Facts: A. Does Section 5(d) of Rep. Act No.

9189 allowing
the registration of voters who are immigrants or
•Before the Court is a petition for certiorari and permanent residents in other countries by their mere
prohibition filed by Romulo B. Macalintal, a member of act of executing an affidavit expressing their
the Philippine Bar, seeking a declaration that certain intention to return to the Philippines, violate
provisions of Republic Act No. 9189 (The Overseas the residency requirement in Section 1 of Article V of
Absentee Voting Act of 2003) suffer from constitutional the Constitution?
infirmity. Claiming that he has actual and material
legal interest in the subject matter of this case in B. Does Section 18.5 of the same law empowering the
seeing to it that public funds are properly COMELEC to proclaim the winning candidates for
and lawfully used and appropriated, petitioner national offices and party list representatives including
filed the instant petition as a taxpayer and as a the President and the Vice-President violate the
lawyer. The Court upholds the right of the petitioner to constitutional mandate under Section 4, Article VII of
file the present petition. the Constitution that the winning candidates for
President and the Vice-President shall be proclaimed
•R.A. No. 9189, entitled, An Act Providing for A System as winners by Congress?
of Overseas Absentee Voting by Qualified Citizens of
the Philippines Abroad, Appropriating Funds Therefor, C. May Congress, through the Joint Congressional
and for Other Purposes, appropriates funds under Oversight Committee created in Section25 of Rep. Act
Section 29 thereof which provides that a No. 9189, exercise the power to review, revise, amend,
supplemental budget on the General Appropriations and approve the Implementing Rules and Regulations
Act of the year of its enactment into law shall provide that the Commission on Elections shall promulgate
for the necessary amount to carry out its provisions. without violating the independence of the COMELEC
under Section 1, Article IX-A of the Constitution?
•The need to consider the constitutional issues
raised before the Court is further buttressed by Held
the fact that it is now more than fifteen years since the A. Does Section 5(d) of Rep. Act No. 9189 violate
ratification of the1987 Constitution requiring Section 1, Article V of the 1987
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines? – N
Congress to provide a system for absentee
voting by qualified Filipinos abroad

Issue: The petitioner raises three principal questions:

Held:
A. Does Section 5(d) of Rep. Act No. 9189 violate citizenship in another country.Failure to return shall be
Section 1, Article V of the 1987Constitution of the cause for the removal of the name of the immigrant
Republic of the Philippines? – NO (Shorter explanation: orpermanent resident from the National Registry of
it does not violate because section 2 is an Absentee Voters and his/herpermanent disqualification
exception to the residency requirement in section 1. to vote in absentia.
The execution of affidavit is to show that they have no
intention of leaving the country for good and they •Sec. 1, Article V. Suffrage may be exercised by all
intend to return and not abandon their domicile. citizens of the Philippines nototherwise disqualified by
Without the affidavit they are presumed to have law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and
abandoned PH domicile. Domicile-place where you whoshall have resided in the Philippines for at least
intend to return. Domicile and residence is one year, and in the placewherein they propose to
synonymous under election laws. Failure to return vote, for at least six months immediately precedingthe
within the said period is a cause for removal of their election. No literacy, property, or other
names from the National Registry of Absentee Voters substantive requirement shall beimposed on the
and permanent disqualification to vote in absentia. exercise of suffrage.oThis section requires that the
Longer explanation below, under “COURT”. voter must be a resident in the Philippinesfor at least
one year and in the place where he proposes to vote
Ruling: In fine, considering the underlying intent of for atleast six months immediately preceding an
the Constitution, the Court does not find Section 5(d)of election.Petitioner:•argues that Section 1, Article V of
R.A. No. 9189 as constitutionally defective)Provisions the Constitution does not allow provisionalregistration
in question: or a promise by a voter to perform a condition to be
qualified to votein a political exercise. He claims that
•Sec. 5. Disqualifications. The following shall be the right of suffrage should not be grantedto anyone
disqualified from voting under thisAct:d) An immigrant who, on the date of the election, does not possess the
or a permanent resident whao is recognized as such in qualificationsprovided for by Section 1, Article V of the
the hostcountry, unless he/she executes, upon Constitution.•Should a sizable number of immigrants
registration, an affidavit prepared for thepurpose by renege on their promise to return, theresult of the
the Commission declaring that he/she shall elections would be affected and could even be a
resume actualphysical permanent residence in ground to contestthe proclamation of the winning
the Philippines not later than three (3)years from candidates and cause further confusion anddoubt
approval of his/her registration under this Act. Such on the integrity of the results of the election. (in the
affidavit shallalso state that he/she has not applied for first place in would not be qualified because they
