Nacionalista Party v De Vera
Nacionalista Party v. De Vera
Facts: The petitioners, members of the Nacionalista Party,
sought to disqualify Comelec chairman Vicente de Vera from
taking part in the Comelec deliberations concerning the Nov.
1949 elections on two grounds:
1. De Vera’s son, Teodoro de Vera, was a Liberal Party
senatorial candidate during said elections. Following Rules of
Court, the older de Vera should be disqualified.
2. De Vera’s appointment as Chairman is void ab initio,
because he had already served as member of Comelec prior
to his term as Chairman. Under the Constitution, he was not
entitled to any reappointment.
Issues / Held / Ratio:
(1)WON the Rules of Court applies to the Comelec
No. The Rules of Court, promulgated by the Supreme Court,
applies only to judicial bodies under its general power of
supervision. The Comelec is an independent, administrative
body over which the Supreme Court has jurisdiction only to
the extent that it may review the Comelec’s decisions,
ordinances or rulings on certiorari.
Assuming the Comelec adopted the ROC suppletorily, it does
not have the power to adopt rules on the disqualification of
its members because the Constitution provides that its
members may only be removed through impeachment.
The older De Vera should be able to inhibit himself solely on
the basis of ethics.
(2)WON a person who has not served for the full term of nine
years in the Comelec may be reappointed
Yes. The phrase “may not be reappointed” is a continuation
of the phrase “who shall serve office for a term of nine
years”. This does not warrant the interpretation that
members may not bereappointed when they have not served
thefull term. In such cases, they may be reappointed provided
that (1) the appointment does not preclude the appointment
of a new member and (2) a term does not exceed nine years
in all.
** Petition dismissed
Note: De Vera inhibited himself from the deliberations.
Republic v Imperial
Facts:
In 1941, Lopez Vito was first appointed to the Comelec
In 1945, the first set of Comelec commissioners were
appointed. These were:
1. Lopez Vito, chairman, who shall serve for nine
years until 1954
2. Francisco Enage, member, who shall serve for six
years until 1951
3. Vicente Vera, member, who shall serve for three
years until 1948
In 1947, Lopez Vito died. He was succeeded by Member Vera
as Comele cchairman.
In 1949, Respondent Perez was appointed to fill in Vera’s
position, which was vacated by his promotion to
Chairmanship upon Vito’s death. Member Enage retired.
In 1951, Vera died. He was succeeded by respondent
Imperial as Comelec Chairman.
By this time, only two of the three Comelec seats at that time
were occupied.
Issue: WON Imperial and Perez are legally continuing office as
Chairman and Member of Comelec respectively
Held: Yes
Ratio: The Court counted the respondent’s terms of office
from 1941, when CA 567 was implemented, completing the
organization of the Comelec. The rules laid down are:
1. All initial appointments should start at the same
date and;
2. Vacancies because of death, disability or
resignation shall be filled only for the unexpired
term of the successor.
The Court ruled that to do otherwise would be to violate the
rotational cycle devised by the framers of the Constitution to
ensure the continuity of the policies of the Comelec. Also,
with vacancies occurring only once every three years, a four-
year administration may not appoint more than one member
of the Comelec at a time, safeguarding against undue
influence by the executive on the independent body.
Ordinarily, resignation or death creates a vacancy in the
office. But the Courtsaid that Constitutional Commissions like
the Comelec are exceptions to the rule, saying that anyone
who succeeds as a member has to deal with a shortened
tenure.
** Imperial’s term ends in 1959, Perez in1956. Quo warranto
dismissed.
Note:
Republic v. Imperial held that any person, once appointed,
may not be reappointed to the Commission regardless of
tenure.
Compare this with an earlier case, Nacionalista Party v. De
Vera, which held that reappointment is valid so long as the
person to be reappointed has not yet served the full term of
nine years.
Aratuc v Comelec
Nature:
Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the
respondent Comelec resolving their appeal from the
respondent Regional Board of Canvassers for Region XII
regarding the canvass of the results of the election in said
region for representatives to the I.B.P. held on April 7, 1978.
Facts:
Tomatic Aratuc et al. sought the suspension of the canvass
then being undertaken by respondent Board in Cotabato city.
A supervening panel headed by Commissioner of Elections,
Hon- Venancio S. Duque, had conducted of the complaints of
the petitioners therein of alleged irregularities in the election
records in the voting centers. Before hearing, the canvass was
suspended. After hearing the parties, the Court allowed
resumption of the canvass but issued guidelines to be
followed but thereafter modified.
On July 11, 1978, respondent Board terminated its canvass
and declared the result of the voting.
The petitioners brought the resolution of respondent Board
to the Comelec. Hearing was held on April 25, 1978, after
which , the case was declared submitted for decision.
In order to enable the Commission to decide the appeal
properly :
a. It will have to go deeper into the examination of the voting
records and registration records and in the case of voting
centers whose voting and registration records which have not
yet been submitted for the Commission to decide to open the
ballot boxes; and
b. To interview and get statements under oath of impartial
and disinterested persons from the area to determine
whether actual voting took place on April 7, 1978, as well as
those of the military authorities in the areas affected.
On January 13, 1979, the Comelec rendered its resolution
being assailed in these cases, declaring the final result of the
canvass.
Issue:
WON there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction on the part of COMELEC.
Held:
Under Section 168 of the Revised Election Code of 1978, "the
Commission (on Elections)shall have direct control and
supervision over theboard of canvassers" and that relatedly,
Section175 of the same Code provides that it "shall be the
sole judge of all pre-proclamation controversies."
The fact of the matter is that the authority of the Commission
in reviewing actuations of board of canvassers does not
spring from any appellate jurisdiction conferred by any
specific provision of law, for there is none such provision
anywhere in the Election Code, but from the plenary
prerogative of direct control and supervision endowed to it
by the above-quoted provisions of Section 168. And in
administrative law, it is a too well settled postulate to need
any supporting citation here, that a superior body or office
having supervision and control over another may do directly
what the latter is supposed to do or ought to have done.
We cannot fault respondent Comelec for its having extended
its inquiry beyond that undertaken by the Board of Canvass
On the contrary, it must be stated that Comelec correctly and
commendably asserted its statutory authority born of its
envisaged constitutional duties vis-à-vis the preservation of
the purity of elections and electoral processes and in doing
what petitioner it should not have done