G.R. No. 216572 - Legaspi vs. Commission on Elections

Petitioner Feliciano Legaspi and private respondent Alfredo D. Germar both ran for mayoralty posts in Norzagaray, Bulacan in the May 13, 2013 elections. Private respondent Rogelio P. Santos, Jr. ran as councilor.
On May 14, 2013, Legaspi filed a Petition for Disqualification (SPA No. 13-353) against Germar and Santos, alleging massive vote-buying conducted from May 11, 2013 until election day through distribution of Php 500.00 envelopes and sample ballots at the North Hills Village Homeowners Association (HOA) Office.
The alleged vote-buying was foiled when the HOA office was padlocked. Police attempted to retrieve four boxes containing approximately Php 800,000.00 in envelopes but were stopped by concerned citizens who intercepted the evidence.
Private respondents denied the charges, presenting alibi evidence that they attended a political meeting at the time the offenses allegedly occurred.

Petitioner presented extensive evidence including sworn statements of voters and witnesses, police reports, photos, and seized ballot materials supporting vote-buying allegations.
On October 3, 2013, the COMELEC Special First Division, by 2-1 vote, found private respondents guilty and disqualified them from the 2013 elections. The decision also referred the criminal aspect to the Law Department for investigation and ordered enforcement of succession rules under R.A. 7160.
Private respondents filed a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc. On July 10, 2014, the en banc denied the motion by a 3-2 vote, thereby affirming the division’s decision.
Since the en banc resolution was not supported by the constitutionally-required four votes, a re-deliberation was conducted pursuant to Sec. 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
On January 28, 2015, the COMELEC en banc, by a 3-2-2 vote, dismissed the Petition for Disqualification for failure to obtain the necessary majority votes after re-deliberation, effectively reversing the division’s ruling.

Petitioner filed a Rule 64 petition assailing the COMELEC en banc's January 28, 2015 Order.
On September 1, 2015, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition affirming the en banc’s ruling based on the Mendoza doctrine.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the Court’s decision.

How should the COMELEC en banc’s rulings be treated when it fails to secure the constitutionally-required four votes to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration?
Does Sec. 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure allow the COMELEC en banc to effectively reverse a division’s ruling without four members concurring?
Is the current interpretation of Sec. 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as laid down in Mendoza v. COMELEC and followed in this case, constitutional?
Should a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc be considered an incidental matter, thereby affecting the proper application of Sec. 6, Rule 18?