break their promise of returning, as executed in vice versa; a person cannot beat the same time, both
theiraffidavit and as required by the law, thus their a resident and an absentee. Residence is used to
votes are inadmissible)•questions the rightness of the indicate a place ofabode, whether permanent or
mere act of execution of an affidavit to qualify temporary; domicile denotes a fixed permanent
theFilipinos abroad who are immigrants or residence towhich, when absent, one has the
permanent residents, to vote. (Hefocuses only on intention of returning. However, under our election
section 1 of article v of the Constitution, ignoring laws andthe countless pronouncements of the
section 2 whichallows congress to provide a system of Court pertaining to elections, an absentee
absentee voting)Court:A simple, cursory reading of remainsattached to his residence in the
Section 5(d) of R.A. No. 9189 may indeed give the Philippines as residence is
impressionthat it contravenes Section 1, Article V of consideredsynonymous with domicile.R.A. No. 9189
the Constitution. Filipino immigrants and was enacted in obeisance to the mandate of the first
permanentresidents overseas are perceived as paragraph of Section 2,Article V of the Constitution
having left and abandoned the Philippines to that Congress shall provide a system for voting by
livepermanently in their host countries and therefore, qualified Filipinosabroad. It must be stressed that
a provision in the law enfranchising those whodo not Section 2 does not provide for the parameters of the
possess the residency requirement of the Constitution exercise oflegislative authority in enacting said law.
by the mere act of executing anaffidavit expressing Hence, in the absence of restrictions, Congress
their intent to return to the Philippines within ispresumed to have duly exercised its function
a given period, risks adeclaration of as defined in Article VI (The
unconstitutionality. A law is presumed to be LegislativeDepartment) of the Constitution. Section 2,
constitutional, to declare itunconstitutional, one Article V of the Constitution came into being
who questions it must clearly show that what toremove any doubt as to the inapplicability of
the fundamental lawcondemns or prohibits, the the residency requirement in Section 1.
statute allows it to be done. The method of absentee Thequalifications of voters as stated in Section 1 shall
voting has been said to be completely separable and remain except for the residency requirement.(Sec 2.
distinct fromthe regular system of voting. (The law is Exception to residency requirement in Sec. 1)The
for those who are qualified to vote but absent affidavit (Sworn Declaration of Intent to Return)
onelection day from the district or precinct of their is required of immigrants andpermanent
residence. In the case of OFWs, temporaryabsent in residents abroad because by their status in their host
the PH). Ordinarily, an absentee is not a resident and countries, they are presumedto have relinquished
their intent to return to this country; thus, the delay of the proclamationof a winning candidate if
without the affidavit, thepresumption of the outcome of the election will not be affectedby the
abandonment of Philippine domicile shall remain. The results thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
votes cast by qualifiedFilipinos abroad who failed to Commission isempowered to order the proclamation of
return within three years shall not be invalidated winning candidates despitethe fact that the scheduled
because theywere qualified to vote on the date of the election has not taken place in a particularcountry or
elections, but their failure to return shall be cause countries, if the holding of elections therein has been
forthe removal of the names of the immigrants or renderedimpossible by events, factors and
permanent residents from the National Registryof circumstances peculiar to such countryor countries, in
Absentee Voters and their permanent disqualification which events, factors and circumstances are beyond
to vote in absentia In fine, considering the underlying thecontrol or influence of the Commission.•SEC. 4,
intent of the Constitution, the Court does not find Article VII of Constitution (which gives to
Section5(d) of R.A. No. 9189 as constitutionally Congress the duty tocanvass the votes and
defective.B. Is Section 18.5 of R.A. No. 9189 proclaim the winning candidates for president andvice-
in relation to Section 4 of the same Act president)oPar. 4, Section 4, Article VII of the
incontravention of Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution which provides that thereturns of every
Constitution? - YES(Shorter explanation: the election for President and Vice-President shall
provisions mentioned in RA 9189 clashes with becertified by the board of canvassers to
theConstitution and that the provisions of the CongressPetitioner:Petitioner claims that the
Constitution must be followed. The Congress,instead provision of Section 18.5 of R.A. No. 9189
of COMELEC as stated in RA 9189, has the empowering theCOMELEC to order the proclamation
power to canvass votes andproclaim the winners of winning candidates insofar as it affects the canvass
for president and vice-president. COMELEC can ofvotes and proclamation of winning candidates
only proclaimwinning Senators and party-list for president and vice-president,
representatives, not the president and VP. isunconstitutional because it violates the following
Longerexplanation below, under “COURT”.)Provisions provisions of paragraph 4, Section 4 of ArticleVII of the
in question:•Section 4 of R.A. No. 9189 provides that Constitution.
