC Rules and
Procedure, the Commission shall
likewise exercise such powers as are
implied in or are necessary to the
effective exercise of its express
powers. It is supplementary in
character.
Aside from above mentioned powers, are
there inherent powers given to the
COMELEC?
Yes. As provided in the COMELEC Rules and
Procedure there are 8 inherent powers vested to
the COMELEC: Sec. 3. Inherent Powers. - When
performing its constitutional or statutory functions,
the Commission shall have inherent power to:
(a) Preserve and enforce order in its immediate
presence;
(b) Enforce order in proceedings before it or before
any of its offices or officials empowered to
conduct investigation under its authority.
(c) Compel obedience to its judgments, orders and
processes;
(d) Control its ministerial officers and all other
persons in any manner connected with a case
before it, and in every manner appertaining
thereto;
(e) Compel the attendance of persons to testify in
a case pending before it;
(f) Administer or cause to be administered oaths in
a case pending before it, and in all other cases
where it may be necessary in the exercise of its
powers;
g) Amend and control its processes and orders so
as to make them conformable to law and justice;
(h) Authorize a copy of a lost or destroyed pleading
or other paper to be filed and used instead of the
original, and to restore, and supply deficiencies in
its records and proceedings.
 CASES
CASE 1. Cayetano v. Monsod (QUALIFICATIONS)
Facts:
The case involves the true interpretation of the phrase practice
of law as a requirement or one of the qualifications to
become a commissioner or a chairman of the COMELEC.
Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by Pres. Corazon
C. Aquino to the position of chairman of the COMELEC in a
letter received by the Secretariat of the Commission on
Appointments on April 25, 1991.
Petitioner Cayetano opposed the nomination because Monsod
does not possess the required qualification for want of the
practice of law for at least 10 years.
 Issue:
Whether or not Monsod possessed the qualification to be
nominated as chairman of the COMELEC?
What is the true interpretation of the term practice of law?
Held: Petition dismissed.
Ratio:
The commission on the basis of evidence submitted during
the public hearing on Monsods confirmation implicitly
determined that he possessed the necessary qualifications
required by law.
Practice of law, any activity, in and out of court, which
requires the application of law, legal procedure and training
and experience, or just by performing acts which are
characteristics of the profession.
 CASE 2. Gaminde v. Commission on Audit (tenure of
office, term)
Facts:
On June 11, 1993, The president of the Philippines appointed
petitioner Thelma P. Gaminde, ad interim
She assumed office on June 22, 1993 after taking an oath of
office.
On September 7, 1993, the Commission on Appointments,
Congress of the Philippines confirmed the appointment.
However, on February 24, 1998, petitioner sought clarification
from the Office of the President, as to the expiry date of her
term of office.
A letter was sent by the CPLC which stated that , petitioners
term of office will expire on Feruary 2, 2000 not on February
2, 1999.
On February 4, 1999, Chairman Corazon de Leon, wrote to
COA requesting opinion as to whether or not Gaminde may
be paid their salaries notwithstanding the expiration of their
appointments on February 2, 1999.
There was a disallowance of salaries on February 2, 1999
which was the date of the expiration of her term.
She appealed.
 ISSUE:
Whether or not Thelma Gaminde as Commissioner, to which
she was appointed on June 11,1993, expires on February
2, 1999 or February 2, 2000.
Held:
We reverse the decision of the Commission of Audit insofar
as they disallowed the salaries and emoluments entitled to
the petitioner during her tenure as a de facto officer from
February 2, 1994 to February 2, 2000.
Ratio:
Term is different from tenure, the term of petitioner was from
February 2, 1992 to February 2,1999 but her tenure is from
February 2,1992 to February 2, 2000.
 What are the functions and powers of
COMELEC?

The COMELEC is clothed with the 3 powers of

the government namely:
1.) Executive or Administrative, 2.) Legislative,
3.) Judicial
Executive or administrative - to enforce &
administer election laws
Legislative - to promulgate rules on all questions
affecting elections & its rules of procedures.
Judicial - to exercise original & appellate
jurisdiction over certain election cases.
Primary Function: - As a deliberative and judicial
body, it performs all functions vested in it by the
Constitution, laws and decrees and such other
functions inherent in a policy-determining body

What does it include?

