COMELEC, Sandiganbayan, & Office of the Ombudsman
HELD: NO, it was not. By the nature of the Comelec's functions, the
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Composition and qualifications of Commissioners
Art. IX, C, Sec. 1. (1) There shall be a Commission on Elections
composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be
natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their
appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a college
degree, and must not have been candidates for any elective position
in the immediately preceding elections. However, a majority thereof,
including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who
have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
Art. VII, Sec. 13. xxx
The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the
fourth civil degree of the President shall not during his tenure be
appointed as Members of the Constitutional Commissions, or the
Office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries,
chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including government-
owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.
Cayetano v. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210
F: Monsod was nominated by President Aquino as Chairman of the
Comelec. The Commission on Appointments confirmed the
appointment despite Cayetano's objection, based on Monsod's
alleged lack of the required qualification of 10 year law practice.
Cayetano filed this certiorari and prohibition.
ISSUE: W/N MONSOD HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN THE PRACTICE
OF LAW FOR 1O YEARS?
HELD: YES. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases
or litigation in court. It embraces the preparation of pleadings and
other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the
management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients,
and other works where the work done involves the determination of
the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions (PLA
vs. Agrava.)
The records of the 1986 constitutional commission show that the
interpretation of the term practice of law was liberal as to consider
lawyers employed in the Commission of Audit as engaged in the
practice of law provided that they use their legal knowledge or talent
in their respective work.
The court also cited an article in the January 11, 1989 issue of
the Business Star, that lawyers nowadays have their own specialized
fields such as tax lawyers, prosecutors, etc., that because of the
demands of their specialization, lawyers engage in other works or
functions to meet them. These days, for example, most corporation
lawyers are involved in management policy formulation.
Therefore, Monsod, who passed the bar in 1960, worked with
the World Bank Group from 1963-1970, then worked for an
investment bank till 1986, became member of the CONCOM in 1986,
and also became a member of the Davide Commission in 1990, can
be considered to have been engaged in the practice of law as lawyer-
economist, lawyer-manager, lawyer-entrepreneur, etc.
ISSUE: W/N THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN CONFIRMING
MONSOD'S APPOINTMENT?
HELD: NO. The power of the COA to give consent to the nomination
of the Comelec Chairman by the president is mandated by the
constitution. The power of appointment is essentially within the
discretion of whom it is so vested subject to the only condition that the
appointee should possess the qualification required by law. From the
evidence, there is no occasion for the SC to exercise its corrective
power since there is no such grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the CA.
Appointment and term of office of Commissioners; Rule against
reappointment
Art. IX, C, Sec. 1. xxx
(2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by
the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments
for a term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first
appointed, three Members shall hold office for seven years, two
Members for five years, and the last Members for three years, without
reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the
unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be
appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.
Nacionalista Party v. Angelo Bautista, 85 PHIL 103 (1949)
F: President Quirino designated the Solicitor-General as Acting
member of the Comelec in November, 1949. The Nacionalista Party
filed this prohibition on the following grounds: (1) the SG did not
resign from the office of the Solicitor-General; (2) there is no vacancy
in the Comelec because the retirement of the Comelec member
causing the vacancy, was accepted by the President in bad faith; and
(3) the functions of a Solicitor-General are incompatible with those of
a Comelec member.
ISSUE: W/N THE DESIGNATION WAS VALID?
1
Comelec must be independent. Members are not allowed to perform
other functions, powers and duties to preserve its impartiality. The
Solicitor-General's duties also require an undivided time and attention
for efficiency. Furthermore, when there is a vacancy, appointment is
preferred to designation.
ISSUE: W/N PROHIBITION WOULD LIE?
HELD: NO. The case is by nature a quo warranto proceeding because
it questions the legality of the respondent's designation or his right to
office. The proceeding is instituted by the other party claiming the
position occupied and/or the Solicitor-General. Prohibition however,
has a different purpose, which is to prevent the usurpation of
jurisdiction by a subordinate court.
Although there is no other party who claims a right over the
position occupied nor will the SG file a case against himself, the court
must grant the remedy of a quo warranto proceeding because the SG's
continued occupancy as member of the Comelec is illegal.
Brillantes v. Yorac, 192 SCRA 358 (DEC. 18, 1990)
F: Associate Commissioner Haydee Yorac was appointed by Pres.
Aquino as Acting Chairman of the Commission on Elections, in place
of Chairman Hilario Davide, who had been named chairman of the
fact-finding commission to investigate the Dec. 1989 coup d'état
attempt.
ISSUE: WON the appointment is unconstitutional
HELD: NO. Art. IX-A, Section 1, of the Constitution expressly
describes all the Constitutional Commissions as "independent".
Although essentially executive in nature, they are not under the control
of the President of the Philippines in the discharge of their respective
functions. Each of these Commissions conducts its own proceedings
under the applicable laws and its own rules and in the exercise of its
own discretion. Its decisions, orders and rulings are subject only to
review on certiorari by the SC as provided by the Constitution in Art.
IX-A, Section 7.
The choice of a temporary chairman in the absence of the regular
chairman comes under that discretion. That discretion cannot be
exercised for it, even with its consent, by the President of the
Philippines.
NP v. Vera, 85 Phil 149
F: This is an action brought by the Nacionalista Party against De
Vera on the ground that his appointment as Chairman of the
COMELEC is a violation of the Constitution particularly Art. X, Sec. 1 of
the 1935 Constitution which provides that the members of the
COMELEC shall hold office for nine years without reappointment.
HELD: The prohibition against reappointment comes as a continuation
of the requirement that the Commission shall hold office for a term of
nine years. Reappointment is not prohibited provided his term will not
exceed nine years in all.
In July 1945, three Commissioners were appointed. De Vera was
appointed for three years. If he were to succeed himself, he cannot be
reappointed to do so because that would preclude the appointment of
a new member after 3 years and would furthermore increase his term
to 12 years since upon the expiration of his term, his successor must
be appointed for nine years.
But in this case, de Vera's appointment was by virtue of the death
of the Chairman in 1947 and he was promoted to occupy the
chairmanship of the Commission for the unexpired term only. Thus,
this is not offensive to the Constitution because it does not increase de
Vera's term of office to more than nine years nor does it preclude the
appointment of a new member upon the expiration of the first term of
three years.
Republic v. Imperial, 96 Phil 770
F: This is a quo warranto proceeding to test the legality of the
continuance in office of Imperial as Chairman and Perez as member of
COMELEC.
When Chairman de Vera died in August 1951, before the expi-
ration of the maximum term of nine years of the Chairman of the
Commission, Imperial was appointed Chairman to succeed de Vera.
His appointment provided for a term expiring July 12, 1960. The SG
contended that the term for which he will legally serve as Chairman
legally expired on July 12, 1954, the expiration of the 9 year term for
which the first Chairman was appointed.
Comelec member Perez on the other hand, was appointed for a
term of 9 years expiring on 24 November 1958. The SG contended
that his term legally expired on July 12, 1951, the expiration of the term
of 6 years for which Commissioner Enage, his predecessor was
appointed.
HELD: The terms cannot begin from the first appointments made in
July 12, 1945 but from the date of the organization of the COMELEC
under CA 657 on June 21, 1941. Thus, the term of office of the first
Chairman, Lopez Vito began on June 21, 1941 and ended June 20,
1950. That of member Enage began on June 21, 1941 to June 20,
1944 (but this was not filled). Since the first 3 year term had already
expired in 1944, the appointment of De Vera on June 12, 1945 must be
for the full term of nine years (June 1944 to June 1953). The first
vacancy occurred by the expiration of the term of Enage. His
successor, Perez, was named for a full 9 year term which shall have
started on June 1947 to June 1956.
COMELEC, Sandiganbayan, & Office of the Ombudsman
The second vacancy happened upon the death of Lopez Vito on
May 1947. To succeed him, de Vera appointed and lasted only up to
June 1950, the unexpired period of Lopez Vito's term. Thus, on June
1950, a vacancy occurred which De Vera could no longer fill because
his appointment was expressly prohibited by the Constitution. Thus,
the next Chairman was respondent Imperial whose term of 9 years
must be deemed to have began on June 21, 1990 to expire on June
20, 1959.
Appointment of personnel
Art. IX, A, Sec. 4. The Constitutional Commissions shall appoint
their officials and employees in accordance with law.
Salary
Art. IX, A, Sec. 3. The salary of the Chairman and the
Commissioners shall be fixed by law and shall not be decreased
during their tenure.
Art. XVIII, Sec. 17. Until the Congress provides otherwise x x x the
Chairmen of the Constitutional Commissions (shall receive), two
hundred four thousand pesos each; and the Members of the Consti-
tutional Commissions, one hundred eighty thousand pesos each.
