#15 Ibrahim v. COMELEC, G.R. No.

139853, September 5, 2000;

G.R. No. 192289, January 8, 2013

KAMARUDIN K. IBRAHIM, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

and ROLAN G. BUAGAS, Respondents.

REYES, J.

FACTS:

Petitioner Kamarudin Ibrahim (Ibrahim) filed his certificate of candidacy to run

as municipal Vice-Mayor. Thereafter, respondent Rolan G. Buagas (Buagas),
then Acting Election Officer in the said municipality, forwarded to the
COMELECs Law Department (Law Department) the names of candidates
who were not registered voters therein. The list included Ibrahims name.

Consequently, COMELEC en banc issued a Resolution dated December 22,

2009 disqualifying Ibrahim for not being a registered voter of the municipality
where he seeks to be elected without prejudice to his filing of an opposition. It
prompted Ibrahim to file Petition/Opposition but was denied by the
COMELEC en banc through a Resolution dated May 6, 2010. In this
resolution, the COMELEC declared that the Resolution dated December 22,
2009 was anchored on the certification, which was issued by Buagas and
Acting Provincial Election Supervisor of Maguindanao, Estelita B. Orbase,
stating that Ibrahim was not a registered voter of the municipality where he
seeks to be elected.

On the day of the election, during which time the Resolution dated May 6,
2010 had not yet attained finality, Ibrahim obtained the highest number cast
for the Vice-Mayoralty race. However, the Municipal Board of Canvassers
(MBOC), which was then chaired by Buagas, suspended Ibrahims
proclamation. Thus, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC en banc acted with grave abuse of
discretion in issuing the assailed resolutions.

HELD: The petition is meritorious.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:
The COMELEC en banc is devoid of authority to disqualify Ibrahim as a
candidate for the position of Vice-Mayor.

In the case at bar, the COMELEC en banc, through the herein assailed
resolutions, ordered Ibrahims disqualification even when no complaint or
petition was filed against him yet. Let it be stressed that if filed before the
conduct of the elections, a petition to deny due course or cancel a certificate
of candidacy under Section 78 of the OEC is the appropriate petition which
should have been instituted against Ibrahim considering that his allegedly
being an unregistered voter of his municipality disqualified him from running
as Vice-Mayor. His supposed misrepresentation as an eligible candidate was
an act falling within the purview of Section 78 of the OEC. Moreover, even if
we were to assume that a proper petition had been filed, the COMELEC en
banc still acted with grave abuse of discretion when it took cognizance of a
matter, which by both constitutional prescription and jurisprudential
declaration, instead aptly pertains to one of its divisions.

REMEDIAL LAW: Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64

Ibrahim properly resorted to the instant Petition filed under Rule 64 of the
Rules of Court to assail the Resolutions dated December 22, 2009 and May
6, 2010 of the COMELEC en banc.

Under the Constitution and the Rules of Court, the said resolutions can be
reviewed by way of filing before us a petition for certiorari. What the instant
Petition challenges is the authority of the MBOC to suspend Ibrahims
proclamation and of the COMELEC en banc to issue the assailed resolutions.
The crux of the instant Petition does not qualify as one which can be raised
as a pre-proclamation controversy.

#17 Soller v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 139853, September 5, 2000;

Soller v. COMELEC

FACTS
Petitioner and private respondent (Saulong) were both candidates for
mayor of the municipality of Bansud, Oriental Mindoro in the May 11,
1998 elections. The petitioner was proclaimed as mayor by the
municipal board of canvassers. Private respondent filed a petition with
the COMELEC to annul the proclamation. Later, private respondent
filed an election protest against petitioner with the RTC. The COMELEC
dismissed the pre-proclamation case filed by private respondent, while
the RTC denied petitioners motion to dismiss. Petitioner moved for
reconsideration but said motion was denied.

Petitioner then filed with the COMELEC a petition for certiorari

contending that respondent RTC acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing private
respondents election protest. The COMELEC en banc dismissed
petitioners suit. Petitioner now questions this decision of the COMELEC
en banc.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the COMELEC has the authority to decide on the case.

HELD
The SC has ruled in previous cases that the COMELEC, sitting en banc,
does not have the requisite authority to hear and decide election cases
including pre-proclamation controversies in the first instance. This
power pertains to the divisions of the Commission. Any decision by the
Commission en banc as regards election cases decided by it in the first
instance is null and void. In the SCs view, the authority to resolve
petition for certiorari involving incidental issues of election protest, like
the questioned order of the trial court, falls within the division of the
COMELEC and not on the COMELEC en banc

#22 BAYTAN v. COMELEC

Baytan vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 153945 February 4, 2003
FACTS: Petitioners, Reynato Baytan, Reynaldo Baytan and Adrian Baytan
were on their way to register for the May 1998 elections when they met the
newly elected Barangay Captain, Roberto Ignacio, in Barangay 18, Zone II of
Cavite City, who led them to register in Precinct No. 83-A of Barangay 18.

