Over the objection of the Konsensiya ng Bayan (KB) candidates, the Regional

[1] Aratuc v. COMELEC Board of Canvassers of Region XII issued a resolution declaring all the
eight Kilusan ng Bagong Lipunan (KBL) candidates elected representatives
G.R. Nos. L-49705-09 | 1979 | Powers of COMELEC | Vernon to the Batasang Pambansa. The KB candidates appealed the resolution to
the Comelec which consequently issued the now assailed resolution declaring
Petitioner: TOMATIC ARATUC, SERGIO TOCAO, CISCOLARIO DIAZ, FRED
seven KBL candidates and one KB candidates as having obtain the first
TOMATIC ARATUC, SERGIO TOCAO, CISCOLARIO DIAZ, FRED TAMULA,
eight places, and ordering the Regional Board of Canvassers to proclaim the
MANGONTAWAR GURO and BONIFACIO LEGASPI, TAMULA,
winning candidates. The Mandangan petition claims that the Comelec
MANGONTAWAR GURO and BONIFACIO LEGASPI
Respondents: The COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, REGIONAL BOARD OF exceeded its jurisdiction and denied due process to petitioner in extending
its inquiry beyond the election records of "the 878 voting centers examined
CANVASSERS for Region XII (Central Mindanao), ABDULLAH OF
by the KB experts and passed upon by the Regional Board of Canvassers"
CANVASSERS for Region XII (Central Mindanao), ABDULLAH DIMAPORO,
and in excluding from the canvass the returns form voting centers showing
JESUS AMPARO, ANACLETO BADOY, et al.
90% to 100% voting in places where military operations were certied by the
army to be going on, the same being unsupported by evidence.
Recit-Ready:
The board of canvassers of Region 12 declared certain candidates of Kilusan ng
ISSUES: W/N COMELEC exceeded its jurisdiction
Bagong Lipunan (KBL) as elected representatives of Batasang Pambansa. This
was contested by Konsensiya ng Bayan (KB) members who appealed the
RATIO:
resolution of the board of canvassers to COMELEC. COMELEC then passed its
own resolution. Said COMELEC resolution was assailed by Linang Mandangan, a
In regard to the jurisdictional and due process points raised by herein
candidate for the said election and a member of KB, on the ground that COMELEC
petitioner, it is of decisive importance to bear in mind that under Section
exceeded its jurisdiction by extending its inquiry outside the election records
168 of the Revised Election Code of 1978, "the Commission (on Elections)
passed upon by the regional board of canvassers. The court ruled that because
shall have direct control and supervision over the board of canvassers" and
the Revised Election Code of 1978 grants COMELEC direct control and
that relatedly, Section 176 of the same Code provides that it "shall be the
supervision over board of canvassers as well as the power to be the sole judge of
sole judge of all pre-proclamation controversies." While nominally, the
all preproclamation controversies it is capable of extending its inquiry to other
procedure of bringing to the Commission objections to the actuations of
voting centers outside of those named in the petition by KB.
boards of canvassers has been quite loosely referred to in certain quarters,
Doctrine:
even by the Commission and by this Court, such as in the guidelines of
Under Section 168 of the Revised Election Code of 1978, the Comelec shall
May 23, 1978 quoted earlier in this opinion, as an appeal, the fact of the
have direct control and supervision of the board of canvassers, and that
matter is that the authority of the Commission in reviewing such actuations
relatedly Section 175 of the same Code provides that it "shall be the sole
does not spring from any appellate jurisdiction conferred by any special
judge of all pre-proclamation controversies." The authority of the Commission
provision of law, for there is none such provision anywhere in the Election
in reviewing actuations of the board of canvassers does not spring from any
Code, but from the plenary prerogative of direct control and supervision
appellate jurisdiction conferred by any specic provision of law, for there is
endowed to it by the above-quoted provisions of Section 168. And in
none such provision any where in the Election Code, but from the plenary
administrative law, it is a too well settled postulate to need any supporting
prerogative of direct control and supervision endowed by Section 168 of the
citation here, that a superior body or office having supervision and control
Code. And in administrative law, it is a too well settled postulate to need any
over another may do directly what the latter is supposed to do or ought to
supporting citation, that a superior body or oce having supervision and control
have done.
over another may do directly what the latter is supposed to do or ought to
have done

FACTS: