Finality of Comelec Resolutions in Election Offense Cases: Reconsideration and Judicial Review

The finality of Commission on Elections (Comelec) resolutions in election offense cases is a recurring question in Philippine election law. When may a party seek reconsideration of a Comelec en banc ruling? When does a resolution become final and binding? In Faelnar v. People (G.R. Nos. 140850-51, May 4, 2000), the Supreme Court En Banc settled these questions, distinguishing between resolutions issued by the Comelec itself and those issued by prosecutors acting under delegated authority.

The Facts of the Case

Eugenio "Jing-Jing" Faelnar filed his certificate of candidacy for Barangay Chairman of Barangay Guadalupe, Cebu City, on April 8, 1997, for the May 12, 1997 barangay elections. The following day, a basketball tournament called the "2nd Jing-Jing Faelnar's Cup" opened at the Guadalupe Sports Complex and ran until April 30, 1997—before the official campaign period began on May 1.

A complaint for electioneering was filed against Faelnar and another respondent, alleging the tournament was a campaign gimmick staged outside the campaign period, in violation of the Omnibus Election Code. The complaint cited a streamer bearing Faelnar's name, announcements of his name over the microphone during games, newspaper publicity, and a raffle with home appliances as prizes.

The Comelec Law Department recommended the filing of charges for violation of Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code, which prohibits election campaigns or partisan political activities outside the campaign period, and for violation of provisions of Republic Act No. 6679 relating to the conduct of barangay elections. However, in Resolution No. 97-3040 (September 16, 1997), the Comelec en banc dismissed the case. On motion of the complainant, the Comelec reconsidered and ordered the filing of Informations against Faelnar and his co-respondent.

Faelnar moved to quash the Informations, arguing that Resolution No. 97-3040 was immediately executory and could no longer be reconsidered. The trial court denied his motion, and the Comelec's subsequent Resolution No. 98-2914 (October 29, 1998) directed the filing of charges. Faelnar then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court—more than a year after Resolution No. 98-2914 was promulgated.

The Issue

The central issue was whether a Comelec en banc resolution dismissing an election offense complaint is immediately final and executory, such that the Comelec can no longer reconsider it.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition. Two principles emerged from the ruling.

First, the petition was a circumvention of a final Comelec resolution. Resolution No. 98-2914 was promulgated on October 29, 1998. Under Rule 64, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, a judgment or final order of the Comelec may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65. Section 3 of that Rule requires the petition to be filed within 30 days from notice of the resolution. Faelnar filed his petition only on November 12, 1999—more than a year late. The resolution had become final and binding. Even if the resolution were erroneous, the Court noted, it was not void; having become final and executory, it was already binding and effective.

Second, a motion for reconsideration of a Comelec en banc resolution is allowed in election offense cases. Faelnar relied on Rule 13, Section 1(d) of the 1988 Comelec Rules of Procedure, which prohibited motions for reconsideration of en banc rulings. But the Court pointed out that the 1993 Rules had amended this provision. Under the amended rule, the prohibition on motions for reconsideration of en banc rulings no longer applies to election offense cases—meaning that in such cases, these motions are expressly allowed.

The Court also rejected Faelnar's reliance on a provision of the Comelec Rules of Procedure concerning appeals from the action of the State Prosecutor or Provincial or City Fiscal. The exact text of that provision is not reproduced in the decision as quoted in the ASG law library, but the Court explained that it governs appeals from prosecutors' resolutions on the recommendations of investigating officers. It does not apply where the Comelec itself conducts the preliminary investigation.

The distinction matters. When a prosecutor exercises delegated authority to investigate an election offense, the Comelec's review of that resolution is a "second look" on probable cause—hence, immediately final. But when the Comelec itself conducts the preliminary investigation, its en banc resolution is the first determination of probable cause. A motion for reconsideration is therefore allowed, permitting a review of the original resolution in the same manner the Comelec may review a prosecutor's resolution on appeal or motu proprio.

Practical Takeaways

• A Comelec en banc resolution in an election offense case is not immediately final and executory. The 1993 Comelec Rules of Procedure expressly allow a motion for reconsideration in such cases.
• The 30-day period under Rule 64, Section 3 of the Rules of Court is strict. A party aggrieved by a Comelec resolution must file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court within 30 days from notice. Failure to do so renders the resolution final and binding, even if it is allegedly erroneous.
• The distinction between Comelec-conducted and prosecutor-conducted preliminary investigations matters. The rule making resolutions immediately executory and final applies only to appeals from prosecutors' resolutions, not to the Comelec's own determinations of probable cause.
• A final Comelec resolution cannot be attacked collaterally. Attempting to challenge it through a motion to quash in the trial court, instead of a timely petition for certiorari, will not succeed.
• Candidates should treat pre-campaign activities with caution. The underlying offense—electioneering outside the campaign period—remains a prosecutable election offense under the Omnibus Election Code.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.