Case Summary (G.R. No. 188308)
Issues Presented
- Did COMELEC violate Mendoza’s due process rights by conducting proceedings without notice or participation?
- Did COMELEC exceed its jurisdiction or commit grave abuse by appreciating ballots outside its custody and premises?
Petitioner’s Contentions
• Election protest is quasi-judicial; strict judicial due process (notice and hearing) applies to all stages.
• He had legitimate expectation that no further proceedings would occur after case submission.
• Internal deliberations on ballots at SET premises, without notice, are unlawful and yield “poisonous fruits.”
• COMELEC lost jurisdiction over ballots once transferred to SET; further action violates separation of powers and COMELEC’s own rules and practices.
• No precedent justifies deviation from usual practice of on-site revision under COMELEC custody.
Respondents’ Comments
• Pagdanganan: No revision occurred; only confidential COMELEC deliberations—a matter internal to the Second Division—took place. Due process was satisfied during formal revision (completed July 2008) and memorandum stages.
• COMELEC: Petition misconstrues “proceedings” as adversarial. Appreciation of ballots is part of decision-making, confidential by nature, requiring no party participation. Under Section 4, COMELEC may employ suitable processes not prohibited by law to effect its jurisdiction, and expedite election protests.
Standard of Review and Nature of COMELEC Power
• Review under Rules 64 and 65: grave abuse of discretion standard.
• COMELEC is a constitutional administrative body with quasi-judicial functions over election contests (Article IX-C, 1987 Constitution), not exercising judicial power as defined in Article VIII.
• Its decisions are reviewable by certiorari only for jurisdictional errors or grave abuses.
Due Process Analysis: Hearing Stage
• Ang Tibay rights: right to hearing (presentation of evidence), consideration of evidence, decision based on substantial evidence, reasoned judgment.
• Petitioner undisputedly participated fully in revision at COMELEC office, evidence presentation, and submission of memoranda.
• Hearing-stage due process was satisfied; no denial of notice or opportunity to be heard during adversarial proceedings.
Due Process Analysis: Deliberation Stage
• Alleged “strange proceedings” at SET were internal COMELEC deliberations on ballots post-submission.
• Such deliberations are confidential and privileged, akin to judicial deliberations, requiring no notice or party participation.
• No unlawful proceedings occurred that could give rise to poisonous fruits.
Jurisdiction and Transfer of Ballots
• COMELEC retained exclusive original jurisdiction over provincial election contests; temporary transfer of ballots to SET did not divest COMELEC of jurisdiction.
• Jurisdictions of COMELEC and SET coexist side by side; neither yields to the other.
• COMELEC Resolution 2812’s order of preference mandated transfer for SET’s revision but allowed COMELEC to continue decision-making.
Exerc
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 188308)
Procedural History and Antecedents
- May 14, 2007 elections in Bulacan: petitioner Mendoza proclaimed winner and assumed office as Governor.
- Respondent Pagdanganan filed an election protest with COMELEC, docketed as EPC No. 2007-44 (Second Division).
- Ballot revision in multiple precincts conducted at COMELEC Intramuros office; parties presented evidence and filed memoranda; case submitted for decision.
- On March 2, 2009, COMELEC transferred Bulacan ballot boxes to the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) for a separate senatorial contest (Pimentel vs. Zubiri).
- Petitioner moved to suspend proceedings; Second Division denied motion on April 29, 2009 and again on May 26, 2009, opting to continue proceedings in coordination with the SET.
- Counsel for petitioner wrote SET Secretary on June 10, 2009; SET response (June 17, 2009) confirmed “conduct of proceedings” at Tribunal premises under COMELEC Resolution No. 2812 (1995).
Issues Presented
- Whether COMELEC violated petitioner’s due process rights by conducting proceedings without notice or participation.
- Whether COMELEC gravely abused its discretion or acted beyond jurisdiction in appreciating ballots no longer in its custody and outside its premises.
Petitioner’s Contentions
- Election protest proceedings are judicial in character; due process mandates notice and an opportunity to be heard at every stage.
- Petitioner had legitimate expectation that no proceedings would occur after case submission.
- COMELEC’s clandestine action at SET premises deprived him of “his day in court” and generated “poisonous fruits” that should be declared null and void.
- COMELEC lacked authority over ballots transferred to SET; appreciation outside its custody violates separation of powers.
- No precedent justified deviation from the usual practice of conducting proceedings within COMELEC premises.
- Second Division usurped rule‐making power reser