Title
Legaspi vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 216572
Decision Date
Sep 1, 2015
A mayoral candidate alleged vote-buying against opponents, but COMELEC en banc dismissed the electoral aspect after failing to reach a majority vote, upheld by the Supreme Court.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 216572)

Election Results and Initial Actions

Following the 2013 elections, Germar and Santos were proclaimed as winners for the mayor and councilor positions, respectively, despite Legaspi's immediate motion to suspend their proclamation due to allegations of rampant vote buying. After the proclamation, which occurred on May 14, 2013, Legaspi submitted a formal Petition for Disqualification against the three candidates, necessitating a review of their conduct during the election.

Proceedings Before COMELEC

The case, designated as SPA No. 13-323 (DC), initially went before the COMELEC First Division, which had an even split decision regarding the validity of the disqualification petition—one commissioner supported it, and one opposed, with an absent member. The division established a Special First Division to move forward, ultimately resulting in a 2-1 vote in favor of disqualifying Germar and Santos for their alleged electoral offenses.

COMELEC En Banc Review and Decision

The petitioners filed motions for reconsideration, but the COMELEC en banc struggled to reach a decisive majority on the electoral aspect of the case. After several votes, the commission eventually found itself equally divided, resulting in the dismissal of the electoral aspect of SPA No. 13-323 (DC) on January 28, 2015. This was executed under Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, citing an inability to reach a majority consensus.

Legal Basis and Ruling

In reviewing the dismissal, the Supreme Court emphasized that, under Section 7 of Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution, the COMELEC's decisions must be made via a majority vote of all its members. When such a majority fails to materialize, per Section 6 of Rule 18, the action or proceeding should be dismissed if originally commenced in the commission. The Supreme Court clarified that failure to achieve a majority effectively results in the dismissal of the original petition or action, not just the motion for reconsideration.

Interpretation of "Action" and "Proceeding"

Legaspi contended that the COMELEC en banc improperly categorized the case as one that was originally commenced in the commission, which led to an erroneous dismissal. However, the Court clarified that the term "originally commenced in the Commission" encompasses all matters filed before the COMELEC’s divisions, rendering the electoral aspect of SPA No. 13-323 as properly dismissed following the rules of procedure.

Consolidation of Jurisprudence

The Court referenced previous rulings, particularly Mendoza v. COMELEC, which established that failure to achieve a majority vote after rehe

...continue reading

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