Title
Cortez vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. L-1679
Decision Date
Oct 16, 1947
COMELEC's transfer of polling places to poblacion violated Revised Election Code; Supreme Court ruled transfer invalid, reinstated barrio polling places, citing statutory limitations on COMELEC's authority.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-1679)

Applicable Law

The relevant statutory provisions are sections 62, 63, and 66 of the Revised Election Code (Republic Act No. 180). Section 62 mandates that polling places be designated centrally in each election precinct at least seventy days before elections. Section 63 provides conditions under which polling places may be located in the poblacion, including a petition by the majority of voters, an agreement among political parties, or a municipal council resolution for subsequent elections. Section 66 prohibits changes to polling place locations until the next regular election unless ordered by competent authority.

Facts of the Case

The municipal councils of numerous municipalities decided to transfer polling places from the barrios to the poblacion due to alleged abnormal conditions concerning peace and order. This decision occurred despite objections from Dr. Cortez, leading him to file a petition for review. The Commission on Elections approved the transfer without adhering to the statutory procedures outlined in the Election Code, which Dr. Cortez contended was illegal.

Legal Analysis of the Commission's Decision

The court concluded that the alterations made to polling place locations violated section 63 of the Revised Election Code, as none of the established exceptions applied. The court found that the only authorized methods for transferring a polling place involved either the petition of the majority of voters or an agreement by all political parties. It emphasized that the Commission on Elections cannot produce new exceptions and must act in accordance with existing laws.

Court's Ruling

The court granted the petition by Dr. Cortez, asserting that the municipal councils’ actions, backed by the Commission on Elections, were illegal and contravened the provisions of the Election Code. Thus, the decisions made by the Commission were reversed, and both prohibitory and mandatory injunctions were issued, requiring the restoration of polling places to their original barrio locations and reaffirming that such changes could not be made without the prescribed legal procedures.

Dissenting Opinion

A dissenting opinion expressed concerns over affirming the Commission's decision. The dissent argued that the conditions affecting public safety justified the actions taken by the Commission, emphasizing that a significant number of barrio residents had evacuat

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.