It also includes initiative and referendum, where
the COMELEC exercises administration and
supervision akin to its powers over the conduct of
elections. (Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v.
Comelec, 1996)
 CASES

Case 1. Tan vs COMELEC (Administrative)

Facts:

Antonio Tan, as incumbent city Prosecutor of Davao City,

was designated by the Commission on Elections as Vice-
Chairman of the City Board of Canvassers of Davao City
for the 11th May 1992 synchronized national and local
elections

Manuel Garcia was proclaimed the winning candidate for a

congressional seat to represent the 2nd District of Davao
City.

Senforiano Alterado, another candidate for the position,
filed a number of cases questioning the validity of the
proclamation of Manuel Garcia and accusing the members
of the City Board of Canvassers of unlawful, erroneous,
incomplete and irregular canvass.

An administrative charge was instituted in the COMELEC

against the City Board of Canvassers, including Antonio
Tan, for Misconduct, Neglect of Duty, Gross Incompetence
and Acts Inimical to the Service.

Tan moved to dismiss the administrative complaint against

him for alleged lack of jurisdiction of the COMELEC, he
being under the Executive Department of the government
and that COMELECs power to deputize public officers
belonging to the executive department is for the purpose of
insuring free, orderly and honest elections.

Motion to dismiss was denied.

 Issue:
: Whether or not the Comelec gravely abused its
discretion in denying the motion to dismiss.

No. The COMELECs authority under Section 2(6-

8), Article IX, of the Constitution is virtually
all-encompassing when it comes to election matters.

The administrative case against Tan, taken cognizance of by,

and still pending with, the COMELEC, is in relation to the
performance of his duties as an election canvasser and not
as a city prosecutor.
The COMELEC merely may issue a recommendation for
disciplinary action but that it is the executive department to
which the charged official or employee belongs which has
the ultimate authority to impose the disciplinary penalty.
The law then does not detract from, but is congruent with,
the general administrative authority of the department of
government concerned over its own personnel.
 Case 2. Guevarra vs COMELEC
(Judicial)
Issue:

Whether or not the Comelec has the power and jurisdiction to

conduct contempt proceedings against petitioner with a
view to imposing upon him the necessary disciplinary
penalty in connection with the publication of an article in the
Sunday Times issue which, according to the charge,
tended to interfere with and influence said Commission in
the adjudication of a controversy then pending
determination and to degrade and undermine the function
of the Commission and its members in the administration of
all laws relative to the conduct of elections.
 Held:

Wherefore, petition is granted. Respondent

Commission is hereby enjoined from
proceeding with the case set forth in its
resolution of June 20, 1957, with
pronouncement as to costs.
The preliminary injunction issued by this Court is
made permanent.
 Ratio:
The Commission on Elections is an independent administrative body
which was established by our Constitution to take charge of the
enforcement of all laws relative to the conduct of elections and
devise means and methods that will insure the accomplishment of
free, orderly, and honest elections.
Commission on Elections not only has the duty to enforce and
administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections but the
power to try, hear and decide any controversy that may be
submitted to it in connection with the elections. As an incident of
this power, it may also punish for contempt in those cases provided
for in Rule 64 of the Rules of Court under the same procedure and
with the same penalties provided therein. Comelec may however
exercise quasi-judicial functions in so far as controversies that by
express provision of the law come under its jurisdiction.
 Case 3. Cayetano vs COMELEC (legislative)

Facts:
A petition for certiorari under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court, assailing the Orders issued by public respondent
Commission on Election (COMELEC) in relation to the election
protest, filed by private respondent Tinga against petitioner
Cayetano.
In the automated national and local elections held on petitioner and
private respondent were candidates for the position of Mayor of
Taguig City. Petitioner was proclaimed the winner receiving a
total of 95,865 votes as against the 93,445 votes received by
private respondent.
Respondent filed an Election Protest against petitioner before the
COMELEC. Respondents protest listed election frauds and
irregularities allegedly committed by petitioner, which translated
to the latters ostensible win as Mayor of Taguig City.
Petitioner filed her Answer with Counter-Protest and Counterclaim
and raised, the affirmative defense of insufficiency in form and
content of the Election Protest and prayed for the immediate
dismissal thereof.
The COMELEC held a preliminary conference and issued an Order
granting private respondent a period within which to file the
appropriate responsive pleading to the Answer of petitioner. The
COMELEC likewise stated that it will rule on the affirmative
defenses raised by petitioner.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Preliminary
Conference Order relative to the denial of her affirmative
defenses. Private respondent filed a Comment and Opposition
thereto. Consequently, the COMELEC issued the second
assailed Order denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.
 Issue:

Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave

abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction in refusing to dismiss the protest
of private respondent for insufficiency in form
and content.
 Held:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

Costs against petitioner.
 What do the Judicial Functions pertain
to?
a. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the
elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional,
provincial and city officials, and
appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal
officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving
elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited
jurisdiction.
b. To decide, all questions affecting elections, including
determination of the number and location of polling places,
appointment of election officials and inspectors, and registration
of voters.
c. To file petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion of voters; and
to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of
violations of election laws, including acts or omissions
constituting election fraud, offenses and malpractices.
 What are its Ministerial Functions?
To enforce and administer all laws and regulations
relative to the conduct of elections, plebiscites,
initiatives, referendums and recalls;
How do they exercise MINISTERIAL FUNCTIONS?
1. By deputizing, with the concurrence of the President,
law enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the
Government, including the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, for the exclusive purpose of ensuring free,
orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections;
2. To register political parties, organizations, or coalitions
and accredit the citizens' arms of the Commission.
 Reportorial Function
1.To recommend to the Congress the enactment of
effective measures to minimize election spending,
including limitation of places where propaganda
materials may be posted, and to prevent and penalize
all forms of election frauds, offenses, malpractices and
nuisance candidates;
2. To recommend to the President the removal of any
officer or employee it has deputized, including the
imposition of any other disciplinary action, for violation
or disregard of, or disobedience, to its directives, orders
or decisions.
Other functions
To perform other functions as may be provided by law,
including fiscal autonomy.
What are the provisions in the Constitution that governs
JUDICIAL REVIEW?

Unless otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law,

any DECISION, ORDER, OR RULING of the COMELEC
may be brought to the Supreme Court on CERTIORARI
by the aggrieved party within 30 days from receipt of a
copy thereof (CONSTITUTION, Art. IX-A section 7)
 What is Certiorari?

Certiorari as a special civil action can be availed only if there is

concurrence of the essential requisites:
The tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial functions has
acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

There is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate

remedy in the ordinary course of law for the purpose of
annulling or modifying the proceeding. (Sahali v. Comelec,
February 2, 2000)
How can you distinguish ACTION FOR CERTIORARI and
APPEAL BY CERTIORARI?

ACTION CERTIORARI a special civil action

MAIN ISSUE: lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of

discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction.
(Macabago v. Comelec)
APPEAL BY CERTIORARI
MAIN ISSUE: limited to the consideration of
questions of law. (Arao v. Comelec, 1992)
 Is Mandamus available as a remedy?

No. Mandamus lies only to compel an officer to

perform a ministerial duty, not a discretionary
one. Mandamus will not issue to control the
exercise of discretion of a public officer where
the law imposes upon him the duty to exercise
his judgment in reference to any matter in which
he is required to act, because it is his judgment
that is to be excercised and not that of the court.
(Akbayan v. COMELEC, 2001)
 Why is there a reason for limited review?
The COMELEC should be given considerable latitude in devising
means and methods that will insure the accomplishment of the
great objectives for which it was created free, orderly, honest,
peaceful and honest elections.
Unless the choices that the Commission may not be agreeable to
the minds of the court, but unless these are clearly illegal or
arbitrary or constitute gross abuse of discretion, the court should
not interfere. (SUMULONG v. COMELEC, 1941; Arao v.
COMELEC)
Lower courts have no authority to review orders or decisions of the
COMELEC decisions, final orders or rulings on election contests
involving elective municipal and barangay offices are final,
executor and not appealable. ( p.550, De Leon: The Law on Public
Officers and Election Law)
 Case 1. Macabago v. COMELEC:
(Grave Abuse of Discretion)
FACTS:
May 22,2001, Petitioner Sabdullah T. Macabago was proclaimed by
Municipal Board of Canvassers as the winning candidate for
Municipal Mayor of Saguiran, Lanao del Sur with a lead of 198
votes over respondent, Jamael M. Salacop.
June 1,2001, Private respondent filed a petition on COMELEC
seeking to annul the elections and the proclamation of candidates
in the said municipality. He alleged that there was massive
cheating and irregularities that rendered the election process a
sham and a mockery and subsequent proclamation as a nullity.
February 11,2002, Comelec En Banc took cognizance of the petition
and issued an order directing the Election Officer of Saguiran,
Lanao del Sur to bring to and produce before the COMELEC
Office in Manila the original Voters Registration Records of the
questioned precints for technical examination.
Comelec characterized the petition as one for annulment of
the election or declaration of failure of election in the
municipality a special action covered by Rule 26 of the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
Petitioner filed with the Court the instant special civil action for
certiorari undr Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.
 ISSUE:

