G.R. No. L-12880 - People vs Chueco

A plebiscite was held in March 1947 concerning the location of polling places in various municipalities in Pampanga, namely Bacolor, Candaba, Arayat, Sta. Ana, San Luis, San Simon, Apalit, Sexmoan, Macabebe, Minalin, Mexico, and Lubao.
The polling places corresponding to the barrio precincts were transferred to the poblacion based on resolutions adopted by the respective municipal councils.
The justification for these transfers was the abnormal conditions of peace and order prevailing in the affected municipalities.

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of sections 62, 63, and 66 of the Revised Election Code (Republic Act No. 180).

Section 62 mandates the municipal council to designate polling places at least seventy days prior to each regular election.
Section 63 requires that polling places be located “as centrally as possible with respect to the residence of the voters” within each precinct. It provides three exceptions permitting a location in the poblacion:

ii. By agreement of all the political parties; and iii. By resolution of the municipal council for elections subsequent to November 1947.

Section 66 states that once a polling place is designated, it cannot be changed until the next regular election, except if ordered by a “competent authority” and when the place is destroyed or rendered unusable.

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) approved the transfers based on its administrative powers, relying partly on the authority conferred by section 66 of the Election Code and section 2, Article X of the Constitution.

Petitioner: Emilio P. Cortez, a candidate for Provincial Governor of Pampanga, objected to the transfer of polling places.

Cortez contended that the transfer violated the clear mandate of section 63 of the Election Code.
He argued that the exceptions provided in section 63 were not met and that the shift of polling venues was outside the permissible limits.

The municipal councils, which acted by resolution to relocate the polling places.
The Commission on Elections, which approved the municipal resolutions despite the petition and based on the alleged emergency conditions affecting peace and order.

The controversy led to the filing of a petition for review challenging the Commission on Elections’ approval of the transfers.
The case involved the issuance of two writs of preliminary injunction:

A prohibitory injunction ordering the respondents not to place or transfer the polling places to the poblacion.
A mandatory injunction directing the respondents to restore the polling places back to locations “as centrally as possible” within the precincts, specifically in the barrios.

During the hearing, arguments were presented regarding the legal limitations of the Commission’s authority and the proper interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Election Code and the Constitution.

Whether the approval and subsequent transfer of polling places from the barrios to the poblacion, as executed by the municipal councils and sanctioned by the Commission on Elections, is consistent with the mandates of sections 62, 63, and 66 of the Revised Election Code.
Whether the exceptions provided in section 63 (petition of the majority of voters, agreement of all political parties, or a municipal council resolution effective only for subsequent elections) were validly invoked in the case at hand.
The extent to which the Commission on Elections, based on its powers under section 66 of the Election Code and section 2, Article X of the Constitution, may exercise discretion in relocating polling places without violating explicit statutory provisions.
Whether the delay in the Commission’s rendition of its decision constituted a dereliction of official duty, given the pressing nature of electoral preparations and registration deadlines.