11. LDP vs. COMELEC, G.R. No.

161265

Facts:

There was a struggle of authority between the Party Chairman (Angara) and the Secretary General
(Aquino) of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP), a registered political party, thereby endorsing
two different sets of candidates under the same party.

[COMELEC resolved the issue through equity by recognizing the factions creating two sub-parties: LDP Angara Wing
and LDP Aquino Wing.]

Issue: W/N COMELEC is correct

Ruling:

No.

A political party has the right to identify the people who constitute the association and to select a
standard bearer who represents the party’s ideologies and preference. However, the COMELEC’s
constitutional power to register and regulate political parties includes the ascertainment of the identity
of the political party and its legitimate officers responsible for its acts and the resolution of such
controversies where one party appears to be divided into two wings under separate leaders each
claiming to be the president of the entire party.

In this case, the COMELEC erred in resolving the controversy by granting official candidate status to the
LDP candidates either the “Angara Wing” or the “Aquino Wing”, because clearly, it is the Party
Chairman, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Party, who has the authority to represent the party
in all external affairs and concerns, and to sign documents for and in its behalf.

12. Atienza, Jr. vs COMELEC, G.R. No. 188920

Facts:

As the President of Liberal Party, Drilon announced the party's withdrawal of support for PGMA's
administration however, Atienza, LP Chairmain, and other members denounced such proclamation
claiming that it was consulted with the party. Consequently, a conference was held wherein an election
of new officers was conducted and Atienza was the new LP president. Drilon then filed a petition with
COMELEC to nullify the election and COMELEC nullified the same. Upon expiration of Drilon's term,
Roxas was then elected as the new LP president.

[COMELEC denied the petition filed by Atienza et al on the ground that it was a membership issue that related to
disciplinary action within the political party; beyond jurisdiction.]

Issue: W/N the COMELEC is correct

Ruling:

Yes. Although political parties play an important role in our democratic set-up as an intermediary
between the state and its citizens, it is still a private organization, not a state instrument. The discipline
of members by a political party does not involve the right to life, liberty or property within the meaning
of the due process clause. An individual has no vested right, as against the state, to be accepted or to
prevent his removal by a political party.

While the question of party leadership has implications on the COMELECs performance of its functions
under Section 2, Article IX-C of the Constitution, the same cannot be said of the issue pertaining to
Atienza, et al.s expulsion from the LP. Such expulsion is for the moment an issue of party membership
and discipline, in which the COMELEC cannot intervene, given the limited scope of its power over
political parties

13. Arroyo vs. DOJ, G.R. No. 199082

Facts:

Due to the alleged massive electoral fraud and manipulation of election results in the 2004 and 2007
National Election, COMELEC with DOJ through Joint Order No. 001-2011 created a joint committee to
investigate such anomalies.

In its report, the team recommended petitioners to be subjected to preliminary investigation for
electoral sabotage. After the preliminary investigation, COMELEC en banc adopted a resolution ordering
that information/s for the crime of electoral sabotage be filed against GMA, et al. while that the charges
against Jose Miguel Arroyo, among others, should be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.

Issue: W/N the creation of the Joint Panel undermines the decisional independence of the Comelec.

Ruling:

No.

As pointed out by the Court in Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency
(BANAT) Party-List v. Commission on Elections, the grant of exclusive power to investigate and
prosecute cases of election offenses to the Comelec was not by virtue of the Constitution but by the
Omnibus Election Code which was eventually amended by Section 43 of R.A. 9369. Thus, the DOJ now
conducts preliminary investigation of election offenses concurrently with the Comelec and no longer as
mere deputies. If the prosecutors had been allowed to conduct preliminary investigation and file the
necessary information by virtue only of a delegated authority, they now have better grounds to perform
such function by virtue of the statutory grant of authority. If deputation was justified because of lack of
funds and legal officers to ensure prompt and fair investigation and prosecution of election offenses, the
same justification should be cited to justify the grant to the other prosecuting arms of the government
of such concurrent jurisdiction.

In this case, while the composition of the Joint Committee and Fact-Finding Team is dominated by DOJ
officials, it does not necessarily follow that the Comelec is inferior. Under the Joint Order, resolutions of
the Joint Committee finding probable cause for election offenses shall still be approved by the Comelec
in accordance with the Comelec Rules of Procedure. This shows that the Comelec, though it acts jointly
with the DOJ, remains in control of the proceedings. In no way can we say that the Comelec has thereby
abdicated its independence to the executive department.

