Motion for Reconsideration as a Prerequisite to Supreme Court Review in Election Cases

A losing candidate who wants the Supreme Court to review a ruling of a Commission on Elections division must first ask the COMELEC itself, sitting en banc, to reconsider that ruling. That is the plain holding of Esteves v. Sarmiento, G.R. No. 182374 (11 November 2008), a decision that reminds litigants that skipping a step in the ladder of review can end a case before it begins.

What happened in the case

Jeremias Esteves and Reynaldo Teh Bitong both ran for municipal mayor of Casiguran, Aurora in the May 2007 elections. Bitong was proclaimed winner with 3,342 votes against Esteves's 3,294 — a margin of 48 votes.

Esteves filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court of Baler, Aurora. Bitong moved to dismiss it, arguing that the protest did not specify the precincts where fraud and irregularities supposedly occurred, as required by the rules governing election protests. The RTC denied the motion.

Bitong then went to the COMELEC, asking it to annul the RTC order and dismiss the protest. The COMELEC's Second Division granted relief, set aside the RTC order, and dismissed the protest. One commissioner dissented.

Esteves went straight to the Supreme Court, questioning the COMELEC division's resolution.

The procedural gap

The Court dismissed the petition, and the reason was procedural rather than factual.

Under Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution, the COMELEC may sit en banc or in two divisions, and all election cases are heard and decided in division — but motions for reconsideration of decisions are decided by the Commission en banc. Section 7, Article IX-A further provides that each Commission decides by majority vote of all its members, and that its decisions may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari.

Read together, these provisions mean the Supreme Court's power to review COMELEC rulings covers only the final decision or resolution of the COMELEC en banc — not the resolution of a mere division. The Court cited its earlier ruling in Ambil v. Commission on Elections, 398 Phil. 257 (2000), for this point.

The COMELEC Rules of Procedure reinforce the same step: a party must first elevate a division resolution to the en banc Commission through a motion for reconsideration.

Why the motion is mandatory

The Court explained that the motion for reconsideration is not a mere formality. It is the mechanism by which a division ruling becomes the ruling of the Commission en banc — and only then can it be elevated to the Supreme Court through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court.

The rule serves a practical purpose: it gives the tribunal an opportunity to correct its own errors before the courts are asked to intervene. Certiorari, the Court stressed, lies only when there is no appeal or other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A party cannot use certiorari to escape the consequences of failing to file the required motion.

Because Esteves never alleged that he had filed a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc, his petition was premature. The decision also notes that an earlier petition he filed in the same dispute had already been dismissed by the Court on procedural grounds, including failure to state the material dates. The specific docket number of that earlier petition is not available in the source material for this article, so it is not cited here.

What this means for protestants and protestees

The decision applies to anyone unhappy with a COMELEC division ruling — whether in a special relief case, a pre-proclamation controversy, or another election matter. The path is fixed: division first, then en banc on motion for reconsideration, then the Supreme Court.

The Court recognized that the motion-for-reconsideration requirement admits of well-recognized exceptions, but it did not apply any here. Litigants should not assume an exception will rescue a petition filed out of turn.

Practical takeaways

• A resolution issued by a COMELEC division is not yet reviewable by the Supreme Court. File a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc first.
• The requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. Failure to comply is a ground for dismissal of the petition.
• Certiorari under Rule 64 is available only after the COMELEC en banc has ruled, and only if no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy exists.
• Exhaustion of this remedy gives the COMELEC a chance to correct itself and prevents premature resort to the courts.
• A petition that does not even allege compliance with this step — or that omits required material dates — risks dismissal on procedural grounds alone.

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