The salary, of course, can be increased and the increase can
take effect at once, since, like the Judiciary, the Constitutional
Commissions have not part in the passage of such a law.
Disqualifications
Art. IX, A, Sec. 2. No Member of a Constitutional Commission shall,
during his tenure, hold any other office or employment. Neither shall
he engage in the practice of any profession or in the active
management or control of any business which in any way may be
affected by the functions of his office, nor shall he be financially
interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or in any
franchise or privilege granted by the Government, any of its
subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, including government-
owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.
No members of a Constitutional Commission shall during his
"tenure" : (IX, V, 2)
a. Hold any other office or employment.
This is similar to the prohibition against executive officers. It
applies to both public and private offices and employment.
b. Engage in the practice of any profession.
c. Engage in the active management or control of any
business which in any way may be affected by the functions
of his office.
d. Be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any
contract with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by, the
Government, its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities,
including GOCCs or their subsidiaries.
Impeachment
Art. XI, Sec. 2. The members of the Constitutional Commissions
may be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of,
culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and cor-
ruption and other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.
POWERS & FUNCTIONS of the COMELEC
The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following
powers and functions:
(a) Enforce election laws
Art. IX, C, Sec. 2. (1) Enforce and administer all laws and
regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative,
referendum, and recall.
Sanchez v. COMELEC, 114 SCRA 454
F: Sanchez, a mayoralty candidate, who lost in the 1980 San
Fernando, Pampanga elections, filed with the Comelec a petition to
nullify the said elections due to large scale terrorism, which took place
after the people had cast their votes. The Comelec, after hearing,
issued the resolution which ordered the nullification of the elections
and the certification of the failure of elections to the president or prime
minister for remedial legislation and the appointment of municipal
officials. The winning mayoralty candidate questioned the validity of
the resolution.
ISSUE: W/N THE COMELEC HAS THE POWER TO NULLIFY
ELECTIONS ON THE GROUND OF POST ELECTION
TERRORISM?
2
HELD: YES, it has. The Comelec is now the sole judge of all contests
relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of all members of
the Batasang Pambansa, elective provincial and city officials. In line
with its duty to protect and preserve the integrity of the elections, the
Comelec must be deemed possessed of the authority to annul
elections where the will of the voters has been defeated and the purity
of elections sullied. The fact that the failure of elections was due to
terrorism after the votes were cast is not material.
ISSUE: W/N THE COMELEC HAS THE POWER TO CALL SPECIAL
ELECTIONS?
HELD: YES. The Comelec, being the sole judge of elections, returns
and qualifications, has the power to call special elections. During the
time the Comelec was not the sole judge, the president, upon
certification to him by the Comelec of a failure of elections, had the
power to call special elections. The Comelec has the duty to take
necessary steps to complete the elections, that is, to see to it that the
real winners are proclaimed. But when the winners cannot be
determined from the elections, which was marred by massive and
pervasive terrorism, the Comelec must call for a special election in
order to proclaim the real winners.
(b) Decide administrative questions pertaining to election except
the right to vote
Art. IX, C, Sec. 2. xxx
(3) Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions
affecting elections, including determination of the number and location
of polling places, appointment of election officials and inspectors, and
registration of voters.
(c) Petition for inclusion or exclusion of voters
Art. IX, C, Sec. 2. xxx
(6) File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative,
petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion of voters; investigate and,
where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws,
including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses and
malpractices.
OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE
Right to Vote
The right to vote may be challenged in the MTC by:
a) a proceeding challenging the right of a voter to be registered;
b) an action instituted by a voter for reinstatement;
c) proceeding filed by an individual to exclude any voter whose
name appears in the list of voters.
There are dates which the law allots for the registration of voters.
Any person, under 136, during this period may challenge the
registration of voters on the grounds of the qualifications and
disqualifications in the exercise of the right of suffrage.
Qualifications (Articles 5, 117)
a) Filipino citizen
b) 18 years old
c) Resident of the Phils., for one year and of the municipality where
he proposes to vote for 6 months.
Disqualifications (Art. 118)
a) Those convicted by final judgment and have been sentenced to
imprisonment for at least one year and such disqualifications has
not been removed by absolute pardon or amnesty. This
disqualification lasts for 5 years unless restored by absolute
pardon or amnesty. (Cristobal v Labrador)
b) Those convicted of crimes involving the national security, or
disloyalty to the government, rebellion, sedition, subversion, etc.
c) Insanity or incompetency
Inclusion Proceedings
If the Board of Registration cancels the name of a voter, he can
file in the MTC a petition for an order to include his name in the list of
voters or to reinstate him. Action must be filed within 20 days form the
last day of registration. Appeal can be made to the RTC within 5 days,
and the decision shall be final and unappealable and no motion for
reconsideration shall be allowed.
Exclusion Proceedings (Articles 138, 139, 142)
A petition for exclusion must be filed with the MTC within 20 days
from the last day of registration.
(d) Prosecute election law violators
Art. IX, C, Sec. 2. xxx
(6) File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative,
petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion of voters; investigate and,
COMELEC, Sandiganbayan, & Office of the Ombudsman
where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws,
including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses and
malpractices.
BP Blg. 881, Sec. 265
Sec. 265. Prosecution.-- The Commission shall, through its
duly authorized legal officers, have the exclusive power to conduct
preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under this
Code, and to prosecute the same. The Commission may avail of the
assistance of other prosecuting arms of the government: Provided,
however, That in the event that the Commission fails to act on any
complaint within four months from his filing the complaint, he may file
the complaint with the office of the fiscal or with the Ministry of Justice
for proper investigation and prosecution, if warranted.
EO 134, Sec. 11, February 27, 1987
Sec. 11. Prosecution.-- The Commission shall, through its
duly authorized legal officers, have exclusive power to conduct
preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable as
provided for in the preceding section, and to prosecute the same:
Provided, That in the event that the Commission fails to act on any
complaint within two (2) months from filing, the complainant may file
the complaint with the Office of the Fiscal or with the Department of
Justice for proper investigations and prosecution, if warranted.
The Commission may avail of the assistance of other
prosecuting arms of the government.
In De Jesus v People, 120 SCRA 760 (1983), it was ruled that a
government official (COMELEC Registrar) who violated the election
law ( tampering with returns to make it appear that there were more
registered voters) must be prosecuted by the COMELEC, before the
RTC, not the Sandiganbayan. The 1978 Election Code is clear that
the COMELEC shall have the power to conduct preliminary
investigations of all election offenses, and that the RTC has exclusive
original jurisdiction to try and decide such cases. It is not the
character or personality of the offender (public official) but the crime
committed (violation of election law) that determines jurisdiction. This
provision of the 1978 Election Code has been integrated in the 1987
Constitution.
Corpuz v. Tanodbayan, 149 SCRA 281
F: The complaint for electioneering against the Director of Trade et.
al., filed before the Comelec was withdrawn and later on refiled with
the Tanodbayan. The Comelec Legal Assistance Office moved to
enter its appearance for the complainants. The Tanodbayan denied
the motion on the ground that it has exclusive authority to prosecute
the election offenses of public officials.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE TANODBAYAN HAS EXCLUSIVE
AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE ELECTION OFFENSES?
HELD: NO. There is no constitutional provision granting the
Tanodbayan, either explicitly or implicitly, authority to prosecute,
investigate and hear election offenses. Instead the constitution
granted such power exclusively to the Comelec in order to insure a
free, orderly and honest elections. It is the nature of the offense that
determines the exclusive jurisdiction of the Comelec regardless of
who the offender is, whether a private individual or a public officer.
People v. Basilia, 179 SCRA 87
F: Three complaints were filed with the provincial fiscal alleging
violations of the Omnibus Election Code. After conducting preliminary
investigation, the fiscal filed the information with the RTC. The judge,
motu proprio, dismissed the information on the ground that the
Comelec has the exclusive authority to conduct preliminary
investigation and prosecute election offenses. Hence this review.
ISSUE: W/N FISCALS MAY CONDUCT PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTE ELECTION OFFENSES?
HELD: YES, they may. Although the Comelec is granted the
exclusive authority to conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute
election offenses, it is also authorized by the Omnibus Election Code
to avail itself of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of
government. To ensure credible elections, the Comelec may deputize
law enforcement agencies and instrumentalities, whether before or
after elections. Pursuant to such authority granted by law, the
Comelec issued Resolution no 1862 providing that fiscals may
conduct preliminary investigations and prosecute election offenses.
People v. Inting, 187 SCRA 788(1990)
*EN BANC
F: In 1988, Mrs. Barba filed a letter complaint against OIC- Mayor
Regalado of Tanjay, Negros Or. with the COMELEC, for allegedly
transferring her, a permanent Nursing Attendant, in the office of the
Mayor to a very remote barangay and without obtaining prior
permission or clearance from the COMELEC as required by law.
