G.R. No. 105628 , 105725, 105727, 105730, 105771, 105778, 105797, 105919, 105977 August 6, 1992.
RODULFO SARMIENTO, EMMANUEL R. ALFELOR, LEANDRO I. VERCELES, SR., JESUS TYPOCO, JR., ALBERTO U. GENOVA, JR., MARIO S. MANLICLIC, FRANCISCO G. RABAT, DATU MOHAMMAD A. SINSUAT, and ROSARIO A. VELASCO, petitioners,

vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, various Municipal/Provincial/City Boards of Canvassers, and their respective opposing candidates, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners filed separate special civil actions for certiorari under Rule 65 to set aside various Resolutions issued by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc in several Special Cases (SPC) concerning pre-proclamation controversies. These COMELEC resolutions either granted appeals from rulings of Boards of Canvassers, reversed rulings of Boards of Canvassers, dismissed appeals, or affirmed rulings of Boards of Canvassers. The petitioners impugned these resolutions, arguing they were issued with grave abuse of discretion because the COMELEC en banc took cognizance of and decided the appeals without first referring them to any of its Divisions for hearing and decision, as allegedly required by the Constitution.

ISSUE

Whether the Commission on Elections en banc acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in resolving the appeals in the pre-proclamation controversies (Special Cases) at the first instance, instead of having them first heard and decided by a Division.

RULING

Yes. The COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution expressly provides that the COMELEC may sit en banc or in two divisions, and that “All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc.” Election cases include pre-proclamation controversies. The COMELEC Rules of Procedure, specifically Section 9, Rule 27, mandates that appeals from rulings of Boards of Canvassers are cognizable by any of the Divisions. Therefore, the COMELEC en banc has no authority to hear and decide such cases at first instance; its proper role is to decide motions for reconsideration of Division decisions. Consequently, the challenged resolutions issued by the COMELEC en banc are null and void and are set aside.
However, the petitions are dismissed. While the logical remedy would be to direct the COMELEC to assign the cases to a Division, Section 16 of R.A. No. 7166 provides that all pre-proclamation cases pending before the COMELEC are deemed terminated at the beginning of the term of the office involved (which commenced at noon of June 30, 1992), and the rulings of the Boards of Canvassers are deemed affirmed. The cases have thus been rendered moot. The dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of regular election protests by the petitioners. If the winning candidates have already been proclaimed, the period to file such protests is deemed suspended by the pendency of these cases before the COMELEC and the Supreme Court. The Temporary Restraining Orders issued in some of the cases are lifted.