the overseas absentee voter may votefor president,
vice-president, senators and party-list Court: Indeed, the phrase, proclamation of winning
representatives.•SEC. 18. On-Site Counting and candidates, in Section 18.5 of R.A. No. 9189 isfar too
Canvassing.18. 5 The canvass of votes shall not cause sweeping that it necessarily includes the proclamation
of the winning candidates for thepresidency and the
vice-presidency. (the provision only said Congressional Oversight Committee (JCOC), created
“proclamation of winningcandidates” so it can be underRA 9189 and is charge of the IRR, violates the
implied that it includes the Pres and VP, which the Constitution. JCOC composing of members ofboth
COMELEC has nopower to proclaim.)Section 18.5 of houses is a purely legislative body. As stated in the
R.A. No. 9189 appears to be repugnant to Section Constitution, the COMELEC, being anindependent
4, Article VII of theConstitution only insofar as said Constitutional Commission, has the power to
Section totally disregarded the authority given to formulate, regulate and implementrules and
Congress bythe Constitution to proclaim the winning regulations, stated in Art IX-A of the Constitution. The
candidates for the positions of president and vice- Constitution does not state, oreven imply, the
president.In addition, the Court notes that Section 18.4 power of the Congress to enforce and
of the law, to wit:18.4. . . . Immediately upon the administer election laws with theCOMELEC.
completion of the canvass, the chairman of the Therefore, Sec 19 2nd sentence and section 25 2nd
SpecialBoard of Canvassers shall transmit via sentence of 2nd paragraph – inred below – should be
facsimile, electronic mail, or any other means stricken out for violating the independence of
oftransmission equally safe and reliable the COMELEC. Sentences inSection 17, RA 9189 – also in
Certificates of Canvass and the Statements red, see below – should be stricken out. Longer
ofVotes to the Commission.Congress could not have explanationbelow, under “COURT”.)Provisions in
allowed the COMELEC to usurp a power that question:•SEC. 19. Authority of the Commission to
constitutionallybelongs to it or, as aptly stated by Promulgate Rules. The Commissionshall issue the
petitioner, to encroach on the power of Congress to necessary rules and regulations to effectively
canvassthe votes for president and vice-president and implement theprovisions of this Act within sixty (60)
the power to proclaim the winners for the days from the effectivity of this Act. TheImplementing
saidpositions. The provisions of the Constitution as the Rules and Regulations shall be submitted to
fundamental law of the land should be readas part of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee created
The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 and hence, by virtue of this Act for priorapproval.•SEC. 25. Joint
the canvassing of the votesand the proclamation of Congressional Oversight Committee. A Joint
the winning candidates for president and vice- CongressionalOversight Committee is hereby
president for the entirenation must remain in the created, composed of the Chairman of
hands of Congress.C. Are Sections 19 and 25 of R.A. theSenate Committee on Constitutional Amendments,
No. 9189 in violation of Section 1, Article IX-A ofthe Revision of Codes and Laws,and seven (7) other
Constitution? - YES(Shorter explanation: The Joint Senators designated by the Senate President, and
theChairman of the House Committee on Suffrage and submitted its Comment. It agrees withthe petitioner
Electoral Reforms, andseven (7) other Members of the that Sections 19 and 25 of R.A. No. 9189 are
House of Representatives designated bythe Speaker of unconstitutional. Like the petitioner,respondent
the House of Representatives: Provided, That, of the COMELEC anchors its claim of unconstitutionality of
