SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SEPARATE OPINION

MENDOZA, J., concurring in the judgment:

Sec. 246 of the Omnibus Election Code provides:

Summary proceeding before the Commission. - All pre-proclamation controversies shall be heard summarily by the Commission after due notice and hearing, and its decisions shall be executory after the lapse of five days from receipt by the losing party of the decision of the Commission, unless restrained by the Supreme Court.

This provision has been amended by R.A. No. 7166, 18 of which provides:

Summary disposition of pre-proclamation controversies. - All pre-proclamation controversies on election returns or certificates of canvass shall, on the basis of the records and evidence elevated to it by the board of canvassers, be disposed of summarily by the Commission within seven (7) days from receipt thereof. Its decision shall be executory after the lapse of seven (7) days from receipt by the losing party of the decision of the Commission.

The amendment has the following effects:

1. In the disposition of pre-proclamation controversies involving election returns and certificates of canvass, the previous requirement of notice and hearing has been eliminated.

2. The COMELEC is directed to decide such pre-proclamation controversies solely on the basis of records and evidence elevated to it by boards of canvassers.

3. The COMELEC is directed to decide the case within seven (7) days from receipt thereof.

4. The COMELEC's decision becomes executory upon the lapse of seven (7) days from receipt by the losing party of the decision.

The requirement of notice and hearing in the disposition of pre-proclamation controversies was singled out in the explanatory note to Senate Bill No. 1861, which became R.A. No. 7166, as a major reason for delays in resolving pre-proclamation cases appealed to the COMELEC. There is, thus, no doubt of Congress's intention to do away with the need for notice and hearing in the COMELEC in the disposition of pre-proclamation controversies involving election returns and certificates of canvass.

Nor is notice and hearing required by the Due Process Clause of our Constitution. The parties have already been duly heard before the board of canvassers, and their case elevated to the COMELEC on the basis of the records of the board. On the other hand, there is a need for pre-proclamation controversies to be summarily disposed of in order to remove any uncertainty as to the results of the election. This can only be achieved by limiting the appeal to a review of the evidence in the records of the board of canvassers.

In the case at bar, the COMELEC bent over to accommodate private respondent by allowing him to file numerous pleadings and affidavits, when 18 of R.A. No. 7166 clearly directs that it dispose of pre-proclamation controversies, using the records and evidence elevated to it by the board of canvassers as basis for its decision.

Not only did the COMELEC disregard the clear mandate of the law. As detailed in the opinion of the Court written by Justice Puno, the COMELEC employed a systematic pattern of exclusion to the prejudice of petitioner. It was that conduct of the case and not any lack of notice and hearing that, in my opinion, deprived petitioner of due process.

I, therefore, vote to grant the petition in this case and to set aside the resolution dated October 6, 1998 of the COMELEC en banc and to order the reinstatement of petitioner Arthur V. Velayo as mayor of Gapan, Nueva Ecija. X