Marivic Zarate v. Commission on Elections and Julian Lallave, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: During the 1996 Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) elections, Marivic Zarate (petitioner) lost to Julian Lallave, Jr. (private respondent) by a single vote (46-45). Petitioner lodged an election protest, alleging that three or more votes marked with "JL" should have been voided as stray or marked ballots, as there was no candidate with those initials. Petitioner contended that if these votes were voided, she would have won. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Malasiqui, Pangasinan, declared petitioner Zarate the winner, invalidating eight of private respondent Lallave, Jr.'s votes and one of petitioner Zarate's votes, resulting in a count of 44 for Zarate and 38 for Lallave, Jr. Private respondent appealed to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), arguing that ballots with "JL" initials and those with "Julian, Jr. de Real", "I Notno Lallave", and "Nono de Real" should be credited to him. The Petition: The COMELEC En Banc, in its Resolution dated April 24, 1997, set aside the MTC decision and declared private respondent Lallave, Jr. the duly elected SK Chairman. The COMELEC ruled that the "JL" initials sufficiently identified Lallave, Jr. as the intended candidate. Petitioner Zarate filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC En Banc acted with jurisdiction in resolving the appeal in the first instance. Whether the ballots bearing the "JL" initials are marked ballots, and whether the COMELEC correctly ruled that the votes containing the initials "JL" for the position of SK Chairman should be counted in favor of private respondent.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc dated April 24, 1997, and ordered the COMELEC to assign the case to a Division for proper resolution. The Court ruled that the COMELEC En Banc acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in hearing and deciding the appeal in the first instance.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the COMELEC En Banc: The Court unequivocally held that the COMELEC En Banc cannot hear and decide election cases in the first instance. Section 3, Subdivision C of Article IX of the Constitution mandates that all election cases shall be heard and decided in divisions, with motions for reconsideration being the only exception for the En Banc. The appeal in this case was submitted directly to the COMELEC En Banc, transgressing this constitutional provision. Citing Sarmiento vs. Commission on Elections, the Court reiterated that the COMELEC En Banc does not possess the authority to hear and decide election cases at the outset. Consequently, the resolution issued by the COMELEC En Banc was null and void for having been rendered without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that the COMELEC Rules of Procedure also comply with this constitutional mandate, vesting the authority to hear special cases, such as appeals from rulings of the Board of Canvassers, in the divisions of the COMELEC. Therefore, the appeal was deemed pending before the Commission for proper referral to a division. On the issue of marked ballots and the counting of "JL" votes: Although the primary ground for granting the petition was the COMELEC's lack of jurisdiction, the Court's ruling implicitly addressed the substantive issues by nullifying the COMELEC's resolution. The COMELEC's finding that "JL" initials sufficiently identified Julian Lallave, Jr. was based on the premise that he was the only candidate with those initials. However, the procedural infirmity of the COMELEC's decision rendered this substantive finding moot and void. The Court did not explicitly rule on whether the "JL" votes were valid or marked, but by setting aside the COMELEC's resolution, it effectively returned the matter to the proper forum (a COMELEC Division) for a definitive ruling on the merits of the election protest, including the appreciation of the disputed ballots.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc cannot hear and decide election cases in the first instance; such cases must first be heard and decided by a Division of the COMELEC, as mandated by Section 3, Subdivision C of Article IX of the Constitution. Resolutions issued by the COMELEC En Banc without prior referral to a Division are void for having been issued without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.