ROMEO JALOSJOS vs.

THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

G.R. No. 205033 JUNE 18, 2013

FACTS OF THE CASE

Petitioner Romeo Jalosjos was convicted by final judgement of two counts of rape and six counts
of acts of lasciviousness. He served his sentence and was later on issued a Certificate of Discharge from
Prison. Years after, Petitioner applied to register as a voter in Zamboanga City but was denied by the
Acting City Election Officer of the Election Registration Board due to his previous conviction. Petitioner
then filed a petition for inclusion in the permanent List of Voters before the Municipal Trial Court. Pending
resolution of this petition, petitioner filed a CoC in the upcoming local elections. MTC later on ruled for the
denial of the petition on account of petitioners absolute disqualification which in effect deprived him of the
right to vote in any election.

Five petitions were filed before the COMELEC first and second divisions, intended for the
purpose of cancelling Jalosjos COC. Pending resolution, the COMELEC en BANC resolved for the denial
of petitioner Jalosjos COC due to the latters perpetual absolute disqualification as well as his failure to
comply with the voter registration requirement. Thus this petition.

ISSUE
WON the COMELEC En Banc acted beyond its jurisdiction when it issued motu
proprio Resolution No. 9613 and in so doing, violated petitioners right to due process.

RULING
Section 3 Article IX-c of the Philippine Constitution requiring a motion for reconsideration before
the COMELEC En Banc may take action is confinedonly to cases where the COMELEC exercises its
quasi-judicial power. It finds no application, however, in matters concerning the COMELECs exercise of
administrative functions.

The COMELEC En Banc did not exercise its quasi-judicial functions when it issued Resolution
No. 9613 as it did not assume jurisdiction over any pending petition or resolve any election case before it
or any of its divisions. Rather, it merely performed its duty to enforce and administer election laws
in cancelling petitioners CoC on the basis of his perpetual absolute disqualification, the fact of
which had already been established by his final conviction. In this regard, the COMELEC En
Banc was exercising its administrative functions, dispensing with the need for a motion for reconsideration
of a division ruling under Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution, the same being required only in quasi-
judicial proceedings.

DOCTRINE: While the denial of due course to and/or cancellation of ones CoC generally necessitates
the exercise of the COMELECs quasi-judicial functions commenced through a petition based on either
Sections 1220 or 7821 of the OEC, or Section 40 22 of the LGC, when the grounds therefor are rendered
conclusive on account of final and executory judgments as when a candidates disqualification to run for
public office is based on a final conviction such exercise falls within the COMELECs administrative
functions.