Why Initial COMELEC Election Cases Must Be Decided by a Division, Not En Banc

The Supreme Court has long held that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) must decide election cases in the first instance through its divisions, not en banc. In Abad v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 128877, December 10, 1999), the Court reaffirmed this rule and nullified a COMELEC en banc resolution that had dismissed a petition for review in a Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) election protest. The ruling underscores a constitutional requirement that affects how election disputes are filed and resolved.

The Facts of the Case

Rolando Abad, Jr. and Susanito Sarenas, Jr. were candidates for SK chairman in Barangay Sta. Barbara, Llanera, Nueva Ecija during the May 6, 1996 SK elections. Abad won with 66 votes against Sarenas's 62 and was proclaimed the winner.

Sarenas filed an election protest before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), alleging that Abad had benefited from the registration of four unqualified voters—three who were underaged and one who lacked the required residency. Sarenas asked for a recount.

The MCTC judge ruled in Sarenas's favor. Instead of ordering a recount, the judge ordered that four votes be deducted from Abad's total, resulting in a 62-62 tie. The judge then directed that the winner be determined by drawing of lots. Abad appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), but the RTC dismissed the appeal, noting that under COMELEC rules, the proper remedy was a petition for review with the COMELEC en banc.

The drawing of lots proceeded on October 3, 1996. Abad was notified but did not appear. Sarenas won the draw and was ordered to take his oath of office. Only then did Abad file a petition for review with the COMELEC en banc, which dismissed it for being filed late.

The Issue: COMELEC's Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court did not dwell on the merits of Abad's arguments. Instead, it raised a more fundamental question: Did the COMELEC en banc even have the authority to hear the case in the first instance?

The Court answered no.

The Constitutional Rule on COMELEC Divisions

Article IX-C, Section 3 of the Constitution 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."

This means that the COMELEC's divisions have original jurisdiction over election cases. The en banc only acts on motions for reconsideration of division decisions. When the en banc hears and decides an election case in the first instance, its resolution is null and void.

The Court cited two earlier cases to support this rule: Sarmiento v. Commission on Elections (212 SCRA 307, 1992) and Zarate v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 129096, November 19, 1999). Both cases involved the same principle—the en banc lacks authority to decide election cases in the first instance.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court granted Abad's petition and set aside the COMELEC en banc resolution. The case was remanded to the COMELEC and ordered assigned to an appropriate division for prompt resolution.

The Court made clear that even if Abad had procedural lapses, the COMELEC en banc's lack of jurisdiction could not be cured. A decision rendered without jurisdiction is void, regardless of the merits of the case.

Practical Takeaways

• Election cases must start at the division level. The COMELEC en banc cannot hear and decide election cases in the first instance. Its role is limited to resolving motions for reconsideration of division decisions.
• A void resolution is a void resolution. Even if a party has procedural missteps, a decision by the COMELEC en banc without jurisdiction will be nullified.
• Know the correct remedy and forum. In SK election protests, the proper remedy from an MCTC decision is a petition for review with the COMELEC—but it must be filed with the appropriate division, not the en banc, and within the prescribed period.
• The Constitution prevails over COMELEC rules. If a COMELEC resolution or rule conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution governs. The COMELEC rule that allowed direct appeals to the en banc in SK cases was inconsistent with Article IX-C, Section 3.
• Act promptly. The Court noted that Abad had several opportunities to avail of the correct remedy but delayed until after he lost the drawing of lots. While the jurisdictional issue saved his case, procedural diligence remains essential in election disputes.

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