The COMELEC directed the Provincial Election Supervisor of
Dumaguete City (Atty. Lituanas) to, among others, conduct the
preliminary investigation of the case. Said directive was pursuant to a
COMELEC resolution which in turn, is based on the constitutional
mandate that the COMELEC is charged with the enforcement and
administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections.
3
After a preliminary investigation, Atty. Lituanas found a prima
facie case. Hence, he filed with the respondent RTC of Dumaguete
City a criminal case against the OIC-Mayor. The RTC issued a
warrant of arrest against the accused which was later cancelled on the
ground that Atty. Lituanas is not authorized to determine probable
cause pursuant to Sec. 2, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution. The court
stated that it "will give due course to the information filed if the same
has the written approval of the Provincial Fiscal after which the
prosecution of the case shall be under the supervision and control of
the latter."
Atty. Lituanas failed to comply with the condition. Hence the RTC
quashed the information. A motion for reconsideration was denied.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: W/N a preliminary investigation conducted by a Provincial
Election Supervisor involving election offenses have to be coursed
through the Provincial Fiscal, before the RTC may take cognizance of
the investigation and determine whether or not probable cause exists.
HELD: NO. The Court emphasizes the important features of the
constitutional mandate that "xxx no search warrant or warrant of arrest
shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by
the judge xxx." (Art. III, Sec. 2, Constitution)
First, the determination of probable cause is a function of the
Judge. It is not for the Prov'l Fiscal nor for the Election Supervisor to
ascertain. Only the Judge and the Judge alone makes this
determination.
Second, the preliminary inquiry made by a Prosecutor does not
bind the judge. It merely assists him to make the determination of
probable cause. The judge does not have to follow what the
Prosecutor presents to him. It is the report, the affidavits, the
transcripts of stenographic notes, and all other suppporting documents
behind the Prosecutor's certification w/c are material in assisting the
judge to make his determination.
Third, judges and prosecutors alike should distinguish the
preliminary inquiry w/c determines probable cause for the issuance of
a warrant of arrest from the preliminary investigation proper which
ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial or released.
Even if the two inquiries are conducted in the course of one and the
same proceeding, there should be no confusion about the objectives.
The determination of probable cause for the warrant of arrest is made
by the judge. The preliminary investigation proper--whether or not
there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the
offense charged and, therefore whether or not he should be subjected
to trial--is the function of the prosecutor.
Article IX-C, Sec. 2 of the Constitution provides:
"Sec. 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the
following powers and functions:
(1) Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative
to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum,
and recall.
xxx xxx xxxx
(6) File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative,
petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion of votes, investigate
and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violation of election
laws, including acts or omission constituting election frauds,
offenses, and malpractices."
In effect, the 1987 Constitution mandates the COMELEC not only
to investigate but also to prosecute cases of violation of election laws.
This means that the COMELEC is empowered to conduct preliminary
investigations in cases involving election offenses for the purpose of
helping the judge determine probable cause and for filing an
information in court. This power is exclusive with the COMELEC.
Hence, the Prov'l Fiscal, as such, assumes no role in the
prosecution of election offenses. If the Fiscal files an information
charging an election offense or prosecutes a violation of election law, it
is because he has been deputized by the COMELEC. He does not do
so under the sole authority of his office.
It is only after a preliminary examination conducted by the
COMELEC through its officials or its deputies that Sec. 2, Art. III of the
1987 Constitution comes in. This is so, because, when the application
for a warrant of arrest is made and the information is filed with the
court, the judge will then determine whether or not a probable cause
exists for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
People v. Delgado, 189 SCRA 715 (1990)
F: Upon recommendation of the provincial election supervisor, who
conducted a preliminary investigation of the alleged election offenses
of Delgado, et. al, the Comelec filed an information against the latter.
The respondents moved for reconsideration and the suspension of the
warrants of arrests on the ground that no preliminary investigation was
conducted. The trial court ordered for reinvestigation. The Comelec
opposed the order on the ground that only the SC may review the
decisions, orders, resolutions of the Comelec. The trial court denied
the Comelec motion. Hence this certiorari.
ISSUE: W/N THE COMELEC ACTION MAY BE REVIEWED ONLY
ON CERTIORARI BY THE SC?
HELD: NO. According to the constitution, the Comelec has the
following functions: (1) enforcement of election laws; (2) decision of
election contests; (3) decision of administrative questions; (4)
deputizing law enforcement agencies; (5) registration of political
parties; and (6) improvement of elections. What are reviewable on
COMELEC, Sandiganbayan, & Office of the Ombudsman
certiorari by the SC are those orders, decisions, etc., rendered in
actions or proceedings before the Comelec in the exercise of its
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. Thus decisions of the Comelec
on election contests or on administrative questions are subject to
judicial review only by the SC. In this case, no Comelec adjudicatory
power is exercised. As a public prosecutor, the Comelec has the
exclusive authority to conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute
offenses punishable under the election code before the competent
court. But when the Comelec files the information, the subsequent
disposition of the case is subject to the court's approval. The Comelec
can't conduct reinvestigation unless so ordered by that court nor
refuse its order of reinvestigation.
(e) Recommend pardon, amnesty, parole or suspension of
sentence of election law violators
Art. IX, C, Sec. 5. No pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension of
sentence for violation of election laws, rules, and regulations shall be
granted by the President without the favorable recommendation of the
Commission.
(f) Deputize law enforcement agents and recommend their
removal
Art. IX, C, Sec. 2. xxx
(4) Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law
enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the Government,
including the Armed Forces of the Philippines, for the exclusive
purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible
elections.
xxx
(8) Recommend to the President the removal of any officer or
employee it has deputized, or the imposition of any other disciplinary
action, for violation or disregard, or disobedience to its directive, order
or decision.
xxx
(g) Registration of political parties, organizations and coalitions
and ACCREDITATION of citizens' arms
Art. IX, C, Sec. 2. xxx
(5) Register, after sufficient publication, political parties,
organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other requirements,
must present their platform or program of government; and accredit
citizens' arms of the Commission on Elections. Religious
denominations and sects shall not be registered. Those which seek
to achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means, or refuse
to uphold and adhere to this Constitution, or which are supported by
any foreign government shall likewise be refused registration.
Financial contributions from foreign governments and their
agencies to political parties, organizations, coalitions, or candidates
related to elections constitute interference in national affairs, and,
when accepted, shall be an additional ground for the cancellation of
their registration with the Commissions, in addition to other penalties
that may be prescribed by law.
The following shall not be registered:
a. Religious denominations and sects.
b. Those seeking to achieve their goals through violence or
unlawful means.
c. Those refusing to uphold and adhere to this Constitution.
d. Those which are supported by any foreign government.
Financial contributions from foreign government and their
agencies to political parties or candidates related to
elections constitute "interference in national affairs," and
when accepted, shall be an additional ground for
cancellation of registration, in addition to other penalties the
law may prescribe.
Art. IX, C, Sec. 7. No votes cast in favor of a political party,
organization, or coalition shall be valid, except for those registered
under the party-list system as provided in this Constitution.
Art. IX, C, Sec. 8. Political parties, or organizations or coalitions
registered under the party-list systems, shall not be presented in the
voters' registration boards, boards of election inspectors, boards of
canvassers, or other similar bodies. However, they shall be entitled
to appoint poll watchers in accordance with law.
Art. VI, Sec. 5. xxx
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per
centum of the total number of representatives including those under
the party list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this
Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to the party-list
representatives shall be filled, as provided bylaw, by selection or
election from labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be
provided by law, except the religious sector.
4
Art. XVIII, Sec. 7. Until a law is passed, the President may fill by
appointment from a list of nominees by the respective sectors the
seats reserved for sectoral representation in paragraph 2, Section 5 of
Article VI of the Constitution.
(h) Regulation of public utilities and media of information
Art. IX, C, Sec. 4. The Commission may, during the election period,
supervise or regulate the enjoyment of utilization of all franchises or
permits for the operation or transportation and other public utilities,
media of communication or information, all grants, special privileges,
or concessions granted by the Government or any subdivision,
agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or
controlled corporation or its subsidiary. Such supervision or regulation
shall aim to ensure equal opportunity, time, and space, and the right to
reply, including reasonable, equal rates therefor, for public information
campaigns and forums among candidates in connection with the
objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible
elections.
Such supervision or regulation shall aim to ensure (i) equal
opportunity, time and space, (ii) the right to reply, including reasonable
equal rates therefor, for public information campaigns and from among
candidates, in connection with the object of holding free, orderly,
honest, peaceful and credible elections.
