Grego v COMELEC 

(DIGEST)

WILMER GREGO, petitioner, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND

HUMBERTO BASCO, respondents (DIGEST)

G.R. No. 125955, June 19, 1997

FACTS:

In 1981, Basco was removed from his position as Deputy Sheriff for
serious misconduct. Subsequently, he ran as a candidate for councilor in
the Second District of the City of Manila during the 1988, local elections.
He won and assumed office. After his term, Basco sought re-election.
Again, he won. However, he found himself facing lawsuits filed by his
opponents who wanted to dislodge him from his position.

Petitioner argues that Basco should be disqualified from running for any
elective position since he had been “removed from office as a result of an
administrative case” pursuant to Section 40 (b) of Republic Act No. 7160.

For a third time, Basco was elected councilor in 1995. Expectedly, his
right to office was again contested. In 1995, petitioner Grego filed with
the COMELEC a petition for disqualification. The COMELEC conducted a
hearing and ordered the parties to submit their respective memoranda.

However, the Manila City BOC proclaimed Basco in May 1995, as a duly
elected councilor for the Second District of Manila, placing sixth among
several candidates who vied for the seats. Basco immediately took his
oath of office.

1|Page
COMELEC resolved to dismiss the petition for disqualification.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of said resolution was later
denied by the COMELEC,, hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not COMELEC acted in with grave abuse of discretion in

dismissing the petition for disqualification.

RULING:

No. The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of
COMELEC in dismissing the petition for disqualification, however, the
Court noted that they do not agree with its conclusions and reasons in
the assailed resolution.

The Court reiterated that being merely an implementing rule, Sec 25 of

the COMELEC Rules of Procedure must not override, but instead remain
consistent with and in harmony with the law it seeks to apply and
implement. Administrative rules and regulations are intended to carry
out, neither to supplant nor to modify, the law. The law itself cannot be
extended to amending or expanding the statutory requirements or to
embrace matters not covered by the statute. An administrative agency
cannot amend an act of Congress.

In case of discrepancy between the basic law and a rule or regulation

issued to implement said law, the basic law prevails because said rule or
regulations cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the basic law.
Since Section 6 of Rep. Act 6646, the law which Section 5 of Rule 25 of
the COMELEC Rules of Procedure seeks to implement, employed the
word “may,” it is, therefore, improper and highly irregular for the
COMELEC to have used instead the word “shall” in its rules.

2|Page