Tomatic Aratuc vs comelec
That in preparation therefor, COMELEC shall see to it that
Facts
1. The present case is a petition for certiorari with restraining
order and preliminary injunction filed six (6) independent
candidates for representatives to tile Interim Batasang
Pambansa who joined under the banner of Kunsensya ng
Bayan not registered under the election code.
2. The present case is a sequel of a previous decision of the
court in GR 48097 wherein Tomatic Aratuc et al sought the
suspension of the canvass then being undertaken by
respondent Board in Cotabato and in which canvass the
returns in 1966 out of a total of 4,107 voting centers in
whole region had already been canvassed showing partial
results as follows.
3. A supervening panel headed by Comelec had conducted of
the complaint of the petitioners of the alleged irregularities
in the election records in all the voting centers in whole
province of Lanao del sur, the whole city of MARAWI 8
towers of Lanao del norte, etc the petitioners asked that the
returns from these voting center to be excluded from the
canvass
4. Before the start of the hearing, the canvass was suspended
but after the supervisory panel presented its report on May
15 , 1978 the COMELEC lifted its order of suspension and
directed the resumption of canvass to be done in Manila.
5. After the hearing of the parties, the court allowed the
resumption under the following conditions
a. That the resumption of the said canvass shall be held in the
COMELEC main office in Manila
b.
material election paragraph are taken to its main office in
Manila
c. Petitioners and their counsel shall be allowed to examine
the same under security measures that the board may
determine except the contents of the ballot boxes whih may
be opened only upon orders of either the respondent board
or responded corporation
d. Amended guidelines : THOSE ballot voxes for the voting
centers just referred to need not be taken to Manila except
those of the particular voting centers as to which the
petitioners habe the right to demand that the
corresponding ballot boxes to be opened in order that the
votes therein may be counted
e. The respondent board proceeded with the canvass with
petitioner presenting objections most of them are
supported with the evidence (handwriting experts who
examined the records of voters in 878 voting centers)
f. With regard to 501 voting centers, the records of which are
not available and cannot be brought to Manila, petitioners
asked that the results therein are to be excluded from the
canvass
g. Respondent board terminated its canvass
h. Petitioner brought the resolution of the respondent board
to the comelec, after which the case was submitted for
decision
i. COMELEC’s DECISION : It will have to go deeper into the
examination of the voting records and registration and in
case of voting centers whose voting and registration
records have not yet been submitted.
j. Comelec REQUIRED the party to file their respective written
comments on the report they shall periodically receive from
 the NBI comeec team finger print and signature experts
within the period of 7 days from the receipt thereof.
k. ARATUC: the registered voters were not the ones who voted
as shown by the fact that the thumbprints appearing from
form 1 were different from form 5( comelec committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of exces
jurisdiction in eight specification)
l. COMELEC denied the motion of the petitioners asking that
the ballot boxes corresponding to the voting centers the
record of which aare not available to be opened and that a
date be set when the statement of the witness refereed to
in August 30 1978- the comelec ruled that it is no longer
necessary to proceed with such opening of the ballot boxes
and taking of statements.
m. Mandangan petition : argued that the comelc does not have
any jurisdiction : Whether or not the respondent comelec
extended its jurisdiction and denied ude process to
petitioner Mandangan in extending its inquiry beyond the
election records of 878 voting centers examined by the KB
experts and passed upon the regional board of canvasser
and excluding from the canvass the return showing 90 to
100 percent voting from voting centers where military
operations were by the army to be going on to the extent
that the said voting centers has to be transferred to
poblaciones
Issue : Whether or not COMELEC has jurisdiction
Ruling:
1. As stated under the 1973 constitution, “any decision order or
ruling of the commission may be brought to the supreme court on
certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days from the receipt of
his copy thereof even as it ordains that the commission shall be the
sole judge of all contest relating to election, returns, and
qualifications of all members of the national assembly and elective
provincial and city official.
1978- election code = “ the comelec shall be the sole judge of all pre
proclamation controversies “and further provides that “any of its
decisions, ruling shall be final and executory” just as election
contest and that the decision of the comelec shall be final,
executory and inappealable.
“ may be brought to the supreme court through certiorari”-
actuations of the commissions are final, executory and even
inappealable – general rule this does not include the general
certiorari jurisdiction of the supreme court which inheres in it as the
final guardian of the constitution.
“ certiorari vs review”
1. A review includes digging into the merits and unearthing
errors of judgment
2. Certiorari- grave abuse of discretion and lack of excess
jurisdiction, and that the decision was arrived thereto
without any rational deliberation.
 ARACTUC POSITION RULING: we hold therefore that the
certiorari jurisdiction of the supreme court and decision s of
the comelec is not a s broad as it used to be and should be
confined to instances of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to patent and substantial denial of due process.
Mandangan Case: arguing that the returns of the voting center
showing the votes of the candidate obtaining the highest number of
votes exceeds the highest possible number of votes should be
deemed spurious or manufactured just because the total number of
excess voting center were not more than 40 percent
 Section 168 of the Revised Election Code- the commission
shall have the direct control and supervision on over the board of
canvassers and that relatedly the same code provides that ‘”shall be
the sole judge of pre proclamation controversies”.

As stated under administrative law, a superior body or office having

supervision or control over another may do directly what the latter
Is supposed to do or ought to have done.

“the procedure of bringing TO THE COMMISSIONS objections to the

actuation of the board of canvasers ,the authority of the
commission in reviewing such actuations does not spring from any
appellate jurisdiction conferred by any specific provision of the 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 section 168.