SOCIAL LEGISLATION | 2 - SANCHEZ ROMAN 1
CHAVEZ v. COMELEC
Digest by: Louis F. Palma Gil 211 SCRA 315
Where Francisco Chaves prayed before the Comelec for the
execution of the Court Order deleting the name of Melchor
Chavez. Where Comelec allegedly failed to delete the said
names in the ballots; The Court held that the inaction of
Comelec in ordering the deletion of Melchor Chavez’ name is
Administrative in nature and beyond Judicial Interference.
Courts can only review decisions of the Comelec when it is
acting in Grave Abuse of Discretion in the discharge of its
Quasi-Judicial Functions.
FACTS:
The Supreme Court issued a Resolution in a previous case
entitled Francisco Chavez v Comelec where id disqualified
Melchor Chavez herein private respondent for running for the
Office of the Senator during the 1992 elections.
Comelec received the said resolution. ON the same day
Francisco Chavez filed an Urgent Motion praying for the
dissemination of the said resolution to the general public and
for the deletion of the name of Melchor Chavez as printed in
the certified list of candidates taly sheets, election returns and
to Count all votes cast for the disqualified Melchor in favor of
Francisco Chavez.
Comelec issued Comelec Resolution No. 92-1322 which
resolved to delete the name Melchor Chavez from the list of
qualified candidates. However, Comelec failed to order the
crediting of all Chavez votes in favor of Francisco Chavez as well
as the cancellation of “Melchor Chavez” in the name of qualified
candidates. The the name remain undeleted on election day.
Commissioner Rama of Comelec issued a directive over radio
and TV ordering all “Chavez” votes to be credited in favor of
Francisco Chavez. However Francisco contends the radio and
TV announcements did not reach the Board of Election
Inspectors at the 170,354 precincts nationwide. As a result,
“Chavez” votes were not credited in favor of of him.
Comelec issued another resolution Comelec Resolution on
May 12 1992 for the examination of the minutes of voting
submitted by the Board of Election Inspectors and to credit all
“Chavez” votes which have been declared stray or invalidated
by the Board of Election Inspectors.
However, Francisco maintains that this recent resolution
remains futile because it did not reach all Board of Election
Inspectors. Hence, he sent a letter requesting Comelec to
devise ways and means in crediting “Chavez” votes in his favor
but the respondent Commission failed to act on said
letter/complaint.
Francisco Chavez filed an urgent petition before the Comelec
that it implement its may 12 1992 resolution, re-open the
ballots in 13 provinces and scan for “Chavez” votes,make
appropriate entries in the election return/certificates of canvass
and suspend proclamation of the 24 winning candidates.
Dissatisfied with the failure of Comelec, Francisco Chavez
continued on to file before the SC a petition urgent petition for
prohibition and mandamus, with prayer for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order, enjoining the Comelec from
proclaiming the 24th highest senatorial candidate without first
implementing respondent Comelec’s resolution of May 12,
1992 and acting upon petitioner’s letter/complaint dated May
14, 1992 and urgent petition dated May 22, 1992.
Chavez claims that assuming only ten (10) “Chavez” votes were
invalidated per precinct, he would have lost at least 1.7 million
votes (considering that there are more than 170,000 precincts
nationwide); the result of which will affect the 24 ranking
senatorial candidates.
The Court issued a TRO enjoining Comelec from proclaiming
the 24th winning senatorial candidate.
Francisco Chavez filed a manifestation praying that petition be
considered a regular petition.
Senator Agapito Aquino filed a motion for leave to intervene
stating that the law does not allow pre-proclamation
controversies involving the election of members of the Senate.
The TRO was lifted by the Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the action of comelec ordering the
deletion of Melchor Chavez’ name is quasi-judicial in nature
such that the SC can take cognizance of the said case. (NO)
HELD: The Court finds the petition of Francisco Chavez
devoid of merit.
The Comelec Resolution was Administrative in nature and
hence cannot be reviewed by the SC;
The alleged inaction of respondent Comelec in ordering the
deletion of Melchor Chavez’s name in the list of qualified
candidates does not call for the exercise of the Court’s function
of judicial review. This Court can review the decisions or orders
of the Comelec only in cases of grave abuse of discretion
committed by it in the discharge of its quasi-judicial powers and
not those arising from the exercise of its administrative
functions. Respondent Commission’s alleged failure to
implement its own resolution is undoubtedly administrative in
nature, hence, beyond judicial interference.
Further; Francisco Chavez has no cause of Action
A simple reading of the petition would readily show that
petitioner has no cause of action, the controversy presented
being one in the nature of a pre-proclamation. While the
Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over pre-proclamation
controversies involving local elective officials (Sec. 242,
Omnibus Election Code), nevertheless, pre-proclamation cases
are not allowed in elections for President, Vice-President,
Senator and Member of the House of Representatives. This is
by virtue of Sec. 15 of Republic Act 7166.
aaaaaa
 SOCIAL LEGISLATION | 2 - SANCHEZ ROMAN 2