Upon realizing that their residence is situated within the jurisdiction of

Barangay 28 not Barangay 18, petitioners proceeded to Precinct 129-A of
Barangay 28 and registered anew.

Subsequently, petitioners sent a letter to former COMELEC Assistant

Executive Director Jose Pio O. Joson requesting for advice on how to cancel
their previous registration.

Petitioners Voters Registration Records were forwarded to the Provincial

Election Supervisor, Atty. Juanito V. Ravanzo, for evaluation, who,
subsequently, recommended filing an information for double registration
against petitioners. The COMELEC affirmed Ravanzos resolution. Petitioners
moved for reconsideration, which, was denied by COMELEC en banc.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion when it
recommended the prosecution of petitioners for double registration despite
lack of intent and substantial compliance with the requirement of cancellation
of previous registration.

HELD: No. There is no question that petitioners registered twice on different

days and in different precincts without canceling their previous registration.
Since "double registration" is malum prohibitum, petitioners claim of lack of
intent to violate the law is inconsequential. Neither is the letter to Joson an
application to cancel their previous registration. This letter was sent after their
second registration was accomplished and after the election officer of Cavite
City had already reported their act of double registration to a higher official.

Moreover, petitioners claims of honest mistake, good faith and substantial

compliance with the Election Codes requirement of cancellation of previous
registration are matters of defense best ventilated in the trial proper rather
than at the preliminary investigation.The established rule is that a preliminary
investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the
parties evidence. It is for the presentation of such evidence only as may
engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and the
accused is probably guilty thereof.

#23 Municipal Board of Canvassers of Glan v. COMELEC

G.R. No. 150946, 23 October 2003

Facts: Flora Benzonan and COMELEC instituted a pre-proclamation

controversy.
Flora Benzonan who was a mayoralty candidate in the Municipality of Glan,
Sarangani during 2001 sought to declare null and void the canvass
conducted by the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Glan and to recall the
proclamation of petitioners respectively. Respondent argued here pre-
proclamation case on the ground that:

1. After the original and second Municipal Board of Canvassers had resigned,
the third Municipal Board of Canvassers was illegally constituted as it as its
Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary which are not qualified over
Omnibus Code.

2. The canvassing proceeding with more initially held in the Session Hall of
Sangunian Bayan were latter transferred to the Provincial Capitol at Danao
contrary to COMELEC Resolution.

3. The Secretary of Municipal Board of Canvassers failed to record the

minutes of the canvassing.

4. Neither Benzonan nor her representatives were the last three days of the
canvassing proceeding.

5. A sustancial number of election returns had been tampered with of

falsificated.

6. Municipal Board of Canvassers falsificated the Certificate of Canvass Vote.

The COMELEC en banc issued a resolution finding the based on the

evidence presented the proclamation of the winning candidates were
declared null and void. And a re-canvass of the election returns was ordered.
Arising from the said decision was a petition for Certiorari filed to review the
COMELEC en banc resolution and praying that a Temporary Restraining
Order be given for the reason that COMELEC was not in the proper
jurisdiction to render such resolution.

Issue: WON the COMELEC en banc has a jurisdiction over the case.

Held: Not all cases relating to election laws filed before the COMELEC are
required to be first heard by a division, under the constitution the COMELEC
exercise both the administrative and quasi-judicial powers. The COMELEC
en banc can act directly on matters falling with in its administrative powers. It
is only when the exercise of quasi-judicial powers are involved that the
COMELEC is mandated to decide cases first in division. It is clear that this
case is one that involves a preproclamation controversy that requires the
exercise of the COMELEC quasi-judicial powers as the illegality of the
composition and proceedings of the Municipal Board of Canvassers. Also,
Benzonan filed her pre proclamation case directly with the COMELEC en
banc. Since COMELEC en banc is without jurisdiction to decide cases
involving such, the procedure taken by Benzonan resulted in a resolution in
her favor thus declared null and void.

#36. LDP v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161265, February 24, 2004;

Facts: Prior to the MAy 2004 elections, the LAban ng Demokratikong Pilipino
(LDP) has been divided because of a struggle of authority between Party
Chair Edgardo Angara and Part Secretary General Agapito Aquino, both
having endorsed two differentsets of candidates under the same party, LDP.