National Press Club V. COMELEC, 176 SCRA 84
F: Petitioners herein were representatives of mass media which
were prevented from selling and donating space or air time for political
advertisements under RA 6646.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 6646 constitutes a violation of the
constitutional right to freedom of expression.
RULING: NO. The Comelec has been expressly authorized by the
Constitution to supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of the
franchises or permits for the operation of media of communication and
information. The fundamental purposes of such power are to ensure
"equal opportunity, time, and space, and the right to reply," as well as
uniform and reasonable rates of charges for the use of such media
facilities, in connection with "public information campaigns and forums
amoong candidates."
Of course, the law limits the right of free speech and of access to
mass media of the candidates themselves. The limitation however,
bears a clear and reasonable connection with the objective set out in
the Constitution. For it is precisely in the unlimited purchase of print
space and radio and television time that the resources of the financially
affluent candidates are likely to make a crucial difference.
Adiong v. COMELEC, 207 SCRA 712
F: Petitoner, Adiong, a 1992 senatorial candidate, assails Comelec
Resolution No. 2347 insofar as it prohibits the posting of decals and
stickers on mobile places, public or private, and limits their location or
publication to authorized postiing areas.
ISSUE: Whether or not the resolution is constitutional.
RULING: NO. The prohibition unduly infringes on the citizen's
fundamental right of free speech. There is no public interest substantial
enough to warrant the kind of restriction involved in this case. The
posting of decals amd stickers in mobile places does not endanger any
substantial government or public interest. Under the clear and present
danger rule, not only must the danger be patently clear and pressingly
present but the evil sought to be avoided, must be so substantive as to
justify a clamp over one's mouth or a writing instrument to be stilled.
Significantly, the freedom of expression curtailed by the
prohibition is not so much that of the candidate or the political party.
The regulation strikes at the freedom of an individual to express his
preference and, by displaying it on his car, to convince others to agree
with him. A sticker may be furnished by a candidate but once the car
owner agrees to have it placed on his private vehichle, the expression
becomes a statement by the owner, primarily his own and not of
anybody else.
Morever, The restriction is so broad that it encompasses even the
citizen's private property, which in this case is a privately owned
vehicle. In consequence of this prohibition, another cardinal right
guaranteed under the Constitution is violated which is that no person
shall be deprived of his property without due proocess of law.
Art. IX, C, Sec. 9. Unless otherwise fixed by the Commission in
special cases, the election period shall commence ninety days before
the day of election and shall end thirty days thereafter.
(i) Decide election contests
Art. IX, C, Sec. 2. xxx
(2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests
relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of all elective
regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all
contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of
COMELEC, Sandiganbayan, & Office of the Ombudsman
general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by
trial courts of limited jurisdiction.
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on election
contests involving
elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final, executory, and
not appealable.
Art. IX, C, Sec. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or
in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedures in order
to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation
controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in
division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall
be decided by the Commission en banc.
RA 7166, Sec. 22
Sec. 22. Election Contests for Municipal Offices.-- All election
contests involving municipal offices with the Regional Trial Court shall
be decided expeditiously. The decision may be appealed to the
Commission within five (5) days from promulgation or receipt of a
copy thereof by the aggrieved party. The Commission shall decide
the appeal within sixty (60) days after it is submitted for decision, but
not later than six (6) months after the filing of the appeal, which
decision shall be final, unappealable, and executory.
"CONTEST"
Prior to the proclamation of the winning candidate, the case is
deemed to be still in its administrative stage, and so is to be resolved
by the COMELEC under its power to administer all election laws, and
not under its authority as the sole judge of election contests. Only
after a winner has been proclaimed can there be a "contest", with a
contestant who seeks not only to oust the intruder but also to have
himself installed into office.
Under the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), a pre-proclamation
controversy concerns the regularity of proceedings of a board of
canvassers. It includes the questions of: i) the legality of the
composition of the Board of Canvassers, and ii) questions of
fraudulent election returns.
Candidates for public office usually grab the proclamation to be
able to take the office, and thus anyone filing an electoral contest
against the person would now find himself at a disadvantage because
his opponent is now enjoying the power of the office. (Lagumbay v
COMELEC). Thus, the purpose of a pre- proclamation contest is to
prevent the proclamation of his opponent.
i. Municipal - original with the RTC; appeal to the COMELEC
ii. Barangay - original with inferior court; appeal to COMELEC
Javier v. COMELEC, 144 SCRA 194 (1986) -- Under the 1973
Constitution, even Pre-Proclamation Controversies Involving
Members of the Batasang Pambansa Must be Decided by the
COMELEC en banc.
F: Petitioner Evelio Javier filed a petition for certiorari to annul a
decision of the COMELEC's Second Division proclaiming Arturo
Pacificador elected member of the BP representing Antique Province.
He contended that under the 1973 Consti., all contests, involving
members of the BP, must be decided by the COMELEC en banc.
Art. XII, C, Sec. 2 (2) of the 1973 Consti. provided that the
COMELEC "(shall) be the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns and qualifications of all members of the BP and
elective provincial and city officials." Sec. 3, on the other hand,
provided that "All election cases may be heard and decided by
divisions except contests involving members of the BP, w/c shall be
heard and decided en banc." The former Sol.-Gen. argued that the
controversy in this case is still in the admin. stage and so is to be
resolved by the COMELEC under its power to administer all election
laws, not under its authority as sole judge of election contests, bec.
until one of the candidates was proclaimed, there could be no contest,
in w/c the contestant seeks not only to oust the intruder but also to
have himself inducted into office. On the other hand, the new Sol-
Gen sought the dismissal of the case as moot and academic on the
ground that the petitioner had been killed apparently for political
reason and that the BP had been abolished after the Feb. 1986
Revolution.
HELD: xxx
(2) It is worth observing that the special procedure for the
settlement of what are now called "pre-proclamation controversies" is
a relatively recent innovation in our laws, having been introduced only
in 1978, through the 1978 Election Code. Bef. that time, all
proceedings affecting the election, returns and qualifications of public
officers came under the complete jurisdiction of the competent court
or tribunal from beginning to end and in the exercise of judicial power
only. It therefore could not have been the intention of the framers in
1935, when the Commonwealth charter was imposed, to divide the
electoral process into the pre-proclamation stage and the post-
5
proclamation stage and to provide for a separate jurisdiction for each
stage, considering the first admin. and the second juridical.
Contests.-- The word "contests" should not be given a restrictive
meaning; on the contrary, it should receive the widest possible scope
conformably to the rule that the words used in the Consti. should be
interpreted liberally. As employed in the 1973 Consti., the term should
be understood as referring to any matter involving the title or claim of
title to an elective office, made bef. or after proclamation of the winner,
whether or not the contestant is claiming the office in dispute.
Elections, returns and qualifications.-- The phrase "elections,
returns and qualifications" should be interpreted in its totality as
referring to all matters affecting the validity of the contestee's title. But
if it is necessary to specify, we can say that election refers to the
conduct of the polls, including the listing of voters, holding of electoral
campaign, and casting and counting of votes. "returns" to the canvass
of the returns and the proclamation of the winners, including questions
concerning the composition of the board of canvassers and the
authenticity of the election returns; and "qualifications" to matters that
could be raised in a quo warranto proceeding against the proclaimed
winner, such as his disloyalty, or ineligibility, or the inadequacy of his
certificate of candidacy.
As correctly observed by the petitioner, the purpose of Sec. 3 in
requiring that cases involving members of the BP be heard and
decided by the Commission en banc was to insure the most careful
consideration of such cases. Obviously, that objective could not be
achieved if the Commission could act en banc only after the
proclamation had been made, for it might then be too late already. We
are only too familiar w/ the "grab-the-proclamation-and-delay-the
protest" strategy in the frustration of the popular will and the virtual
defeat of the real winners in the election.
The jurisdiction of the COMELEC as the judge of election
contests involving the election, returns, and qualifications of elective
officials has been bee restricted to elective local officials under the
1987 Constitution. The judge in the Presidential Election, as noted, is
the SC acting as Electoral Tribunal. The judge in the Congressional
elections, is the respective Electoral Tribunal of the Senate and House
of Representatives.
Pimentel v. COMELEC, 101 SCRA 769 (1986)
*EN BANC
F: Herein petitioners are the contestants while herein private
respondents are the contestees in 3 election cases pending before the
CFI of Quirino.
Petitioners allege in their election protests that they were duly
certified candidates for mayor, vice-mayor and members of the
Sangguniang Bayan of Diffun, Quirino, in the general elections of
January 30, 1980, but they were not considered as such by the
Municipal Board of Canvassers who did not count the votes cast in
their favor and proceeded instead to proclaim the private respondents
as the duly elected officials of Diffun.
The private respondents filed their opposition to such protests.