seven (7)members to be designated by each House of said Sections upon Section 1,Article IX-A of the
Congress, four (4) should comefrom the majority and Constitution providing for the independence of the
the remaining three (3) from the minority.The Joint constitutional commissionssuch as the COMELEC. The
Congressional Oversight Committee shall have COMELEC adds, however, that another provision, vis--
the power tomonitor and evaluate the vis its rule-making power, to wit(is likewise
implementation of this Act. It shall review, unconstitutional as it violates Section 1, Article IX-A
revise,amend and approve the Implementing Rules mandating the independence ofconstitutional
and Regulations promulgatedby the commissions): SEC. 17. Voting by Mail
Commission.•Section 1. The Constitutional
Commissions, which shall be independent, are theCivil
Service Commission, the Commission on Elections, and
the Commission onAudit. Petitioner:The creation of the
Joint Congressional Oversight Committee with the
power to review,revise, amend and approve the
Implementing Rules and Regulations promulgated
by theCOMELEC, R.A. No. 9189 intrudes into
the independence of the COMELEC which, as
aconstitutional body, is not under the control
of either the executive or legislativedepartments
of government; that only the COMELEC itself can
promulgate rules andregulations which may be
changed or revised only by the majority of its
members; andthat should the rules promulgated by
the COMELEC violate any law, it is the Court thathas
the power to review the same via the petition of any
interested party, including thelegislators.Respondent:It
is only on this question that respondent COMELEC
G.R. Nos. 83938-40 November 6, 1989 the following criminal complaints: (1,) Criminal Case
No. 324 against the spouses Tayong; (2) Criminal Case
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, No. 326 against Salvacion Colambot and (3) Criminal
vs. Case No. 375 against Melchor Yanson.
HON. HENRY B. BASILLA, SALVACION In three (3) separate orders, all dated 6 October 1987,
COLAMBOT, SPOUSES JAIME AND ADORACION and Identical in tenor save for the names of the
TAYONG and MELCHOR YANSON, respondents. accused respondent Judge Henry Basilla motu proprio
dismissed the three (3) informations filed by the
Facts: Provincial Fiscal, giving the following justification:

As an aftermath of the May 1987 congressional (RTC JUDGE RATIONALE)

elections in Masbate, complaints for violations of The record shows that the complainant filed the
Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code (BP Blg. complaint with the fiscal and not with the COMELEC.
881) were filed with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal The COMELEC did not investigate the case.
of Masbate against the private respondents as follows:
The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
1) by Jolly Fernandez, then Officer-in-Charge of the says:
Office of the Governor, against the spouses Jaime and
Adoracion Tayong — for violation of Section 261, "Sec. 2(6) of Art. IX (C) The Commission on Election
paragraph a-1, for vote-buying; shall exercise the following powers and functions:

2) by Ladislao Bataliran against Salvacion Colambot — xxx xxx xxx

for violation of Section 261, paragraph a-1, also for
vote buying; and ... ; investigate and, when appropriate prosecute cases
of violation of election laws, including acts or
3) by PC/Sgt Arturo Rebaya against Melchor Yanson — omissions, constituting election frauds offenses,
for violation of Section 261, paragraph p, for carrying malpractices."
of deadly weapon.
The Omnibus Election Election Code of the Philippines
After preliminary investigation of the foregoing (BP Blg, 881) says:
complaints, the Provincial Fiscal of Masbate filed in the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 49, Cataingan, Masbate,.
