Premature move

Has the Comelec sitting en banc the authority to hear and decide election cases in the first instance? When should it decide in division and en banc? These are the questions answered in this case of Melinda.

Melinda was a mayoralty candidate in a Mindanao municipality during the May 2001 elections. Because of the alleged illegality of the composition of the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC), and irregularities in the canvassing proceedings such as its transfer to the provincial capitol, failure to record the minutes of the proceedings, lack of notice to her or her representative during the last three days of the canvassing, tampering and falsification of election returns and the certificate of canvass of votes, Melinda filed with the Comelec en banc her pre-proclamation case seeking to declare the said canvass conducted by the MBC null and void and the recall of the proclamation of her opponent and the winning candidates for Vice Mayor and councilors.

On December 4, 2001, the Comelec en banc issued a resolution finding that, based on the evidence presented, the canvass of votes had been conducted in a place other than the previous venue at the inception of the proceedings to which all were notified. Thus it granted the prayer of Melinda by declaring the proclamation of the winning candidates null and void and ordering a re-canvass of the election returns.

MBC and the winning candidates filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, with the Supreme Court to reverse the Comelec‚s en banc resolution and to restrain Comelec from implementing its resolution.

Will the petition prosper?

Yes.

The Comelec sitting en banc does not have the requisite authority to hear and decide election cases in the first instance. This power pertains to the divisions of the Commission and any decision by the Commission en banc as regards election cases decided by it in the first instance is null and void (Section 3 of Article IX-C Constitution).

It is important to clarify however that not all cases relating to election laws filed before the Comelec are required to be first heard by a division. Under the Constitution, the Comelec exercises both administrative and quasi-judicial powers. The Comelec en banc can act directly on matters falling within its administrative powers. It is only when the exercise of quasi-judicial powers are involved that the Comelec is mandated to decide cases first in the division, and then upon motion for reconsideration, en banc.

In this case Melinda’s pre-proclamation case involves the issue of the illegality of the composition and proceedings of the MBC, including the falsification of the election returns and certificate of canvass. It requires the exercise of the Comelec’s quasi judicial powers. So it must first be heard by a division and then en banc, upon a motion for reconsideration. So the Comelec resolution in favor of Melinda is null and void and the Comelec is directed to assign her case to a division (Municipal Board of Canvassers of Glan etc. vs. Comelec and Benzonan, G.R. 150946 October 23, 2003).

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]