They also filed a "Joint Motion to Limit Reception of Evidence Pursuant
to Material Allegations in the Protests," which was denied. Accordingly,
the CFI ordered the opening of the ballot boxes and the counting of the
votes as reflected in the ballots and not in the election returns. Private
respondents filed w/ the COMELEC a petition for certiorari and
prohibition with preliminary injunction seeking to restrain the CFI from
enforcing its orders. The COMELEC, on May 25,1980, issued a
resolution restraining the CFI from enforcing its order. Consequently,
the CFI issued an order pursuant to the COMELEC's resolution.
Thus, petitioners filed this present petition for certiorari and
prohibition w/ preliminary mandatory injunction seeking to annul the
said COMELEC's resolution. Petitioners allege, among others, that the
COMELEC has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petition for
certiorari and prohibition filed by the private respondents questioning
an interlocutory order issued by the CFI, much less to restrain said
court from enforcing said order.
On the other hand, private respondents contend that the
COMELEC has jurisdiction over the petition for certiorari, prohibition
and mandamus involving election cases as supported by the following:
that the 1978 Election Code grants the COMELEC the power to
"prescribe the rules to govern the procedure and other matters relating
to election contests"; that under Sec. 4, Rule 65 of the ROC, petitions
for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus "may also be filed with the
Court of Appeals if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction"; that since the
COMELEC exercises appellate jurisdiction over election cases filed w/
the CFI involving municipal offices, pursuant to the 1978 Election
Code, said Commission is thus vested w/ jurisdiction over petitions for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, applying by analogy the quoted
provision of Sec. 4, Rule 65 of the ROC.
ISSUES: W/N the COMELEC has jurisdiction over petitions for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus involving election cases filed w/
the CFI.
HELD: NONE
Settled is the rule that jurisdiction is conferred only by the
Constitution or the law. Thus, it cannot be conferred by the Rules of
Court w/c are neither constitutional provisions nor legislative
enactments but mere procedural rules promulgated by the SC in the
COMELEC, Sandiganbayan, & Office of the Ombudsman
exercise of its power to prescribe "rules concerning pleading, practice
and procedures in all courts."
Accordingly, the aforequoted provision of Sec. 4, Rule 65 of the
ROC, cannot be construed as a grant of jurisdiction to the Court of
Appeals over petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus
involving cases appealable to it. Much less can such provision be
interpreted, by analogy, as a grant to the COMELEC of jurisdiction
over petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus involving election
cases cognizable by the CFI and appealable to said Commission.
While it is true that the CA has jurisdiction over petitions for
certiorari, prohibition or mandamus involving cases appealable to it,
the grant of jurisdiction is not by virtue of the ROC, but by express
legislative fiat, namely, Sec. 30 of the Judiciary Act.
No such legislative grant of jurisdiction exists in the case of the
COMELEC. Consequently, respondents' contention cannot be
sustained.
Garcia v. De Jesus, 206 SCRA 779
*EN BANC
F: Two election cases are consolidated herein for both cases
involved the same issue, which is, the jurisdiction of the COMELEC to
issue Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus in electoral
contests.
In the Antipolo case, petitioners Garcia and O'Hara were the
winning candidates for mayor and vice-mayor respectively of Antipolo,
Rizal in the 1988 Local Elections.
Private respondents De Jesus and David instituted an election
protest before the RTC. The RTC ordered for the examination of the
ballots and the recounting of the votes. The petitioners filed a Motion
to Dismiss Opening of Ballot Boxes and/or to Dismiss the Protest.
Consequently, the RTC issued an order limiting the opening of the
ballot boxes.
The motion for reconsideration filed by private respondents was
denied. The respondents then filed a Petition for Certiorari and
Mandamus before the COMELEC. Petitioners objected the
assumption of jurisdiction by the COMELEC. The COMELEC,
nevertheless, directed the RTC to open all the ballot boxes.
In the Isabela case, respondent Neyra was proclaimed mayor of
Isabela over petitioner Uy in the same local election.
Petitioner Uy filed an election protest before the RTC. The RTC
in turn, declared Uy the winner. Neyra filed a Notice of Appeal, while
Uy filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal. Later, Neyra filed
before the COMELEC, a petition for Certiorari and/or Prohibition,
seeking to enjoin the RTC from further acting on Uy's Motion for
Execution. The RTC granted Uy's Motion for Execution, while the
COMELEC later, on motion by Neyra, declared as null and void the
writ of Execution granted by the RTC.
ISSUES: 1. W/N the COMELEC has the power to issue Writs of
Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus in electoral contests.
HELD: NONE. In the absence of any specific conferment upon the
COMELEC, either by the Constitution or by legislative fiat, the
COMELEC is bereft of jurisdiction to issue said Writs.
It is the COMELEC alone, invoking its constitutionally (Rep. v.
Feliciano, Garcia v. De Jesus, Peo. v. Dramayo) invested appellate
jurisdiction and rule-making power, that arrogate unto itself the
authority to issue the aforementioned Writs, in Rule 28, Sec. 1 of its
Rules of Procedure. However, neither the appellate jurisdiction of the
COMELEC nor its rule-making power justifies such self-conferment of
authority.
Jurisdiction or the legal power to hear and determine a cause of
action must exist as a matter of law. It may be classified into original
and appellate jurisdictions. Original jurisdiction is the power of the
Court to take judicial cognizance of a case instituted for judicial action
for the first time under conditions provided by law. Appellate
jurisdiction is the authority of a Court higher in rank to re-examine the
final order or judgment of a lower court w/c tried the case now
elevated for judicial review.
In the Philippine setting, the authority to issue Writs of Certiorari,
Prohibition and Mandamus involves the exercise of original
jurisdiction. Thus, such authority has always been expressly
conferred, either by the Constitution or by law. It is never derived by
implication.
Significantly, what the Constitution granted the COMELEC was
appellate jurisdiction. The Constitution makes no mention of any
power given the COMELEC to exercise original jurisdiction over
Petitions for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus unlike in the case
of the SC which was specifically conferred such authority. The
immutable doctrine being that jurisdiction is fixed by law, the power to
issue such Writs can not implied from the mere existence of appellate
jurisdiction.
Although there may be authorities in other jurisdictions w/c
maintain that such Writs are inherent in the power of higher Courts
exercising appellate jurisdiction, the same refers to judicial tribunals,
w/c the COMELEC is not. What this agency exercises are
administrative and quasi-judicial powers.
Certiorari is a "writ from a superior court to an inferior court or
tribunal commanding the latter to send up the record of a particular
case." The function of a Writ of Certiorari is to keep an inferior court
w/n the bounds of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such
a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. The
6
grant of appellate jurisdiction to the COMELEC does not necessarily
make it a "superior court" vis-à-vis RTCs.
2. W/N RTCs can order execution pending appeal in election
contests decided by it involving elective municipal officials.
HELD: YES.
The COMELEC is bereft of authority to deprive RTCs of the
competence to order execution pending appeal. For one, it is
essentially a judicial prerogative. For another, it is a pronouncement of
the COMELEC alone in its procedural rules, w/o benefit of statute,
unlike in the past.
There is no express provision of law, therefore, disauthorizing
executions pending appeal, and the COMELEC, in its procedural rules
alone, should not be allowed to divest RTCs of that authority. It
deprives the prevailing party of a substantive right to move for such
relief contrary to the constitutional mandate that those Rules cannot
diminish nor modify substantive rights.
Section 2, Rule 39 of the ROC, w/c allows RTCs to order
executions pending appeal upon good reasons stated in a special
order, may be made to apply suppletorily to election contests decided
by them. In the Isabela case, good reasons exist w/c justified the
RTC's order, granting execution pending appeal. Among others
mentioned by the RTC are the combined considerations of the near
expiration of the term of office, public interest, the pendency of the
election contest for more than 3 years, and that Uy had filed a bond.
Veloria v. COMELEC, 211 SCRA 907
*EN BANC
F: Petitioners Veloria, et. al., as well as private respondents Sales,
et. al. were candidates for mayor, vice-mayor and members of the
Sangguniang Bayan of Manaoag, Pangasinan, in the 1988 local
elections.
The private respondents were declared as winners. Dissatisfied,
the petitioners filed election protest w/ the RTC of Ardent, Pangasinan.
The RTC ordered the revision of ballots.
Priv. repondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the
RTC had not acquired jurisdiction over the election protest. Such
motion was granted leading to the dismissal of the case.
However, instead of perfecting an appeal w/n 5 days as provided
by law, the petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was
denied. The petitioners in turn, filed a Notice of Appeal, which was
given due course.
The private respondents sought recourse w/ the COMELEC by a
petition for Certiorari and Prohibition w/ a Prayer for a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction to annul the order giving due course to the
appeal.
The COMELEC en banc granted the petition. Hence, this special
civil action of Certiorari and Prohibition w/ a Prayer fro a Writ of
preliminary injunction filed by the petitioners.
