Scribd
Upload
314 views1 page

Zarate Vs Comelec

The case involved an election protest filed by petitioner Marivic Zarate challenging the results of the 1996 Sangguniang Kabataan elections where she lost to respondent Julian Lallave Jr. by a single vote. The Municipal Trial Court annulled Lallave's proclamation and declared Zarate the winner, but the COMELEC En Banc reversed this decision. The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC En Banc did not have jurisdiction to decide the appeal, as the Constitution requires election cases be heard and decided by a COMELEC division. As such, the COMELEC En Banc decision was null and void, and the case was ordered remanded back to the COME

Uploaded by

Samantha Ann T. Tirthdas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
314 views1 page

Zarate Vs Comelec

The case involved an election protest filed by petitioner Marivic Zarate challenging the results of the 1996 Sangguniang Kabataan elections where she lost to respondent Julian Lallave Jr. by a single vote. The Municipal Trial Court annulled Lallave's proclamation and declared Zarate the winner, but the COMELEC En Banc reversed this decision. The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC En Banc did not have jurisdiction to decide the appeal, as the Constitution requires election cases be heard and decided by a COMELEC division. As such, the COMELEC En Banc decision was null and void, and the case was ordered remanded back to the COME

Uploaded by

Samantha Ann T. Tirthdas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

ZARATE vs COMELEC | Purisima, 1999

FACTS
During the 1996 Sangguniang Kabataan elections, respondent Julian Lallave, Jr.
won over the petitioner, Marivic Zarate, by a single vote. The former garnered a
total of forty-six (46) votes as against the latter's forty-five (45) votes.
Accordingly, the Barangay Board of Canvassers proclaimed respondent Lallave,
Jr. the duly elected SK Chairman.
Petitioner lodged his election protest before the Municipal Trial Court of
Malasiqui, Pangasinan, alleging That during the counting, tallying and canvassing
of votes for each of the candidates, respondent-members of the Board of
Election Tellers counted, credited and/or declared valid three (3) or more votes
that read "JL" in favor of respondent Julian Lallave, Jr., when they should have
voided the same or excluded as valid votes.
Municipal Trial Court a quo rendered a decision annulling and setting aside the
proclamation of the private respondent Julian Lallave, Jr. Eight of the original
forty-six ballots of the latter were declared marked, thereby reducing his number
of votes to thirty-eight (38). On the other hand, of petitioner's forty-five (45)
votes, one was invalidated. Petitioner Zarate was therefore, adjudged winner
with forty-four (44) votes as against the thirty-eight (38) of Lallave, Jr.
Private respondent appealed to the Commission on Elections, theorizing that
subject five ballots bearing the initials "JL", should have been credited in his
favor considering that such initials sufficiently identify him as the candidate
intended to be voted for as he was the only one of the three candidates with the
initials "JL". He also contended that the ballots marked were not marked ballots
as the names written thereon, "Julian, Jr. de Real", "I Notno Lallave" and "Nono
de Real", sufficiently identify him, the same being his nickname and middle
name, respectively, "de Real" being his middle name (his mother's surname) and
he is known in their locality as "Nono."
COMELEC En Banc came out with its assailed Resolution, annulling and setting
aside the decision a quo and declaring the private respondent, Julian Lallave, Jr.,
as the duly elected SK Chairman.
Marivic Zarate found her way to this Court via the present petition, theorizing
that the respondent Commission on Elections acted wth grave abuse of
discretion
ISSUE
W/N COMELEC had jurisdiction to decide the case? (SC motu proprio took notice of
this issue) NO, mere reiteration of the Sarmiento v COMELEC ruling.
RATIO
The appeal interposed by the Lallave to the COMELEC from the decision of the
MTC in subject election case, was not referred to a division of the Commission
but was, instead, submitted to the Commission En Banc, which decided against
the petitioner. Such recourse by the private respondent transgressed Section 3,
Subdivision C of Article IX of the Constitution: Commission on Elections may sit
en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order
to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation
controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division,
provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the
Commission en banc.
Court reiterated the Sarmiento v COMELEC ruling
Indisputably then, the COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion, when it resolved the appeals of petitioners in the
abovementioned Special Cases without first referring them to any of its
Divisions. Said resolutions are, therefore, null and void and must be set aside.
Consequently, the appeals are deemed pending before the Commission for
proper referral to a Division.
Dispositive: ordered to assign the case to a Division, which is hereby directed
to resolve the same with reasonable dispatch

You might also like