Scribd
Upload
158 views1 page

Case in Consti 1 On Comelec

The Supreme Court ruled that the Commission on Elections (Comelec) acted with grave abuse of discretion in hearing and deciding 9 special cases en banc without first referring them to its divisions, as required by the Constitution. The Constitution states that all election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, must be heard and decided in Comelec divisions before motions for reconsideration can be decided en banc. By directly hearing the cases en banc, without jurisdiction, the Comelec resolutions were ruled null and void.

Uploaded by

Deanne Mitzi Somollo
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
158 views1 page

Case in Consti 1 On Comelec

The Supreme Court ruled that the Commission on Elections (Comelec) acted with grave abuse of discretion in hearing and deciding 9 special cases en banc without first referring them to its divisions, as required by the Constitution. The Constitution states that all election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, must be heard and decided in Comelec divisions before motions for reconsideration can be decided en banc. By directly hearing the cases en banc, without jurisdiction, the Comelec resolutions were ruled null and void.

Uploaded by

Deanne Mitzi Somollo
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

RODULFO SARMIENTO vs COMELEC

G.R. No. 105628, August 6, 1992

Facts:
The case at bar seeks to set aside the decisions of the Commission on Elections on 9 special cases
which were heard and decided by the Comelec En Banc. Petitioners impugn the decision of the
Comelec as issued with grave abuse of discretion because it heard and decided the cases En Banc
without first referring them to any of its Divisions.
1. G.R. No. 105628 – SPC No. 92-266
2. G.R. No. 105725 – SPC No. 92-323
3. G.R. No. 105727 – SPC No. 92-288
4. G.R. No. 105730 – SPC No. 92-315
5. G.R. No. 105771 – SPC No. 92-271
6. G.R. No. 105778 – SPC No. 92-039
7. G.R. No. 105797 – SPC No. 92-153
8. G.R. No. 105919 – SPC No. 92-293
9. G.R. No. 105977 – SPC No. 92-087

Issue:
Whether or not the rulings of the Comelec En Banc, instead of first referring it to its Divisions,
where issued with grave abuse of discretion.

Ruling:
Yes. In its decision, the Supreme Court cited Section 3, subdivision C, Article XI of the 1987
Constitution which states that “the Comelec may sit En Banc or in 2 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.” From the above quoted provision, the Supreme Court interpreted it that all election cases
including pre-proclamation cases must first be heard and decided by the Comelec in its divisions,
and any motions for reconsiderations will then be heard by the commission en banc. Since the
commission heard and decided the 9 cases en banc without referring it to its divisions, the
commission acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Consequently, the
Supreme Court decided that the resolutions are null and void and must be set aside.

You might also like