Case Digest (G.R. No. 105628)
Facts:
Rodolfo Sarmiento v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 105628, 105725, 105727, 105730, 105771, 105778, 105797, 105919, 105977, August 6, 1992, Supreme Court En Banc, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioners in the consolidated matters filed special civil actions for certiorari under Rule 65 challenging various resolutions issued by respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in assorted Special Cases (SPC). Each petition sought to set aside the COMELEC en banc Resolutions that disposed of appeals or petitions arising from rulings of municipal, city or provincial Boards of Canvassers—ranging from orders excluding particular election returns or certificates of canvass from the canvass, to dismissals of oppositions or appeals, and to denials of amended pre-proclamation petitions. The Resolution enumerates the disposition in each G.R. number (e.g., SPC No. 92-266 in G.R. No. 105628; SPC No. 92-288 in G.R. No. 105727; SPC No. 92-271 in G.R. No. 105771; SPC No. 92-039 in G.R. No. 105778; etc.). Comments were filed only in G.R. Nos. 105727 and 105797, and the Court dispensed with Comments in the other cases.
Petitioners principally alleged that the COMELEC en banc acted with grave abuse of discretion — and without jurisdiction — by taking cognizance of and deciding those Special Cases at the first instance without first referring them to any of its two Divisions, contrary to Article IX-C, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution and the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. The COMELEC had classified pre-proclamation matters as Special Cases under Rule 27 of its Rules, and Rule 27(9)(d) provided that appeals from Boards of Canvassers are cognizable by the Division to which they are assigned, which must set the case for hearing.
The Court considered the constitutional provision in Article IX-C, Section 3 (requiring that “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”), the COMELEC Rules (notably Rule 3, Sec. 3 and Rule 27, Sec. 9), and Section 16 of R.A. No. 7166 (which deems pre-proclamation cases terminated at the beginning of the term of the office involved). Because the terms of the offices at issue commenced at noon of 30 June 1992, the Court concluded the pre-proclamation cases were rendered moot under R.A. No. 7166, Sec. 16, and therefore disposed o...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the COMELEC en banc act without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in hearing and deciding the Special Cases at the first instance without first referring them to any of its Divisions?
- Are the petitions moot by operation of Section 16 of R.A. No. 7166 because the terms of the offices involved began on June 30, 1992, and if so, what is the proper disposition of these certiorar...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)