Sec. 265. Prosecution. — The Commission shall, Consistently, and lately, in Corpu[s], et al. vs.
through its duly authorized legal officers, have the Tanodbayan of the Philippines', et al., L-62075, April
exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigation 15, 1987, our Supreme Court rules:
of all election offenses punishable under this Code,
and to prosecute the same. The Commission may avail An examination of the provisions of the Constitution
of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the and the Election Code of 1978 reveals the clear
government; Provided, however, that in the event that intention to place in the COMELEC exclusive
the Commission fails to act on any complaint within jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute election
four months from his filing, the complaint may file the offenses committed by any person, whether private
complaint with the office of the fiscal or with the individual or public officer or employee, and in the
Ministry of Justice. for proper investigation and latter instance, irrespective of whether the offense is
prosecution, if warranted. (Sec. 182, 1978, EC; and committed in relation to his official duties or not. In
Sec. 66. BP 697) other words, it is the nature of the offense and not the
personality of the offender that matters. As long as the
In the landmark case of De Jesus vs. People, L-60998, offense is an election offense jurisdiction over the
February 120 SCRA 760, the the Supreme Court ruled: same rests exclusively with the COMELEC, in view of
its all embracing power over the conduct of election.
The grant to the COMELEC of the power. among
others, to enforce and administer all laws relative to IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, inasmuch as
the conduct of election and the concomitant authority the election offense was not investigated and
to investigate and prosecute election offenses is not prosecuted by the COMELEC. the case is motu proprio
without compelling reason. The evident constitutional dismissed.
intendment in bestowing this power to the COMELEC is
to ensure the free, and honest conduct of elections, The People moved for reconsideration of respondent
failure of which would result i ii the frustration of the Judge's orders, without success.
true will of the people and make a mere Idle ceremony The instant Petition for Review assails the three (3)
of the sacred right and duty of every qualified citizen orders dismissing the three (3 ) criminal informations
to vote. To divest the COMELEC of the authority to against the private respondents, as constituting grave
investigate and prosecute election offenses committed abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
by public officials in relation to their office would thus The Petition argues principally that the Commission on
seriously impair its effectiveness in achieving this clear Elections "Comelec" has authority to deputize the chief
constitutional mandate. state prosecutors, provincial and city fiscals and their
assistants, under Sections 2 (4) and (8 ), Article IX-C of the Comelec, it at the same time authorizes the
the 1987 Constitution, and that the Comelec did Comelec to avail itself of the assistance of other
deputize such prosecution officers to conduct prosecuting arms of the Government. Section 2 of
preliminary investigation of complaints for alleged Article IX-C of the 1 987
violation of election laws and to institute criminal
informations therefor. Constitution clearly envisage that the Comelec would
not be compelled to carry out all its functions directly
The Petition must be granted. and by itself alone:

There is no dispute that the Comelec is vested with Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise
power and authority to conduct preliminary the following powers and functions:
investigation of all election offenses punishable under
the Omnibus Election Code and to prosecute such (1) Enforce and administer all laws and regulations
offenses in court. Section 265 of this Code reads as relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite,
follows: initiative, referendum, and recall.

See. 265. Prosecution. — The Commission shall, xxx xxx xxx

through its duly authorized legal officers, have the (4) Deputize, with the concurrence of the President,
exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigation law enforcement agencies and instrumantalities of the
of all election offenses punishable under this Code, Government, including the Armed Forces of the
and to prosecute the same. The Commission may avail Philippines, for the exclusive purpose of ensuring free
of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.
government: Provided, however, That in the event that
the Commission fails to act on any complaint within xxx xxx xxx
four months from his filing, the complainant may file
the complaint with the office of the fiscal or with the (6) File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own
Ministry of Justice for proper investigation and initiative, petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion of
prosecution, if warranted. (Sec. 182, 1973 EC; and Sec. voters; investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute
66, BP 697) (Emphasis supplied) cases of violation of election laws, including acts or
omissions constituting election frauds, offenses, and
We note that while Section 265 of the Code vests malpractices.
