100 Borja v.

Comelec - Rizon
FACTS: Petitioner Benjamin U. Borja, Jr. (vying for Mayor of the Municipality of Pateros)
questions the authority of COMELEC en banc to hear and decide a petition seeking to
declare a failure of election without the benefit of prior notice and hearing. He avers that
the COMELEC en banc does not have the power to hear and decide the merits of the
petition because under Article IX-C, Section 3 of the Constitution, all election cases,
including pre-proclamation controversies, "Shall be heard and decided in division,
provided that motions for reconsideration of decision shall be decided by the
Commission en banc. COMELEC denied the petition on the basis that the allegations
constitutes election contests and not failure of election.
ISSUE: Whether or not hearing is present in this case.
RULING: Yes. When the COMELEC en banc reviews and evaluates a party’s petition
seeking to declare a failure of election, the same is tantamount to a fair hearing of his
case. The COMELEC, therefore, had no choice but to dismiss Borja’s petition, not only
for being deficient in form but also for having been filed before the wrong tribunal. This
reason need not even be stated in the body of the decision as the same is patent on the
face of the pleading itself.
120 Typoco v. Comelec - Rizon
FACTS: Jesus Typoco, Jr.’s (TYPOCO) a running governor, filed a petition for
Annulment of Election or Election Results and/or Declaration of Failure of Elections. The
petition alleged that massive fraud and irregularities attended the preparation of the
election returns considering that upon technical examination, 305 election returns were
found to have been prepared in group by one person. COMELEC En Banc dismissed
the complaint on the basis that the election protest is the proper remedy.
ISSUE: Whether or not depositions and testimony of independent witness are needed
for a petition to declare a failure of election.
RULING: Yes. Counsel should support a petition to declare a failure of election with
depositions and testimony by independent witness.
137. Magno v. Comelec -Rizon
FACTS: COMELEC rendered a decision disqualifying MAGNO from running for the
position of mayor in the May 14, 2001 elections on the ground that petitioner was
previously convicted by the Sandiganbayan of four counts of direct bribery penalized
under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code. COMELEC cited Section 12 of the BP 881
or the Omnibus Election Code, disqualification of persons sentenced of a crime
involving moral turpitude and such disqualification shall be removed after five years
from his service of sentence which is March 5, 2003. Petitioner insists that his
disqualification is only two years which ends on March 5, 2000 and not March 5, 2003
as provided under Sec. 40 of the Local Government Code. Hence, petitioner was
qualified to run in the 2001 elections.
ISSUE: Whether or not the crime of direct bribery involves moral turpitude and (2)
whether or not the Omnibus Election Code or the Local Government Code that should
apply in this situation.
RULING: a. Bribery is involves moral turpitude. The fact that the offender agrees to
accept a promise or gift and deliberately commits an unjust act or refrains from
performing an official duty in exchange for some favors, denotes a malicious intent on
the part of the offender to renege on the duties which he owes his fellowmen and
society in general. Also, the fact that the offender takes advantage of his office and
position is a betrayal of the trust reposed on him by the public. It is a conduct clearly
contrary to the accepted rules of right and duty, justice, honesty and good morals.
b. LGU Code shall prevail over election of local officials. 2 year disqualification must be
applied. Petitioner is qualified to run for office. Sec. 40 of RA 7160, insofar as it governs
the disqualification of candidates of local positions, assumes the nature of a special law
which ought to prevail.
168 - Loong v. Comelec - Rizon
FACTS: COMELEC en banc issued a resolution ordering the manual counting of ballots
for the mayoralty of Sulu, wherein Loong is a candidate due to the discrepancies
between the election returns and the votes. The problem was caused in the error in the
reading of ballots of the automated machines. Petitioner contends that the said
COMELEC resolution violates RA 8436. The automated counting is mandatory and
could not be substituted by a manual counting, that the ballots were tampered and/or
the texture of the ballots fed to the counting machine are not the official ballots of the
Comelec, and that the automated counting machines of the Comelec have been
designed in such a way that only genuine official ballots could be read and counted by
the machine;
ISSUE: Whether or not COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction in ordering a manual count.
RULING: No. SC recited on the history and purpose of COMELEC and stated that its
decision merely reinforces our collective efforts to endow COMELEC with enough
power to hold free, honest, orderly and credible elections.
History and Purpose of COMELEC.
The COMELEC was organized under Commonwealth Act No. 607 enacted on August
22, 1940. The power to enforce our election laws was originally vested in the President
and exercised through the Department of Interior. According to Dean Sinco, the view
ultimately that 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 by
virtue of the 1940 amendments to the 1935 Constitution which took effect on December
2, 1940. COMELEC was generously granted the power to "have exclusive charge of the
enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections.
Then came the 1973 Constitution. It further broadened the powers of COMELEC by
making it the sole judge of all election contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of members of the national legislature and elective provincial and city
officials. In fine, the COMELEC was given judicial power aside from its traditional
administrative and executive functions.
The 1987 Constitution quickened this trend of strengthening the COMELEC. Today,
COMELEC 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.
169 Ututalum v. Comelec – Rizon
FACTS: Ututalum, a candidate for congressman in the Province of Sulu filed a petition
against the Commission and Indanan Anni(his opponent), to annul the COMELEC’s
resolution directing the holding of elections, in the precincts mentioned in said
resolution. COMELEC maintains that it has the power to postpone the election.
Petitioner avers that such power is lodged in the president.
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC has the power to postpone the election.
RULING: No. Such power is vested in the president. COMELEC is an independent
constitutional body. The constitution has placed and charged the COMELEC 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, in addition
to adopting other measures tending to give thereto a reasonable degree of
independence.