SORRY MEDYO MAHABA, I TRIED MY BEST HAHA Bince vs. Commission on Elections Facts: Bince, Jr.

. and Micu were among the candidates for a seat in the Sanguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Pangasinan. Micu objected to the inclusion of the COC for San Quintin on the ground that it contained false statements. Accordingly, the COCs for the remaining 9 municipalities were included in the canvass. Again, Micu together with the Municipal Boards of Canvassers (MBCs) of Tayug and San Manuel filed with the PBC petitions for correction of the Statements of Votes (SOVs) earlier prepared for alleged manifest errors. The COMELEC promulgated its resolution to complete the canvass of the Certificates of Votes, as corrected and to proclaim the winning candidate on. However, instead of including the corrected COCs of Tayug and San Manuel, Pangasinan, they were excluded and Bince was proclaimed winner. Micu filed an Urgent Motion to Annul Proclamation and COMELEC, through a resolution, granted the same. Consequently, Bince filed a special civil action for certiorari , contending that the COMELEC resolution was promulgated without prior notice and hearing. The SC en banc granted the petition. Micu then filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion before the COMELEC praying that the latter resolve the pending incidents in the COCs of Tayug and San Manuel. The First Division of COMELEC affirmed the proclamation of Bince. Micu filed a MFR and the COMELEC en banc granted the same by setting aside the resolution of the first division and declaring null and void the proclamation of Bince, Jr. Accordingly, the PBC was directed to reconvene and to make the necessary corrections in the SOVs and COCs in the said municipalities. This is the resolution assailed in the instant petition for certiorari. Issue: W/N COMELEC erred in directing the PBC of Pangasinan to order the Municipal Boards of Canvassers of Tayug and San Manuel to make the necessary corrections. Held: No. The Courts directive to COMELEC was to resolve the pending incidents of the case so as to ascertain the true and lawful winner of the said elections. COMELEC cannot be faulted for subsequently annulling the proclamation of Bince on account of a mathematical error in addition committed by respondent MBCs in the computation of the votes received.

Tan vs. Commission on Elections Facts: Petitioners were electoral candidates in Sulu. They filed with the COMELEC a petition to declare failure of elections in the Municipality of Luuk, Parang and Indanan. COMELEC issued an order suspending the proclamation of the winning candidates. However, the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) was not served with a copy of the order, hence, the winners were proclaimed. Thereafter, petitioners filed their Amended Petitions impleading for the first time the winning candidates. The COMELEC En Banc issued an order annulling the proclamation of the respondents but subsequently recalled the same and affirmed the proclamation of the respondents there being no valid pre-proclamation issues pending before the Commission. In the meantime, COMELEC issued an Order directing the technical examination of the voters registration records

in the Municipalities of Parang, Indanan and Luuk. The respondents filed with this Court a petition for certiorari praying for the nullification of COMELECs Orders and for the dismissal of the amended petitions for lack of jurisdiction. Issue: Whether the COMELEC En Banc is vested with jurisdiction to take cognizance of and resolve the amended petitions before it. Held: No. The amended petitions of the petitioners are election protest cases over which the COMELEC assumes jurisdiction in the exercise of its quasi-judicial powers and should be referred for hearing and resolution to a Division of the COMELEC as mandated by the Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code. In fine, elections had been conducted and winners had been already proclaimed. COMELEC should have dismissed the amended petitions. Where, as in this case, elections had been held and winners had been duly proclaimed, the proper recourse of the respondents should have been to file regular election protest cases.