AREEJ

CASE NO. 168

ART 7 SEC 52.5 HISTORY AND PURPOSE OF COMELEC
Loong v. Comelec | G.R. No. 133676, April 14, 1999

FACTS: Votes in favor of a mayoralty candidate were not reflected in the printed election returns in the municipality of Pata,
caused by the misalignment of the ovals opposite the names of candidates in the local ballots. Thus, COMELEC issued a
resolution ordering a manual count therein. Petitioner contends that the order for manual counting violated R.A. No. 8436
(prescribing for the adoption of an automated election system).

ISSUE: Whether or not Comelec’s order for the manual counting of votes in Pata violated R.A. No. 8436.

RULING: NO. Section 2(1) of Article IX(C) of the Constitution gives the COMELEC the broad power "to enforce and
administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and
recall." The COMELEC was organized under Commonwealth Act No. 607. The power to enforce our election laws was
originally vested in the President and exercised through the Department of Interior. However, an independent body could
better protect the right of suffrage of our people. Hence, the enforcement of our election laws, while an executive power, was
transferred to the COMELEC. From a statutory creation, the COMELEC was transformed to a constitutional body. Today,
COMLEC enforces and administers all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections, plebiscites, initiatives,
referenda and recalls. Election contests involving regional, provincial and city elective officials are under its exclusive original
jurisdiction. All contests involving elective municipal and barangay officials are under its appellate jurisdiction.

AREEJ
CASE NO. 169
ART 7 SEC 52.6 COMELEC AS AN INDEPENDENT CONSTITUTIONAL BODY
Ututalum v. Comelec | G.R. No. L-25349, December 3, 1965

FACTS: Comelec issued the questioned resolution, which provides for the holding of elections in certain precincts in the
municipalities of Tapul and Siasi, Sulu, on the ground that the voters were terrorized away from the polling places by gunfire.
Ututalum alleges that the Commission has no authority to direct the holding of elections in the precincts mentioned therein.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Comelec was correct in providing for the holding of elections in the said municipalities.

RULING: NO. The authority to order the holding of elections is legislative in character. The functions of the Commission
under the Constitution are essentially executive and administrative in nature. Our fundamental law has placed the agency
charged with the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections beyond the control of the
Executive and beyond the power of Congress to abolish it (the agency), in addition to adopting other measures tending to give
thereto a reasonable degree of independence.