What is allowed are only “Manifest Errors”

What is allowed is the correction of “manifest errors in the
certificate of canvass or election returns.” To be manifest, the
errors must appear on the face of the certificates of canvass or
election returns sought to be corrected and/or objections
thereto must have been made before the board of canvassers
and specifically noted in the minutes of their respective
proceedings

In this case; Francisco’s prayer does not call for the

correction of “Manifest Errors”
petitioner prays not only for a restraining order enjoining “the
proclamation of the 24th highest ranking senatorial candidate
without first acting upon peti-tioner’s letter/complaint dated
May 14, 1992 and urgent petition dated May 22, 1992” but also
prays that judgment be rendered requiring the Comelec to re-
open the ballot boxes in 80,348 precincts in 13 provinces
therein enumerated (Petition, p. 9) including Metro Manila, scan
the ballots for “Chavez” votes which were invalidated or
declared stray and credit said scanned “Chavez” votes in favor
of petitioner.

It is quite obvious that petitioner’s prayer does not call for the
correction of “manifest errors in the certificates of canvass or
election returns” before the Comelec but for the re-opening of
the ballot boxes and appreciation of the ballots contained
therein.

Held: that it is the Senate Electoral Tribunal who has more

jurisdiction
Sec. 17, Art. VI of the Constitution provides that “(t)he Senate
and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral
Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to
the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective
Members. x x x

It is therefore crystal clear that this Court has no jurisdiction to

entertain the instant petition. It is the Senate Electoral Tribunal
which has exclusive jurisdiction to act on the complaint of
petitioner involving, as it does, contest relating to the election
of a member of the Senate. As aforesaid, petitioner’s proper
recourse is to file a regular election protest before the Senate
Electoral Tribunal after the winning senatorial candidates have
been proclaimed.

THEREFORE; CASE IS DISMISSED

In the case at bar, petitioner’s allegation that “Chavez” votes
were either invalidated or declared stray has no relation to the
correctness or authenticity of the election returns canvassed.
Otherwise stated, petitioner has not demonstrated any
manifest error in the certificates of canvass or election returns
before the Comelec which would warrant their correction.