ISSUE: W/N the COMELEC has jurisdiction to grant the private
respondents' petition for certiorari.
HELD: NONE.
There is no merit in this petition for review for the COMELEC
correctly found that the petitioners' appeal from the court's order
dismissing their election protest was indeed tardy. It was tardy
because their motion for reconsideration did not suspend their period
to appeal. The petitioners' reliance on Sec. 4, Rule 19 of the
COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE w/c provides: "A motion to
reconsider a decision, resolution, order, or ruling when not pro-
forma, suspends the running of the period to elevate the matter to
the Supreme Court." is misplaced. The "motion for reconsideration"
referred to above is the motion for recon. filed in the COMELEC, not in
the trial court where a motion for recon. is not entertained.
Nevertheless, this petition for certiorari must be granted, for the
COMELEC does not possess jurisdiction to grant the private
respondents' petition for certiorari. The SC in the consolidated cases of
GARCIA v. COMELEC and UY v. COMELEC (GARCIA V. DE JESUS-
206 SCRA 779), the SC ruled that the COMELEC has not been given,
by the Constitution nor by law, jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus.
"Significantly, what the Constitution granted the COMELEC was
appellate jurisdiction. The Constitution makes no mention of any power
given the COMELEC to exercise original jurisdiction over petitions for
Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus. The immutable doctrine being
that jurisdiction is fixed by law, the power to issue such writs cannot be
implied from the mere existence of appellate jurisdiction xxx." (GARCIA
v. DE JESUS)
In view of such pronouncement, an original special civil action of
certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against a RTC in an election
contest may be filed in the Court of Appeals or in the SC being the only
courts given such original jurisdiction under the Constitution and the
law.
Rule making
Art. IX, A, Sec. 6. Each Commission en banc may promulgate its own
rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or before any of its
offices. Such rules however shall not diminish, increase or modify
substantive rights.
COMELEC, Sandiganbayan, & Office of the Ombudsman
Art. IX, C, Sec. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or
in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedures in order
to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation
controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in
division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall
be decided by the Commission en banc.
Other functions
Art. IX, A, Sec. 8. Each Commission shall perform such other
functions as may be provided by law.
Act as National Board of Canvassers for Senators
EO 144, Sec. 2, March 2, 1987
Sec. 2. Board of Canvassers.-- The Chairman and Members of the
Commission on Elections sitting en banc shall be the National Board
of Canvassers for the election of Senators. It shall canvass all
certificates of canvass coming from and prepared by the district,
provincial, and city boards of canvassers (of those cities which
comprise one or more legislative districts.)
Furthermore, there shall be a board of canvassers for each
province, city, municipality and district of Metropolitan Manila, as
follows:
(a) Provincial board of canvassers.-- The provincial board of
canvassers shall be composed of the provincial election supervisor or
a senior lawyer in the regional office of the Commission, as chairman,
the provincial fiscal, as vice-chairman, and the provincial
superintendent of schools, as members.
This board shall canvass certificates of canvass from the
municipalities and the cities which do not comprise at least one
legislative district. It shall proclaim as elected the candidates for the
House of Representatives who obtained the highest number of votes
in the respective legislative districts.
With respect to the election of senators, the provincial board of
canvassers shall prepare in duplicate a certificate of canvass
supported by a statement of votes received by each candidate in
each municipality/ city, and transmit the first copy thereof to the
Commission on Elections for canvassing. The second copy shall be
kept by the provincial election supervisor.
(b) City Boards of Canvassers for cities comprising one or
more legislative districts.-- The city board of canvassers for cities
comprising one or more legislative districts shall be composed of the
city election registrar or lawyer of the Commission, as chairman, the
city fiscal, as vice-chairman, and the city superintendent of schools as
member.
This board shall canvass election returns coming from the
polling places within the jurisdiction of the city, and shall proclaim as
elected the candidate or candidates for the House of Representatives
who obtained the highest number of votes in the legislative district or
respective legislative districts.
With respect to the election of senators, this board shall prepare
in duplicate certificate of canvass supported by a statement of votes
received by each candidate in each polling place and transmit the first
copy to the Commission on Elections for canvassing. The second
copy shall be kept by the city election registrar.
(c) District Board of Canvassers.-- The district board of
canvassers shall be composed of a lawyer of the Commission, as
chairman, and a ranking fiscal in the district, as vice-chairman, and
the most district school supervisor in the district, as member, to be
appointed by the Commission upon consultation with the Department
of Justice and the Department of Education, Culture and Sports
respectively.
This board shall canvass election returns coming from the
polling places within the jurisdiction of the district and shall proclaim
as elected the candidate for the House of Representatives who
obtained the highest number of votes in the legislative district.
With respect to the election for senators, the same procedure
shall be followed by this board as that observed by the city board of
canvassers for cities comprising one or more legislative districts.
(d) City/ Municipal Board of Canvassers.-- The city (for cities
not comprising at least one legislative district) or municipal board of
canvassers shall be composed of the city/ municipal election
registrar, as chairman, the city fiscal/ municipal treasurer, as the case
may be, as vice-chairman, and the city superintendent/ district
supervisor or in his absence any public school principal, as the case
may be, as member.
The board shall canvass election returns coming from the polling
places within its jurisdiction, but shall not proclaim any winner in the
election for Members of the House of Representatives or for
Senators.
This board shall prepare in triplicate a certificate of canvass
supported by a statement of votes received by each candidate in
each polling place, and transmit the first copy thereof to the provincial
board of canvassers for canvassing. The second copy shall be
transmitted to the Commission for record purposes and the third copy
shall be kept by the city/ municipal election registrar.
Review of COMELEC decisions, orders, and resolutions
Art. IX, C, Sec. 2. xxx
7
(2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests
relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective
regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all
contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of
general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by
courts of limited jurisdiction.
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on election
contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be
final, executory, and not appealable.
Art. IX, A, Sec. 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority of all
its Members any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from
the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter
is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the
last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the rules of the
Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided
by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each
Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the
aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.
Flores v. COMELEC, 184 S 484 (1990)
F: RF was proclaimed as punong barangay. His election was
protested by NR. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court sustained NR &
installed him as punong barangay. RF appealed to the RTC w/c
affirmed the challenged decision. RF then went to the COMELEC but
his appeal was dismissed on the ground that the COMELEC had no
power to review the decision of the RTC based in Sec. 9 of RA 6679
(Local Gov't Code)
ISSUE: W/in the COMELEC has jurisdiction
HELD: Under Art IX-C, Sec 2(2) of the Consti, the COMELEC shall
have jurisdiction, hence, Sec. 9 of RA 6679 insofar as it provides that
the decision of the municipal or metropolitan court in a barangay case
should be appealed to the RTC must be declared unconstitutional.
P had a right to presume the law as valid. Hence his appeal to
the RTC would be considered as an appeal to the COMELEC.
Decisions of the COMELEC on election contests involving municipal &
barangay officer shall be final & unappealable with respect to
questions of fact & not of law. Art IX-6 Sec 2(2) of the Consti was not
intended to divert the SC of its authority to resolve questions of law as
inherent in the judicial power conferred upon it by the Consti.
Galido v. COMELEC, 193 S 78 (1991)
F: In an election contest involving the elected mayor of Garcia-
Hernandez, Bohol. The COMELEC declared Galeon as the duly
elected mayor. Fifteen ballots in the name of his rival, Galido, was
invalidated for being marked ballots.
Galido filed the petition for certiorari & injunction w prayer for a
restraining order. Galeon moved for the dismissal of the petition on the
ground that according to the Consti, Art IX (C) Sec 2 (2), final
decisions, orders or rulings of the COMELEC in election contests
involving elective municipal offices are final & executory & not
appealable. Galido cited Art IX (A) Sec. 7 w/c said that the decision
may be brought to the SC.
ISSUE: W/n decisions of the COMELEC are appealable
HELD: Yes. The fact that decisions, final orders or rulings of the
COMELEC in contests involving executory & not appealable does not
preclude a recourse to the SC by way of a special civil action of
certiorari.
A study of the case would however show that the COMELEC
committed NO grave abuse of discretion in rendering the questioned
decision.
Rivera v. COMELEC, 199 S 178 (1991)
F: Petitioner Rivera & private respondent Garcia were candidates for
the position of mayor during the local elections in Jan 1988. In an
election contest between, Garcia was proclaimed mayor. Rivera
appealed the said decision but said decision was affirmed by the
COMELEC. R filed a petition with the SC seeking annulment of the
COMELEC decision. He contends that the decision has not yet
become final & executory. G however contends that the decisions of
the COMELEC on election contests involving elective municipal &
barangay officials are final, executory & not appealable.