"exclusive power" to conduct preliminary investigation
of election offenses and to prosecute the same upon xxx xxx xxx
(8) Recommend to the President the removal of any The Commission may avail of the assistance of other
officer or employee it has deputized, or the imposition prosecuting arms of the government.
of any other disciplinary action, for violation or
disregard of, or disobedience to its directive, order, or (Emphasis supplied)
decision. On 9 March 1987, the Comelec enacted its Resolution
xxx xxx xxx No. 1862. The pertinent operative portions of this
resolution are the following:
(Emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
The concurrence of the President with the deputation
by Comelec of the prosecuting arms of the NOW, THEREFORE, the Commission on Elections, by
Government, was expressed in general terms and in virtue of the powers vested in it by the Constitution of
advance in Executive Order No. 134. dated 27 the Republic of the, Philippines, the Omnibus Election
February 1987, entitled "Enabling Act for the Elections Code and Executive Orders Nos. 50, 94, 134 and 144,
for members of Congress on May 11, 1987, and for has RESOLVED to designate, as it hereby designates
other purposes." Executive Order No. 134 provided in the Chief State Prosecutor, all Provincial and City
pertinent portion as follows: Fiscalss and their respective Assistants as its deputies
in connection with the elections for Members of
xxx xxx xxx Congress on May 11, 1987, to perform the following
duties and functions:
See. 11. Prosecution. — Commission shall, through its
duly authorized legal officers, have exclusive power to 1. Conduct preliminary investigation of complaints
conduct preliminary investigation of all election involving election offenses under the Omnibus Election
offenses punishable as provided for in the preceding Code which may be filed directly with them, or which
section, and to prosecute the same: may be endorsed to them by the Commission or its
authorized representatives; and
Provided, That in the event that the Commission fails
to act on any complaint within two (2) months from 2. Whenever a prima facie case exists, file the proper
filing, the complainant may file the complaint with the information in court and prosecute the same.
Office the Fiscal or with the Department for Justice for
proper investigation and prosecution, if warranted.
Preliminary investigation of cases filed directly with, or The prompt investigation and prosecution and
endorsed to, Provincial and City Fiscals, and/or their disposition of election offenses constitute an
respective Assistants shall be conducted immediately indispensable part of the task of securing free, orderly,
and shall be finished within thirty (30) days from the honest, peaceful and credible elections.
filing thereof and, for this purpose, they are enjoined
to hold office on a twenty-four (24) hour basis during The investigation and prosecution of election offenses
the registration of voters on April 11 and 12, 1987, on are, in an important sense, more important than the
Election Day on May 11, 1987, and until midnight on maintenance of physical order in election precinct.
Revision Day on May 2, 1987. 'without the assistance of provincial and city fiscals
and their assistants and staff members, and of the
Provincial and City Fiscals and their respective state prosecutors of the Department of Justice, the
Assistants shall submit to the Commission a report on prompt and fair investigation and prosecution of
every case directly filed with them and thereafter, election offenses committed before or in the course of
monthly progress reports on the status of the cases nationwide elections would simply not be possible,
handled by them, including those endorsed by the unless, perhaps, the Comelec had a bureaucracy many
Commission or its authorized representatives. times larger than what it actually has.

This Resolution shall take effect immediately. 2 Morover, the prosecution officers designated by the
(Emphasis supplied) Comelec become deputies or agents of the Comelec
and pro tanto subject to the authority, control and
The contention of private respondents that the supervision of the Comelec in respect of the particular
deputation by the Comelec of the prosecuting arms of functions covered by such deputation.
the Government would be warranted only before the
elections and only to ensure tree, honest, orderly, The acts of such deputies within the lawful scope of
peaceful and credible elections, that is, to perform the their delegated authority are, in legal contemplation,
peace-keeping functions of policemen, lack substance. the acts of the Comelec itself.
