Title
Zarate vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 129096
Decision Date
Nov 19, 1999
In the 1996 SK elections, a single-vote margin led to a dispute over marked ballots ("JL"). COMELEC En Banc's decision was voided by the Supreme Court for bypassing divisions, remanding the case for proper resolution.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 129096)

Facts of the Case

In the 1996 Sangguniang Kabataan elections, Julian Lallave, Jr. won against Marivic Zarate with a narrow margin of one vote, receiving 46 votes compared to Zarate's 45. The election results were proclaimed by the Barangay Board of Canvassers. Zarate subsequently initiated an election protest, claiming that at least three votes, marked “JL,” attributed to Lallave should have been invalidated as they purportedly did not correctly identify a candidate, given there was no candidate with the initials "JL."

Municipal Trial Court Decision

On September 9, 1996, the Municipal Trial Court annulled Lallave’s proclamation, designating Zarate as the winner after determining that some ballots were marked and therefore invalid. The Court concluded with Zarate having 44 valid votes against Lallave's reduced count of 38 following the invalidation of marked ballots.

Appeals to the Commission on Elections

Dissatisfied with the Municipal Trial Court's ruling, Lallave appealed to the COMELEC, arguing that the ballots marked with "JL" were valid, citing that he was the only candidate with those initials. Zarate countered, emphasizing that the trial court's ruling was correct in invalidating those contested votes.

COMELEC Resolution

On April 24, 1997, the COMELEC En Banc overturned the trial court’s decision and reinstated Lallave as the SK Chairman, declaring that the votes marked with "JL" should be counted. The COMELEC reasoned that the initials sufficiently identified Lallave as the intended candidate according to Section 211, par. 14 of the Omnibus Election Code.

Supreme Court Intervention

Following the unfavorable COMELEC decision, Zarate sought relief from the Supreme Court, arguing that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion. The issues for resolution included the validity of the "JL" marked ballots and the jurisdictional accuracy of the COMELEC’s procedure in hearing the appeal.

Jurisdictional Concerns

The Supreme Court identified a significant jurisdictional issue regarding the COMELEC's En Banc handling of the appeal from the Municipal Trial Court. The 1987 Constitution and the corresponding rul

...continue reading

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