GR L 3474; (December, 1949) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-3474. December 7, 1949.
THE NACIONALISTA PARTY, ET AL., petitioners, vs. VICENTE DE VERA, as Chairman of the Commission on Elections, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners, the Nacionalista Party and its official senatorial candidates, filed a special action for prohibition against Vicente de Vera, Chairman of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). They sought to enjoin him from participating in COMELEC deliberations concerning the November 8, 1949 elections on two grounds: (1) his son, Teodoro de Vera, was a senatorial candidate of the opposing Liberal Party, creating a conflict of interest; and (2) his appointment as COMELEC Chairman was unconstitutional as it constituted a reappointment, which is prohibited by the Constitution.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Rules of Court on judicial disqualification apply to the COMELEC, thereby disqualifying Chairman de Vera due to his son’s candidacy.
2. Whether a petition for prohibition is the proper remedy to challenge the validity of Chairman de Vera’s appointment.
RULING
1. No. The Rules of Court, specifically Rule 126 on disqualification of judges, do not apply to the COMELEC. The Supreme Court’s rule-making power under the Constitution extends only to courts vested with judicial power. The COMELEC is an independent administrative body created under a separate constitutional article. Any adoption of court rules by COMELEC is suppletory and limited to procedural rules necessary for its functions, not rules on disqualification. The matter of a Commissioner acting on cases where a relative is interested is one of decorum and ethics for the Commissioner to decide. Here, respondent had already averred he disqualified himself from matters directly involving his son’s interest.
2. No. A petition for prohibition is not the proper remedy to challenge the validity of Chairman de Vera’s appointment. The writ of prohibition lies against acts without or in excess of authority, but it cannot be used as a substitute for quo warranto to inquire into a person’s title to office. The proper remedy to question the legality of his appointment and tenure is a quo warranto proceeding. The petition for prohibition was therefore dismissed.
AI Generated by Armztrong.