GR 160465; (May, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 160465; May 27, 2004
ROMEO M. ESTRELLA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, HON. COMMISSIONER RALPH C. LANTION and ROLANDO F. SALVADOR, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Romeo M. Estrella sought the nullification of a Status Quo Ante Order issued by the COMELEC En Banc. The order halted the execution of a Regional Trial Court decision declaring Estrella the duly elected mayor of Baliwag, Bulacan. In the En Banc proceedings, five of the seven COMELEC members participated. Four voted in favor of the order, while one dissented.
Among those who voted was Commissioner Ralph C. Lantion. Commissioner Lantion had previously voluntarily inhibited himself from a related case (SPR No. 21-2002) pending before the COMELEC Second Division. In the En Banc proceedings, however, he participated and voted, stating his prior inhibition was limited to the Division case and that he reserved the right to vote when the case reached the En Banc.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC En Banc Status Quo Ante Order was validly issued with the required majority vote, considering Commissioner Lantion’s participation after a prior voluntary inhibition.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration and nullified the COMELEC order. The legal logic rests on two points: the impropriety of piecemeal inhibition and the constitutional requirement for a majority vote.
First, Commissioner Lantion’s “voluntary piecemeal inhibition” was invalid. A Commissioner cannot ethically or legally inhibit in a Division case involving the same parties and then participate in the En Banc review of the same controversy. His vote was therefore improperly counted.
Second, applying Article IX-A, Section 7 of the Constitution, the COMELEC must decide by a “majority vote of all its members.” The phrase “all its members” is unqualified and means the total membership of the Commission (seven), not just those who deliberated. With Commissioner Lantion’s vote invalidated, only three valid concurring votes remained. Three votes do not constitute a majority of seven members. The Court explicitly abandoned its prior ruling in Cua v. COMELEC, which had sanctioned a majority of deliberating members, as this contravenes the plain constitutional text. In contrast to the Supreme Court’s own constitutional rule which specifies a majority of members “who actually took part,” the COMELEC provision contains no such qualification. Thus, the order, lacking the constitutionally mandated four-vote majority, was void.