[The text and intent of the constitutional provision granting the Comelec the authority to investigate and
prosecute election offenses is to give the Comelec all the necessary and incidental powers for it to achieve the
objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.101 The Comelec should be allowed
considerable latitude in devising means and methods that will insure the accomplishment of the great objective for
which it was created.102 We may not agree fully with its choice of means, but unless these are clearly illegal or
constitute gross abuse of discretion, this Court should not interfere.103 Thus, Comelec Resolution No. 9266,
approving the creation of the Joint Committee and Fact-Finding Team, should be viewed not as an abdication of
the constitutional body’s independence but as a means to fulfill its duty of ensuring the prompt investigation and
prosecution of election offenses as an adjunct of its mandate of ensuring a free, orderly, honest, peaceful and
credible elections.]

14. Tan vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 112093

Tan, a city prosecutor, was designated by the COMELEC as Vice-Chairman of the City Board of
Canvassers of Davao City for May 1992 synchronized national and local elections. After the election, a
lost candidate filed a number of cases accusing the board with unlawful, erroneous, incomplete and
irregular canvass. One of these is an administrative charge instituted in the COMELEC for “Misconduct,
Neglect of Duty, Gross Incompetence and Acts Inimical to the Service.”

Tan moved to dismiss the administrative complaint against him for alleged lack of jurisdiction of the
COMELEC since he is under the Executive Department of the government. However, the COMELEC
denied the motion to dismiss.

Issue: W/N a city prosecutor who is designated to be a part of Board of Canvassers by the COMELEC is
under the administrative jurisdiction of COMELEC with respect to the administrative charge concerning
the election canvass filed against him.

Ruling:

Yes.

It should be stressed that the administrative case against petitioner is in relation to the performance of
his duties as an election canvasser and not as a city prosecutor. The COMELEC’s mandate includes its
authority to exercise direct and immediate supervision and control over national and local officials or
employees, including members of any national or local law enforcement agency and instrumentality of
the government, required by law to perform duties relative to the conduct of elections. In order to help
ensure that such duly deputized officials and employees of government carry out their respective
assigned tasks, the law has also provided than upon the COMELEC’s recommendation, the
corresponding proper authority, which is the Secretary of the Department of Justice in the case at bar,
shall take appropriate action, either to suspend or remove from office the officer or employee who may,
after due process, be found guilty of violation of election laws or failure to comply with instructions,
orders, decision or rulings of the COMELEC.

15. Montejo vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 118702

Facts:

Petitioner Cirilo Montejo, representing the First District of Leyte, pleads the annulment of Section 1 of
Resolution No. 2736 of the COMELEC, redistricting certain municipalities in Leyte as it is said to violate
the principle of equity of representation. Petitioner now seeks to transfer the municipality of Tolosa
from the First District to the Second District of the province.

[Petitioner insists that Section I of Resolution No. 2736 violates the principle of equality of representation ordained
in the Constitution. Citing Wesberry v. Sanders,8 he argues that respondent COMELEC violated "the constitutional
precept that as much as practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as
another's." The Solicitor General, in his Comment, concurred with the views of the petitioner. The intervenor,
however, opposed the petition on two (2) grounds: (1) COMELEC has no jurisdiction to promulgate Resolution No.
2736; and (2) assuming it has jurisdiction, said Resolution is in accord with the Constitution. Respondent COMELEC
filed its own Comment alleging that it acted within the parameters of the Constitution.]

Issue: W/N COMELEC has the power of redistricting and reapportionment

Ruling:

No. Based on deliberations of the members of the Constitutional Commission shows that COMELEC was
denied the major power of legislative apportionment as it itself exercised the power.

Section 2(c), Article IX of the Constitution and the Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution as the
source of its power of redistricting which is traditionally regarded as part of the power to make laws.
upon which the COMELEC relied on states:

Sec. 2. The Commission on Elections is hereby empowered to make minor adjustments

The meaning of minor adjustments is found in the debates of the Commission wherein it was stated that
the transfer of one municipality in a district to another district is not a minor adjustment; rather it is a
substantive one. Minor adjustments does not allow the change in allocations per district.

It is then held that COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction
when it promulgated Section 1 of its Resolution No. 2736. Section 1 is then annulled and set aside.

[Minor adjustments example: include error in the correct name of a particular municipality or when a municipality
in between which is still in the territory of one assigned district is forgotten. And consistent with the limits of its
power to make minor adjustments, section 3 of the Ordinance did not also give the respondent COMELEC any
authority to transfer municipalities from one legislative district to another district. The power granted by section 3
to the respondent is to adjust the number of members (not municipalities.)]