There is nothing in Section 2 (4) of Article IX-C of the
Constitution which requires such a pinched niggardly The only limitation the Constitution itself places
interpretation of the authority of the Comelec to upon the Comelec's authority over its deputies relates
appoint as its deputies, officials or employees of other to the enforcement of such authority through
agencies and instrumentalities of the government. administrative sanctions. Such sanctions-e.g.,
suspension or removal-may be recommended by the
Comelec to the President (Sec. 2 [8], Article IX-C, 1987
Constitution) rather than directly imposed by the FACTS:
Comelec, evidently, to pre-empt and avoid potential
difficulties with the executive department of the After May 1987 congressional elections in Masbate,
Government where the prosecution and other officers complaints for violations of Section 261 of the
deputized are ordinarily located. Omnibus Election Code (BP Blg. 881) were filed with
the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Masbate against
All this the respondent Judge disregarded when he the private respondents;
motu proprio dismissed the criminal informations filed
in this case. The cases he cited in his identical orders -Jolly Fernandez, then Officer-inCharge of the Office of
— De Jesus v. People, 120 SCRA 760 (1983) and the Governor, against the spouses Jaime and
Corpus, et al. v. Tanodbayan, 149 SCRA 281 (1987) Adoracion Tayong — for vote-buying;
can offer him no comfort at all; for these cases do not -Ladislao Bataliran against Salvacion Colambot —for
relate to the authority of the Comelec to deputize the vote buying; and
regular prosecution arms of the Government for the
investigation and prosecution of election offenses and -PC/Sgt Arturo Rebaya against Melchor Yanson, for
those cases are not in conflict with our ruling here. carrying of deadly weapon,

filed in the Regional Trial Court.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on certiorari is Respondent Judge Henry Basilla motu proprio
hereby GRANTED due course and the Orders of the dismissed the three (3) informations filed by the
trial court all dated October 6, 1987 in Criminal Cases Provincial Fiscal, giving the following justification:
Nos. 324, 326 and 375 and the Order dated December
7, 1987 in the same cases denying the People's Motion That the record shows that the complainant filed the
for Reconsideration, are hereby SET ASIDE and complaint with the fiscal and not with the COMELEC.
ANNULLED. The trial court is ORDERED to
The COMELEC did not investigate the case.
proceed forthwith with the continuation of
Criminal Cases Nos. 324, 326 and 375 and until The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
termination thereof. Costs against private says: "Sec. 2(6) of Art. IX (C) The Commission on
respondents. Election shall exercise the following powers and
functions: ; investigate and, when appropriate
SO ORDERED.
prosecute cases of violation of election laws, including
acts or omissions, constituting election frauds officials in relation to their office would thus seriously
offenses, malpractices." impair its effectiveness in achieving this clear
constitutional mandate. IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE
The Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines (BP Blg, FOREGOING, inasmuch as the election offense was not
881) says: Sec. 265. Prosecution. — The Commission investigated and prosecuted by the COMELEC. the
shall, through its duly authorized legal officers, have case is motu proprio dismissed.
the exclusive power to conduct preliminary
investigation of all election offenses punishable under ISSUE:
this Code, and to prosecute the same. The Commission
may avail of the assistance of other prosecuting arms WON Commission on Elections has authority to
of the government; Provided, however, that in the deputize the chief state prosecutors, provincial
event that the Commission fails to act on any and city fiscals and their assistants, under
complaint within four months from his filing, the Sections 2 (4) and (8), Article IX-C of the 1987
complaint may file the complaint with the office of the Constitution?
fiscal or with the Ministry of Justice. for proper WON Comelec did deputize such prosecution officers
investigation and prosecution, if warranted. (Sec. 182, to conduct preliminary investigation of complaints for
1978, EC; and Sec. 66. BP 697) alleged violation of election laws and to institute
In the landmark case of De Jesus vs. People, the the criminal informations therefor?
Supreme Court ruled: The grant to the COMELEC of the RULING:
power. among others, to enforce and administer all
laws relative to the conduct of election and the There is no dispute that the Comelec is vested
concomitant authority to investigate and prosecute with power and authority to conduct preliminary
election offenses is not without compelling reason. The investigation of all election offenses punishable
evident constitutional intendment in bestowing this under the Omnibus Election Code and to
power to the COMELEC is to ensure the free, and prosecute such offenses in court under Section
honest conduct of elections, failure of which would 265.
result i ii the frustration of the true will of the people
and make a mere Idle ceremony of the sacred right We note that while Section 265 of the Code vests
and duty of every qualified citizen to vote. To divest "exclusive power" to conduct preliminary
the COMELEC of the authority to investigate and investigation of election offenses and to
prosecute election offenses committed by public prosecute the same upon the Comelec, it at the
same time authorizes the Comelec to avail itself of the disregard of, or disobedience to its directive, order, or
assistance of other prosecuting arms of the decision.
