Facts:

The case involves petitioners Amado S. Bagatsing, Ernesto M. Maceda, and Jaime Lopez against respondents Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and Jose L. Atienza. The events unfolded following the May 11, 1998 elections for the position of Mayor of Manila. On May 18, 1998, just seven days post-election, the petitioners filed a complaint for disqualification against Atienza with the COMELEC, alleging that he had disbursed public funds amounting to P3,375,000.00 within the prohibited period of forty-five days before the elections, in violation of Article 22, Section 261 (g) (2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, known as the Omnibus Election Code. The funds were purportedly intended as financial assistance to public school teachers who served as poll workers during the elections. On May 20, 1998, the COMELEC's First Division issued an order indicating probable cause for disqualification and directed the City Board of Canvassers of Manila to suspend Atienza's proclamation as mayor...

Facts:

Background of the Case:
The case involves a petition for certiorari filed by petitioners Amado S. Bagatsing, Ernesto M. Maceda, and Jaime Lopez against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and private respondent Jose L. Atienza. The petitioners sought to annul the COMELEC's Resolution dated June 4, 1998, which directed the proclamation of Atienza as Mayor of Manila, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

Election and Disqualification Complaint:

• Petitioners and Atienza were candidates for Mayor of Manila in the May 11, 1998 elections.
• On May 18, 1998, petitioners filed a disqualification complaint (SPA No. 98-319) against Atienza, alleging that he disbursed public funds (P3,375,000) within the prohibited 45-day period before the elections, in violation of Section 261(g)(2) of the Omnibus Election Code. The funds were intended as financial assistance to public school teachers who manned the precinct polls during the elections.

COMELEC's Initial Order:

• On May 20, 1998, the COMELEC First Division issued an order directing the City Board of Canvassers to complete the canvassing but suspend Atienza's proclamation if he won, pending resolution of the disqualification case.

Motion for Reconsideration and COMELEC's Resolution:

• On May 21, 1998, Atienza filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
• On June 4, 1998, the COMELEC First Division issued a resolution dismissing the disqualification case but referring the matter to the Law Department for preliminary investigation. The resolution lifted the suspension of Atienza's proclamation, and he was proclaimed Mayor of Manila later that day.

Petitioners' Actions:

• Petitioners filed a Motion to Suspend Immediate Intended Proclamation and a Motion for Reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc.
• Without waiting for the resolution of their motion, petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court on June 25, 1999.

Key Legal Provisions:

• The case revolves around COMELEC Resolution No. 2050, which governs the disposition of disqualification cases under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6646 (Electoral Reform Law of 1987).

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Application of COMELEC Resolution No. 2050:

   • The resolution distinguishes between disqualification cases filed before and after the election. For cases filed after the election but before proclamation, the complaint must be dismissed as a disqualification case but referred to the Law Department for preliminary investigation.
   • The Court clarified that Resolution No. 2050 was not nullified in its entirety by the Sunga v. COMELEC case. Only the second paragraph of paragraph 1, which pertained to cases filed before the election, was found to infringe on Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646.

2. Suspension of Proclamation:

   • The suspension of a candidate's proclamation is only warranted if there is a prima facie finding of guilt by the Law Department and a corresponding information filed with the appropriate trial court. Since these conditions were not met, the COMELEC did not err in refusing to suspend Atienza's proclamation.

3. Sovereign Will of the Electorate:

   • The Court emphasized that the suspension of a winning candidate's proclamation based on a pending disqualification case would undermine the electorate's will and could be exploited for malicious purposes.

4. Procedural Reminders:

   • The Court cautioned against bypassing established procedural rules, such as filing petitions before the Supreme Court without waiting for the resolution of pending motions before lower tribunals.