Apiado, Elyn D.

GUEVARA vs COMELEC
G.R. No. L-12596; July 31, 1958
BAUTISTA ANGELO,J.:
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Guevara was ordered by the COMELEC to show cause why he should not be punished for
contempt for having published in the newspaper an article which tended to interfere with and
influence the COMELEC awarding the contracts for the manufacture and supply of ballot boxes;
and which article likewise tended to degrade, bring into disrepute, and undermine the exclusive
constitutional function of this Commission and its Chairman.
Petitioner, filed a motion to quash on the following ground that the Commission has no
jurisdiction to punish as contempt the publication of the alleged contemptuous article, as neither
in the Constitution nor in statutes is the Commission granted a power to so punish the same.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Guevara filed a motion to quash on the following ground that the Commission has no
jurisdiction to punish as contempt the publication of the alleged contemptuous article, as neither
in the Constitution nor in statutes is the Commission granted a power to so punish the same. The
Commission, after hearing, denied the motion to quash but granted petitioner a period of fifteen
(15) days within which to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court in view of the issue raised
which assails the jurisdiction of the Commission to investigate and punish petitioner for contempt
in connection with the alleged publication. Hence the present petition for prohibition with
preliminary injunction.

ISSUE
Whether or not the COMELEC has the power and jurisdiction to conduct contempt
proceedings against Guevara in connection with the publication of an article.

RULING
No. The requisitioning and preparation of the necessary ballot boxes to be used in the
elections is an imperative ministerial duty of the Commission on Elections performed in its
administrative capacity in relation to the conduct of election ordained by our Constitution. In
proceeding on this matter, it only dicharges a ministerial duty; it does not exercise any judicial
functions. Such being the case, it can not exercise the power to punish for contempt as postulated
in the law, for such power is inherently Judicial in nature. As the Supreme Court has aptly said:
"The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts; its existence is essential to the
Apiado, Elyn D.

preservation of order in judicial proceedings, and to the enforcement of judgments, orders and
mandates of courts, and, consequently, in the administration of justice"

APPLICABLE LAWS, PRINCIPLES, AND DOCTRINES

"The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts; its existence is essential to the
preservation of order in judicial proceedings, and to the enforcement of judgments, orders and
mandates of Courts, and, consequently, in the administration of justice"