Government.
The concurrence of the President with the delegation
Section 2 of Article IX-C of the 1 987 Constitution by Comelec of the prosecuting arms of the
clearly envisage that the Comelec would not be Government, was expressed in general terms and in
compelled to carry out all its functions directly advance in Executive Order No. 134, entitled "Enabling
and by itself alone. Act for the Elections for members of Congress on May
11, 1987, and for other purposes."
Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise
the following powers and functions: The

(1) Enforce and administer all laws and regulations (1) Contention of private respondents that the
relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, deputation by the Comelec of the prosecuting
initiative, referendum, and recall. arms of the Government would be warranted
only BEFORE the elections and
(4) Deputize, with the concurrence of the President,
law enforcement agencies and instrumantalities of the (2) Only to ensure tree, honest, orderly,
Government, including the Armed Forces of the peaceful and credible elections, that is, to
Philippines, for the exclusive purpose of ensuring free perform the peace-keeping functions of
orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections. policemen, lack substance.

(6) File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own There is nothing in Section 2 (4) of Article IX-C of the
initiative, petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion of Constitution which requires such a pinched niggardly
voters; investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute interpretation of the authority of the Comelec to
cases of violation of election laws, including acts or appoint as its deputies, officials or employees of other
omissions constituting election frauds, offenses, and agencies and instrumentalities of the government.
malpractices.
The prompt investigation and prosecution and
(8) Recommend to the President the removal of any disposition of election offenses constitute an
officer or employee it has deputized, or the imposition indispensable part of the task of securing free,
of any other disciplinary action, for violation or orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections.
The investigation and prosecution of election department of the Government where the prosecution
offenses are, in an important sense, more and other officers deputized are ordinarily located.
important than the maintenance of physical
order in election precinct. All this the respondent Judge disregarded when he
motu proprio dismissed the criminal informations filed
'without the assistance of provincial and city in this case. The cases he cited in his identical orders
fiscals and their assistants and staff members, and of — De Jesus v. People, 120 SCRA 760 (1983) and
the state prosecutors of the Department of Justice, the Corpus, et al. v. Tanodbayan, 149 SCRA 281 (1987)
prompt and fair investigation and prosecution of can offer him no comfort at all; for these cases do not
election offenses committed before or in the relate to the authority of the Comelec to deputize the
course of nationwide elections would simply not regular prosecution arms of the Government for the
be possible, unless, perhaps, the Comelec had a investigation and prosecution of election offenses and
bureaucracy many times larger than what it actually those cases are not in conflict with our ruling here.
has.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on certiorari is
Moreover, the prosecution officers designated by the hereby GRANTED due course and the Orders of the
Comelec become deputies or agents of the Comelec trial court all dated October 6, 1987 in Criminal Cases
and pro tanto subject to the authority, control and Nos. 324, 326 and 375 and the Order dated December
supervision of the Comelec in respect of the particular 7, 1987 in the same cases denying the People's Motion
functions covered by such deputation. for Reconsideration, are hereby SET ASIDE and
ANNULLED. The trial court is ORDERED to proceed
The acts of such deputies within the lawful scope of forthwith with the continuation of Criminal
their delegated authority are, in legal contemplation, Cases Nos. 324, 326 and 375 and until termination
the acts of the Comelec itself. thereof. Costs against private respondents.SO
The only limitation the Constitution itself places upon ORDERED.
the Comelec's authority over its deputies relates to the
enforcement of such authority through administrative
sanctions. Such sanctions-e.g., suspension or removal-
may be recommended by the Comelec to the President
(Sec. 2 [8], Article IX-C, 1987 Constitution) rather than
directly imposed by the Comelec, evidently, to pre-
empt and avoid potential difficulties with the executive