ISSUE: W/n decisions of the COMELEC on election contests involving
elective municipal & barangay officials are unappealble
HELD: No. The fact that decisions, final orders or rulings of the
COMELEC in contests involving elective municipal & barangay officials
are final, executory and not appealable does not preclude a recourse
to the SC by way of a special action of certiorari. (Galido v. Comelec.)
Fiscal Autonomy
Art. IX, A, Sec. 5. The Commission shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Their
approved annual appropriations shall be automatically and regularly re-
leased.
COMELEC, Sandiganbayan, & Office of the Ombudsman
SANDIGANBAYAN
Art. XI, Sec. 4. The present anti-graft court known as the
Sandiganbayan shall continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction
as now or hereafter may be provided by law.
PD 1606, as amended by Republic Act 7975
Nunez v. Sandiganbayan, 111 SCRA 433 - Decree Creating
Sandiganbayan Is Valid.
F: The constitutionality of the law creating the Sandiganbayan was
questioned as being violative of (a) due process and equal protection
(since private persons charged with estafa or malversation are guar-
anteed the right to appeal first to the CA and thereafter to the SC,
while private persons charged with public officers before the SB are
allowed only one appeal, and that is, to the SC), and (b) no ex post
facto rule (since before the promulgation of PD 1606, the right to
appeal to the CA and then to the SC was already secured by Secs. 17
and 29 of the Judiciary Act of 1948).
HELD: (1) The claim that PD 1606 deprives petitioner of the equal
protection of the law is hardly convincing considering that the Decree
is based on a valid classification. The Consti. provides for the
creation of a special court, known as Sandiganbayan (SB), and the
rule is settled that the general guarantees of the Bill of Rights, among
w/c are the due process and equal protection clauses, must give way
to specific provisions, such as the provision on the creation of the SB.
(2) It hardly can be argued that a particular mode of procedure
provided in a statute can become the vested right of any person. "An
accused has no vested right in particular modes of procedure as in
determining whether particular statutes by their operation take from
an accused any right that was regarded, at the time of the adoption of
the Consti., as vital for the protection of life and liberty, and w/c he
enjoyed at the time of the commission of the offense charged against
him.
Would the omission of the CA as an intermediate tribunal,
deprive those, like the petitioner, who are charged in the SB, of a right
that is vital to the protection of their liberty? Its answer must be in the
negative. The innocence of guilt of the accused is passed upon by a
3-judge division of the SB. Moreover, a unanimous vote is required,
otherwise, the Presiding Justice designates two other Justices from
among the members of the SB to sit temporarily in a division of 5 until
a decision is rendered w/ the concurrence of 3 Justices. If convicted,
the accused can seek a review in the SC on a question of law or the
substantiality of the evidence. Petitioner makes much of the facts that
there is no review by the SC of facts. What cannot be too strongly
emphasized is that the SC, in determining whether to give due course
to a petition for review of a decision of the SB, must be convinced that
the constitutional presumption of innocence has been overcome.
Thus, it cannot be said that there is no way of scrutinizing whether the
quantum of evidence required for conviction in criminal cases have
been satisfied.
Makasiar, J., concurring and dissenting:
The dissenting opinion noted the discrimination in treatment as
contented by allowing only one appeal, and only by way of certiorari
which is based on mere substantial evidence and not proof beyond
reasonable doubt.
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
See also PD 1603, July 18, 1979
RA 6770, Nov. 17, 1989
Composition
Art. XI, Sec. 5. There is hereby created the independent Office of the
Ombudsman, composed of the Ombudsman to be known as
Tanodbayan, one overall Deputy and at least one Deputy each for
Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. A separate Deputy for the military
establishment may likewise be appointed.
Qualifications
Art. XI, Sec. 8. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be natural-
born citizens of the Philippines, and at the time of their appointment,
at least forty years old, of recognized probity and independence, and
members of the Philippine Bar, and must not have been candidates
for any elective office in the immediately preceding election. The
Ombudsman must have for ten years or more been a judge or
engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.
During their tenure, they shall be subject to the same
disqualifications and prohibitions as provided for in Section 2 of
Article IX-A of this Constitution.
8
Appointment and Term
APPOINTMENT
Art. XI, Sec. 9. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be appointed
by the President from a list of at least six nominees prepared by the
Judicial and Bar Council, and from a list of three nominees for every
vacancy thereafter. Such appointments shall require no confirmation.
All vacancies shall be filled within three months after they occur.
TERM
Id., Sec. 11. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall serve for a term
of seven years without reappointment. They shall not be qualified to
run for any office in the election immediately succeeding their
cessation from office.
Rank and salary
Id., Sec. 10. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall have the rank of
Chairman and Members, respectively, of the Constitutional
Commissions, and they shall receive the same salary, which shall not
be decreased during their term of office.
Disqualifications
Art. IX, Sec. 8. xxx
During their tenure, they shall be subject to the same
disqualifications and prohibitions as provided for in Section 2 of Article
IX-A of this Constitution.
Art. IX, A, Sec. 2. No Member of a Constitutional Commission shall,
during his tenure, hold any other office or employment. Neither shall
he engage in the practice of any profession or in the active
management or control of any business which in any way may be
affected by the functions of his office, nor shall he be financially
interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or in any franchise
or privilege granted by the Government, any of its subdivisions,
agencies or instrumentalities, including government-owned or
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.
Art. XI, Sec. 16. No loan, guaranty, or other form of financial
accommodation for any business purpose may be granted, directly or
indirectly by any government owned or controlled bank or financial
institution to the President, Vice President, the Members of the
Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Constitutional
Commissions, the Ombudsman, or to any firm or entity in which they
have controlling interest, during their tenure.
Jurisdiction
Id., Sec. 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the
people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner
against public officials or employees of the government, or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government
owned or controlled corporations and shall, in appropriate cases, notify
the complainants of the action taken and the result thereof.
Quimpo v. Tanodbayan, 146 SCRA 137 (1986) - Tanodbayan Has
Jurisdiction over all Government Owned Firms Regardless of How
Organized.
F: F. Quimpo filed a complaint w/ the Tanodbayan (TB) charging
Greg Dimaano and Danny Remo, manager and analyst of Petrophil, w/
viol. of RA 3019 for their refusal to pay Quimpo's fees as surveyor.
The TB dismissed the complaint, however, on the ground that his
jurisdiction extended only to govt owned corps organized under a
special law. PETROPHIL is a corp. organized under the Gen. Corp.
Code; it was acquired by the govt to carry out its oil and gasoline
programs. Quimpo filed a petition for certiorari, questioning the
decision of the TB. The new TB confessed judgment.
HELD: (1) In NHA v. Juco, 134 S 172 (1984), it was held that for
purposes of coverage in the Civil Service, employees of govt owned or
controlled corps. whether created by special law or formed as
subsidiaries are covered by the CS law, not the Labor Code, and the
fact that pvt. corps. owned or controlled by the govt may be created by
special charter does not mean that such corps. not created by special
law are not covered by the Civil Service. (This ruling has since been
overruled.)
(2) The meaning thus given to "govt-owned or controlled corps."
for purposes of the CS [Art. IX, B, Sec. 2 (1)] provision should likewise
apply for purposes of the TB and the SB provisions [Art. XI, secs. 4
and 12], otherwise, incongruity would result; and a govt-owned corp.
could create as many subsidiary corps. under the Corp. Code as it
wishes, w/c would then be free from strict accountability and could
escape the liabilities and responsibilities provided for by law. xxx
[T]here can be no gainsaying that as of the date of its acquisition by
the Govt, utilizing public funds, PETROPHIL, while retaining its own
corporate existence, became a govt-owned or controlled corp. w/in the
constitutional precept. Its employees, therefore are public servants
COMELEC, Sandiganbayan, & Office of the Ombudsman
falling w/in the investigatory and prosecutory jurisdiction of the TB for
purposes of the RA 3019.
Powers and functions
Art. XI, Sec. 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the
following powers, functions and duties:
(1) Investigate on its own or on complaint any act or omission of
any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or
omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient
(2) Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public
official or employee of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, as well as of any government-owned or
controlled corporation with original charter; to perform and expedite
any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any
abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties.
(3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action
against a public official or employee at fault, and recommend his
removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and
ensure compliance therewith.
(4) Direct the officer concerned in any appropriate case, and
subject to such limitations as may be provided by law, to furnish it
with copies of documents relating to contracts or transactions entered
into by his office involving disbursement or use of public funds or
properties, and report any irregularity to the Commission on Audit for
appropriate action.
(5) Request any government agency for assistance and
information necessary in the discharge of its responsibilities, and to
examine, if necessary, pertinent records and documents.
(6) Publicize matters covered by its investigation when
circumstances so warrant and with due prudence.
(7) Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape,
mismanagement, fraud and corruption in the Government and make
recommendations for their elimination and the observance of high
standards of ethics and efficiency.