Whether or not Petitioners records to the Supreme

Court under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure is in order
Whether or not COMELEC acted without
jurisdiction or committed a grave abuse of its
discretion amounting to excess or lack of
jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the petition of
private respondent and in issuing assailed order.
 HELD:
Petition is granted. Assailed order is SET ASIDE. Petition of
private respondent is DISMISSED, without prejudice to the
filing of a regular election protest.
RATIO:
As a general rule, an administrative order of the COMELEC is
not a proper subject of a special civil action for certiorari. But
when the COMELEC acts capriciously or whimsically, with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in issuing such an order (the reproduction of
VRRs), the aggrieved party (Petitioner) may seek redress
from this Court via a special civil action for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules.
 Case 2. Arao v. Comelec
FACTS:
Petitioner Benjamin Arao and Warlito Pulmones were candidates for
the Office of the City Mayor in the January 1988 local elections in
Pagadian City.
January 21, 1988, 3 days after the conclusion of the said elections,
Petitioner was declared the winner over respondent by 417 votes.
Private respondent filed a Protest with the COMELEC alleging that
there fraud and anomalies that were rampant citing in forty five (45)
precints (later in an amended petition to include thirteen (13) more.
February 17, 1991, COMELEC (first division) issued a resolution
citing that the amended protest for failure to find any record
admitting said amended protest.
September , 7, 1989 ,However, in a COMELEC en banc resolution,
the found that the Amended protest was indeed admitted but after
the revision of ballots and hearing, petitioner was still declared the
winner by 378 votes.
January 23, 1992, COMELEC en banc declared private respondent
as the winner ordering Petitioner Benjamin Arao to vacate his
office and surrender the same to Warlito Pulmones.

Petitioner filed a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining

order that was granted by the Supreme Court against the writ of
execution issued by respondent Comelec en banc.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent COMELEC gravely
abused its discretion or exceeded its jurisdiction.
 Held:

Petition is DENIED
Ratio:
As jurisprudence has abided and held the difference of a
special action for certiorari and that of appeal by certiorari or
petition for review, there can be no mistake that Petitioner in
case at bar has brought questions of fact that the Supreme
Court can not rule upon for the said court can determine
whether there are questions of law and grave abuse of
discretion.
The court held that Factual matters were not deemed
proper for consideration in proceedings either.. as an original
action for certiorari or as an appeal by certiorari.
 What are field offices?

(1) Regional Election Office, headed by the Regional Election

Director and assisted by the Assistant Regional Director
and such other subordinate officers or employees as the
Commission may appoint.
(2) Provincial Election Office, headed by the Provincial
Election Supervisor and assisted by such other subordinate
officers or employees as the Commission may appoint.
(3) City/Municipal Election Office, headed by the
City/Municipal Registrar who shall be assisted by an
election clerk and such other employees as the
Commission may appoint.
 What are the requirements?

Members of the Philippine Bar shall be eligible for

appointment to the position of regional director,
assistant regional director, and provincial election
supervisor and election registrar. Provided that if there
are no members of the Philippine Bar available for
appointment as ELECTION REGISTRAR, except in
cities and capital towns, graduate of duly recognized
schools of law, liberal arts, education or business
administration who possess the appropriate civil
service eligibility may be appointed to said position.