|
|
|
|
JURISDICTION OF COMELEC At the
outset, even if not squarely raised as an issue, this Court needs to
resolve the question concerning COMELEC's jurisdiction.
Unless properly resolved, we cannot proceed further in this case. Section 3,
Subdivision C of Article IX of the Constitution reads: "The
Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall
promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite the disposition of
election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies.
All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division,
provided that motions for reconsideration of decision shall be decided by
the Commission en banc." Thus, in
Sarmiento vs. COMELEC5
[212
SCRA 307, 313 (1992).] and
in subsequent cases,6
[Abad
vs. COMELEC, GR-128877, December 10, 1999; Zarate vs. COMELEC, GR-129096,
November 19, 1999.]
we ruled that
the COMELEC, sitting en banc, does not have the requisite authority to
hear and decide election cases including pre-proclamation controversies in
the first instance. This power pertains to the divisions of the Commission.
Any decision by the Commission en banc as regards election cases
decided by it in the first instance is null and void. As
can be gleaned from the proceedings aforestated, petitioner's petition
with the COMELEC was not referred to a division of that Commission but
was, instead, submitted directly to the Commission en banc.
The petition for certiorari assails the trial court's order denying
the motion to dismiss private respondent's election protest.
The questioned order of the trial court is interlocutory because it
does not end the trial court's task of adjudicating the parties'
contentions and determining their rights and liabilities as regards each
other.7
[Atienza
vs. Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 737, 744 (1994).] In
our view, the authority to resolve petition for certiorari involving
incidental issues of election protest, like the questioned order of the
trial court, falls within the division of the COMELEC and not on the
COMELEC en banc. Note that
the order denying the motion to dismiss is but an incident of the election
protest. If the principal
case, once decided on the merits, is cognizable on appeal by a division of
the COMELEC, then, there is no reason why petitions for certiorari
relating to incidents of election protest should not be referred first to
a division of the COMELEC for resolution.
Clearly, the COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction in taking
cognizance of petitioner's petition in the first instance. En
Banc, Justice Quisumbing, Soller v. COMELEC and RTC of Pinamalayan and
Angel Saulong[G.R. No. 139853. September
5, 2000]
For any
inquiries or comment, you may contact the WEBMASTER
|
CCHOPE ELECTION
2001 