(8) Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other
powers or perform such functions or duties as may be provided by
law.
The functions of the Ombudsman may be divided into four: (1)
Investigatory; (2) Prosecutory; (3) Disciplinary; and (4) Assistory.
Fiscal Autonomy
Id., Sec. 14. The Office of the Ombudsman shall enjoy fiscal
autonomy. Its approved annual appropriations shall be automatically
and regularly release.
Appointment of personnel
Id., Sec. 6. The officials and employees of the Office of the Ombuds-
man, other than the Deputies, shall be appointed by the Ombudsman
according to the Civil Service Law.
Office of the SPECIAL PROSECUTOR
Id., Sec. 7. The existing Tanodbayan shall hereafter be known as the
Office of the Special Prosecutor. It shall continue to function and
exercise its powers as now or hereafter may be provided by law,
except those conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman created
under this Constitution.
Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, 160 SCRA 843 (1988) and Resolution,
May 19, 1988
F: Petitioner, governor of Antique, filed a petition for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus to restrain the Sandiganbayan &
Tanodbayan Raul Gonzales from proceeding with the prosecution &
hearing of criminal cases against him on the ground that said cases
were filed by the Tanodbayan w/o legal & constitutional authority
since under the 1987 Consti., it is only the Ombudsman who has the
authority to file cases with the Sandiganbayan.
HELD: (1) We find the petitions impressed w/ merit. Under Art. XI,
Sec. 13, par. 1 of the Consti., the Ombudsman (as distinguished w/
the incumbent TB) is charged w/ the duty to:
"Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act
or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when
such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or
inefficient."
On the other hand, Art. XI, Sec. 7 of the Consti. provides that
"The existing Tanodbayan shall hereafter be known as the Office
of the Special Prosecutor. It shall continue to function and exercise
its powers as now or hereafter may be provided by law, except those
conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman created under this
Constitution."
9
Now, then, inasmuch as the aforementioned duty is given to the
Ombudsman, the incumbent TB (now called Sp. Pros.) is clearly
without authority to conduct prel. investigations and to direct the filing
of crim. cases, except upon orders of the Ombudsman. This right to
do so was lost effective Feb. 2, 1987
Resolution on the Motion for Reconsideration, May 19, 1988
(1) The power of investigation conferred on the Ombudsman
covers both administrative and crim. offenses. Accordingly, the Sp
Pros. cannot claim that he retains the specific power of prel.
investigation while conceding the general power of investigation to the
Ombudsman. The greater power embraces the lesser.
(2) The fact that the informations filed by the resp. from Feb. 2,
1987, were invalid bec. they were not authorized by the Ombudsman,
is not a jurisdictional defect. The Informations could have been
challenged in a motion to quash under R 117, ROC on the ground of
lack of authority on the part of the officer filing the same. If this ground
was not invoked, it is deemed waived under Sec. 8 of the same Rule.
xxx
At any rate, to settle this question, we hereby rule that the
decision of this Court in this case shall be given prospective application
only from April 27, 1988. xxx
To recapitulate, the Court holds that, in the interest of justice, its
ruling in 4/27/88 shall apply prospectively to cases filed in Court prior
to said resolution and pending trial nor to convictions or acquittals
pronounced therein. The exception is where there has been a timely
objection and a specific challenge, as in this case, where the Court
ordered the nullification of the Info. filed for lack of authority on the part
of resp. Gonzales.
See PD No. 1630, secs. 10, 12-15 (administrative investigations) and
sec. 17 (criminal investigations)
Sec. 10. Powers.-- The Tanodbayan shall have the following powers:
(a) He may investigate, on complaint by any person or on his
own motion or initiative, any administrative act whether amounting to
any criminal offense or not of any administrative agency including any
government owned or controlled corporations;
(b) He may prescribe the methods by which complaints are to be
made, received, and acted upon; he may determine the scope and
manner of investigations to be made; and, subject to the requirements
of this Decree, he may determine the form, frequency, and distribution
of his conclusions and recommendations;
(c) He may request and unless as herein provided for he shall be
given by each administrative agency the assistance and information he
deems necessary to the discharge of his responsibilities; he may
examine the records and documents of all administrative agencies;
and he may enter and inspect premises within any administrative
agency's control, provided, however, that, where the President in
writing certifies that such information, examination or inspection might
prejudice the national interest or violate existing law, the Tanodbayan
shall desist. All information so obtained shall be confidential, unless
the President, in the interest of public service, decides otherwise;
(d) He may issue a subpoena to compel any person to appear,
give sworn testimony, or produce documentary or other evidence the
Tanodbayan deems relevant to a matter under his inquiry;
(e) If after preliminary investigation he finds a prima facie case,
he may file the necessary information or complaint with the
Sandiganbayan or any proper court or administrative agency and
prosecute the case;
(f) He may file and prosecute civil and administrative cases
involving graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses
committed by public officers and employees, including those in
government-owned or controlled corporations, in relation to their office;
(g) He may undertake, participate in, or cooperate with general
studies or inquiries, whether or not related to any particular
administrative agency or any particular administrative act, if he
believes that they may enhance knowledge about or lead to
improvements in the functioning of administrative agencies.
In carrying out his functions, the Tanodbayan may with the
approval of the President, deputize or call upon any official or
employee of the government or any agency or office and during such
deputation the official or employee concerned shall be under the
supervision and control of the Tanodbayan.
Sec. 12. Matters appropriate for Investigation.-- (a) In selecting
matters for his attention, the Tanodbayan should also address himself
to an administrative act that might be--
1. contrary to law or regulation;
2. unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, or inconsistent with the
general course of an administrative agency's functioning;
3. mistaken in law or arbitrary in ascertainment of facts;
4. improper in motivation or based on irrelevant considerations;
5. unclear or inadequately explained when reasons should have
been revealed;
6. inefficiently performed; or
7. otherwise objectionable
COMELEC, Sandiganbayan, & Office of the Ombudsman 10

(b) The Tanodbayan may concern himself also with

strengthening procedures and practices which lessen the risk of
occurrence of any objectionable administrative acts.

Sec. 13. Action on Complaints.-- (a) The Tanodbayan may

receive a complaint from any source concerning an administrative
act. At no expense to the complainant, he may conduct a suitable
investigation into the things complained of.
(b) After completing his consideration of a complaint, whether or
not it has been investigated, the Tanodbayan shall suitably inform the
complainant and, when appropriate, the administrative agency or
agencies involved.
(c) A letter to the Tanodbayan from a person in a place of
detention or in a hospital or other institution under the control of an
administrative agency shall be immediately forwarded, unopened to
the Tanodbayan.

Sec. 14. Consultation with Agency.-- Before announcing a

conclusion or recommendation that criticizes an administrative
agency or any person, the Tanodbayan shall consult with that agency
or person.

Sec. 15. Recommendations.-- (a) If, having considered a

complaint and whatever material he deems pertinent, the
Tanodbayan is of the opinion that an administrative agency should (1)
consider the matter further, (2) modify or cancel an administrative act,
(3) alter a regulation or ruling, (4) explain fully the administrative act
in question, or (5) take any other step, he shall state his
recommendations to the administrative agency. If the Tanodbayan so
requests, the agency shall, within the time he has specified, inform
him about the action taken on his recommendations or the reasons
for not complying with them.
(b) If the Tanodbayan believes that an administrative action has
been dictated by laws whose results are unfair or otherwise
objectionable, he shall bring to the of the President and the National
Assembly (Congress) his views concerning desirable statutory
change.

Sec. 17. Investigation and Prosecution of Cases.-- The Office of

the Tanodbayan shall have the exclusive authority to conduct
preliminary investigation of all cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan to file information therefor and to direct and control
the prosecution of said cases. The Tanodbayan may utilize the
personnel of his office and/ or with the approval of the President,
designate or deputize any fiscal, state prosecutor or lawyer in the
government service to act as special investigator or prosecutor to
assist him in the investigation and prosecution of said cases. Those
designated or deputized to assist him as herein provided shall be
under his supervision and control.
No publicity shall be allowed during the pendency of such
preliminary investigation and the name of the complainant and the
accused shall not be made public until an information is filed by the
Tanodbayan.
The Tanodbayan, his investigators and prosecutors, whether
regular members of his staff or designated by him as herein provided,
shall have the authority to administer oaths, to issue subpoena duces
tecum, to summon and compel witnesses to appear and testify under
oath before them and/ or to bring books, documents and other things
under their control, and to secure the attendance or presence of any
absent or recalcitrant witness through application before the
Sandiganbayan or before any inferior or superior court having
jurisdiction of the place where the witnesses or evidence is found.
The resolutions and actions of the Tanodbayan shall not be
subject to review by any administrative agency.