Anda di halaman 1dari 3

#1 GALLARDO VS TABAMO

FACTS:

Private Respondent filed his petition (Special Civil Action No. 465) before the court a quo
against petitioners to prohibit and restrain them from pursuing or prosecuting certain public
works projects as it violates the 45-day ban on public works imposed by the Omnibus
Election Code because although they were initiated few days before the ban took effect, they
were not covered by detailed engineering plans, specifications or a program of work which
are preconditions for the commencement of any public works projects. Respondent Judge
issued the question TRO and directed the petitioners to file their answer within 10 days after
receipt of notice and set the hearing. However, the petitioners contend that the case
principally involves an alleged violation of the Omnibus election Code thus the jurisdiction
is exclusively vested in the COMELEC, not the RTC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of Special Civil Action
No. 465.

RULING:

No. The Court ruled that the acts sought to be restrained in Special Civil Action 465 before
the court a quo are matters falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the COMELEC.
Comelec has jurisdiction to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of
elections. The 1987 Constitution implicitly grants the Commission the power to investigate
and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws, including acts of
omissions constituting election frauds, offenses and malpractices.

#2 GUEVARA VS COMELEC

FACTS:

Petitioner was ordered by the COMELEC to show cause why he should not be punished for
contempt after publishing in the newspaper an article which tended to interfere with and
influence the COMELEC awarding the contracts for the manufacture and supply of ballot
boxes; and which article likewise tended to degrade, bring into disrepute, and undermine
the exclusive constitutional function of the Commission and its Chairman. Petitioner filed a
motion to quash on the ground that the Commission has no jurisdiction to punish as
contempt the publication of the alleged contemptuous article, as neither in the Constitution
nor in statutes is the Commission granted a power to punish the same.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the COMELEC has the power and jurisdiction to conduct contempt
proceedings against Guevara in connection with the publication of an article.

RULING:
No. Although the negotiation conducted by the Commission has resulted in controversy
between several dealers, that however merely refers to a ministerial duty which the
Commission has performed in its administrative capacity. It only discharged a ministerial
duty; it did not exercise any judicial function. Such being the case, it could not exercise the
power to punish for contempt as postulated in the law, for such power is inherently judicial
in nature.

#3 MONTEJO VS COMELEC

FACTS:

To remedy the resulting inequality in the distribution of inhabitants, voters and


municipalities in Leyte, the COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 2736 where it
transferred the municipality of Capoocan of the second district and
the municipality of Palompon of the fourth district to the third district of Leyte. 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.

ISSUE:

Whether the unprecedented exercise by the COMELEC of the legislative power of


redistricting and reapportionment is valid or not.

RULING:

No. Section 1 of Resolution no. 2736 is annulled and set aside. COMELEC relied on 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. 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.)

#4 CAPALLA VS COMELEC

FACTS:

Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM entered into a Contract for the Provision of an Automated
Election System for the May 10, 2010 Synchronized National and Local Elections (AES
Contract) which is a Contract of Lease with Option to Purchase (OTP) the goods listed therein
consisting of the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS), both software and hardware. The
parties agreed that the AES Contract shall remain effective until the release of the
performance security posted by the Comelec. The parties later entered into an extension
agreement giving the Comelec until March 31, 2012 within which to exercise it.
Herein petitioners, however, assailed the validity of such agreement on the ground that the
same requires another public bidding since it substantially amended the terms of the
contract. The Court upheld the validity of the transaction. Hence, the petitioners moved for
reconsideration.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the extension of the OTP in favor of Comelec is valid.

RULING:

Based on the AES Contract, the court sustained the parties’ right to amend the same by
extending the option period. Considering that the performance security had not been
released to Smartmatic-TIM, the contract was still effective which can still be amended by
the mutual agreement of the parties, such amendment being reduced in writing. The end
result is that the Comelec acquired the subject PCOS machines with its meager budget and
was able to utilize the rentals paid for the 2010 elections as part of the purchase price. The
motions for reconsideration are DENIED for lack of merit.