The matter was brought to the COMELEC. The Commission in its resolution,
has recognized the factions creating two sub-parties: LDP Angara Wing and
LDP Aquino Wing.

Issue: Whether or not the COMELEC committed a grave abuse of discretion

in recognizing the two sets of nominations and endosements by the same
party.

Held: The COMELEC erred in its resolution. Only those Certificates of

Candidacy (COC) signed by the LDP Party Chairman Angara or his duly
authorized representative/s shall be recognized.

#32. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 133486 January 28, 2000

Facts :
A Petition for Certiorari raised by ABS-CBN under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court assailing Commission on Elections (Comelec) en banc Resolution
No. 98-14191 dated April 21, 1998. In the said Resolution, the poll body
RESOLVED to approve the issuance of a restraining order to stop ABS-CBN
or any other groups, its agents or representatives from conducting such exit
survey and to authorize the Honorable Chairman to issue the same.

The Resolution was issued by the Comelec allegedly upon "information

from [a] reliable source that ABS-CBN (Lopez Group) has prepared a project,
with PR groups, to conduct radio-TV coverage of the elections . . . and to
make [an] exit survey of the . . . vote during the elections for national officials
particularly for President and Vice President, results of which shall be
[broadcast] immediately."

The electoral body believed that such project might conflict with the
official Comelec count, as well as the unofficial quick count of the National
Movement for Free Elections (Namfrel). It also noted that it had not
authorized or deputized Petitioner ABS-CBN to undertake the exit survey.

On May 9, 1998, this Court issued the Temporary Restraining Order

prayed for by petitioner. We directed the Comelec to cease and desist, until
further orders, from implementing the assailed Resolution or the restraining
order issued pursuant thereto, if any. In fact, the exit polls were actually
conducted and reported by media without any difficulty or problem.

Issue :
Whether the assailed resolution is valid.

Held :
 The absolute ban imposed by the Comelec cannot be justified. It does
not leave open any alternative channel of communication to gather the type
of information obtained through exit polling. On the other hand, there are
other valid and reasonable ways and means to achieve the Comelec end of
avoiding or minimizing disorder and confusion that may be brought about by
exit surveys.

A specific limited area for conducting exit polls may be designated. Only
professional survey groups may be allowed to conduct the same. Pollsters
may be kept at a reasonable distance from the voting center. They may be
required to explain to voters that the latter may refuse interviewed, and that
the interview is not part of the official balloting process. The pollsters may
further be required to wear distinctive clothing that would show they are not
election officials.48 Additionally, they may be required to undertake an
information campaign on the nature of the exercise and the results to be
obtained therefrom. These measures, together with a general prohibition of
disruptive behavior, could ensure a clean, safe and orderly election.

The freedom of expression is a fundamental principle of our democratic

government. It "is a 'preferred' right and, therefore, stands on a higher level
than substantive economic or other liberties. . . . [T]his must be so because
the lessons of history, both political and legal, illustrate that freedom of
thought and speech is the indispensable condition of nearly every other form
of freedom."

Our Constitution clearly mandates that no law shall be passed abridging

the freedom of speech or of the press.15In the landmark case Gonzales v.
Comelec,16 this Court enunciated that at the very least, free speech and a
free press consist of the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of
public interest without prior restraint.

The freedom of expression is a means of assuring individual self-

fulfillment, of attaining the truth, of securing participation by the people in
social and political decision-making, and of maintaining the balance between
stability and change. It represents a profound commitment to the principle
that debates on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide
open.18 It means more than the right to approve existing political beliefs or
economic arrangements, to lend support to official measures, or to take
refuge in the existing climate of opinion on any of public consequence. And
paraphrasing the eminent Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes,19 we stress that
the freedom encompasses the thought we hate, no less than the thought we
agree with.

In exit polls, the contents of the official ballot are not actually exposed.
Furthermore, the revelation of whom an elector has voted for is not
compulsory, but voluntary. Voters may also choose not to reveal their
identities. Indeed, narrowly tailored countermeasures may be prescribed by
the Comelec, so as to minimize or suppress incidental problems in the
conduct of exit polls, without transgressing the fundamental rights of our
people.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED, and the Temporary

Restraining Order issued by the Court on May 9, 1998 is made
PERMANENT. Assailed Minute Resolution No. 98-1419 issued by the
Comelec en banc on April 21, 1998 is hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE.
No costs.