aaaaaa

SALVA v. MAKALINTAL
Digest by: Louis F. Palma Gil | 340 SCRA 506
Salva et al. filed against Ordinance No. 5, Resolution No. 345,
which ordered for the abolition of Brgy. San Rafael and the
merger with Brgy. Dacanlao. They also filed against Comelec
Resolution NO. 2975 which called for the plebiscite of the
same. Comelec alleges that only the SC has Jurisdiction while
Salva Et. Al claim that the issuance of said resolution is only
ministerial in nature hence RTC has jurisdiction. HELD:
Resolution was issued through the ministerial function of
Comelec hence RTC has Jurisdiction.
FACTS:
Salva et. Al. residents of Brgy. San Rafael filed against
Ordinance No. 5, which ordered for the abolition of Brgy. San
Rafael and the merger with Brgy. Dacanlao and , Resolution
No. 345 which affirmed the previous Ordinance. They also filed
against Comelec Resolution NO. 2975 providing for the rules
and regulations governing the conduct of the required
plebiscite scheduled on February 28, 1998, to decide the issue
of the abolition of barangay San Rafael and its merger with
barangay Dacanlao, Calaca, Batangas.
Salva et al filed an ex parte motion for the issuance of a TRO
to enjoin Comelec from enforcing the Ordinance, Resolution,
and Comelec Resolution.
RTC denied the issuance of said TRO for lack of Jurisdiction. It
held that any petition or action questioning an act, resolution
or decision of the COMELEC must be brought before the
Supreme Court.
Hence Salva et al filed the instant petition with prayer for a TRO
before the SC.
Salva et al then sent their memorandum before the Court
containing their arguments:
 That the RTC’s order to file before the SC encourages
multiplicity of suits
 That if twhen the COMELEC exercises its quasi-judicial
functions under Section 52 of the Omnibus Elec-tion
Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881), its acts are subject to
the exclusive review by this Court; but when the
COMELEC performs a purely ministerial duty, such act
is subject to scrutiny by the Regional Trial Court,17
citing Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop vs.
Ferrer :
“It cannot be gainsaid that the powers vested by the
Constitution and the law on the Commission on
Elections may either be classified as those pertaining to
its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial functions, or those
which are inherently administrative and sometimes
ministerial in character.”
 Corollary thereto, petitioners submit that “[t]he
conduct of [a] plebiscite, pursuant to Ordinance No.
05 and Resolution No. 345, is not adjudicatory [or
quasi-judicial] in nature but simply ministerial or
SOCIAL LEGISLATION | 2 - SANCHEZ ROMAN 3
administrative in nature [and only] in obedience to the
aforesaid Ordinance and Resolution
 That even though the plebiscite has been held the
case is not moot for an actual plebiscite does not
validate ordinance or resolution.
Comelec Argues:
 the power to review or reverse COME-LEC Resolution
No. 2987 solely belongs to the Supreme Court
 . if a Regional Trial Court does not have jurisdiction to
issue writs against statutory agencies a fortiori it
cannot have any such jurisdiction over the
Commission on Elections, a constitutional
independent body expressly clothed by the 1987
Constitution with, among others, quasi-judicial
functions and tasked with one of the most paramount
aspects of a democratic government.
 the temporary restraining order sought by petitioners
has been rendered moot and academic by the actual
holding of the plebiscite sought to be enjoined.
ISSUE: Whether or not the issuance of the said resolution
prescribing rules for the conduct of a plebiscite is ministerial in
nature such that the RTC has jurisdiction over said case. (Yes)
HELD:
The Court cited Article IX-A Section 7 of the 1987
Constitution on what can be reviewed by the Supreme
Court
“SEC.7.x x x. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by
law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be
brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved
party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.”
What is contemplated by the term final orders, rulings and
decisions’ of the COMELEC reviewable by certiorari by the
Supreme Court as provided by law are those rendered in
actions or proceedings before the COMELEC and taken
cognizance of by the said body in the exercise of its
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers.”
The issuance of the Comelec resolution was not issued
pursuant to Comelec’s Quasi-Judicial Functions but as an
incident of its ministerial / administrative functions.
The Court agrees with the comment of the Solicitor General that
[t]he issuance of [COMELEC] Resolution No. 2987 is thus a
ministerial duty of the COMELEC that is enjoined by law and is
part and parcel of its administrative functions. It involves no
exercise of discretionary authority on the part of respondent
COME-LEC; let alone an exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-
judicial power to hear and resolve controversies defining the
rights and duties of party-litigants, relative to the conduct of
elections of public officers and the enforcement of the election
laws.”
Briefly, COMELEC Resolution No. 2987 which provides for the
rules and regulations governing the conduct of the required
plebiscite, was not issued pursuant to the COMELEC’s quasi-
aaaaaa
 SOCIAL LEGISLATION | 2 - SANCHEZ ROMAN 4

judicial functions but merely as an incident of its inherent

administrative functions over the conduct of plebiscites, thus,
the said resolution may not be deemed as a “final order”
reviewable by certiorari by this Court. Any question pertaining
to the validity of said resolution may be well taken in an
ordinary civil action before the trial courts.

Petition for review is granted and SC ordered RTC of

Batangas to proceed with the dispatch of the case.

aaaaaa