Scribd
Upload
44 views3 pages

Cruz, Chielsea - Political Law

1) Feliciano Legaspi filed a petition for disqualification against election winners Alfredo Germar and Rogelio Santos Jr., accusing them of vote buying. 2) The COMELEC dismissed the electoral aspect of the petition after failing to reach a majority decision on reconsideration. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing the case according to its rules, as the petition was an original case filed with the COMELEC.

Uploaded by

Chielsea Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
44 views3 pages

Cruz, Chielsea - Political Law

1) Feliciano Legaspi filed a petition for disqualification against election winners Alfredo Germar and Rogelio Santos Jr., accusing them of vote buying. 2) The COMELEC dismissed the electoral aspect of the petition after failing to reach a majority decision on reconsideration. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing the case according to its rules, as the petition was an original case filed with the COMELEC.

Uploaded by

Chielsea Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

FELICIANO P. LEGASPI v.

COMELEC

G.R. No. 216572 September 1, 2015

PEREZ, J.:

FACTS:

Alfredo Germar (Germar) and Rogelio P. Santos, Jr. (Santos), along with one Roberto C.
Esquivel (Esquivel), were among the candidates fielded by the Liberal Party (LP) to vie for local
elective posts in Norzagaray, Bulacan, during the 13 May 2013 elections. Germar ran for the
position of mayor, Santos ran for the position of councilor, and Esquivel ran for the position of
vice-mayor.

Feliciano P. Legaspi, on the other hand, was the National Unity Party’s (NUP’s) bet for mayor of
Norzagaray during the 2013 polls.

After the votes cast by the Norzagaray electorate were tallied, Germar emerged as the highest
vote getter in the mayoralty race. Santos, for his part, also appeared to have secured enough
votes to be the second councilor of the municipality. Esquivel, though, failed in his bid to
become vice-mayor of Norzagaray.

Upon learning about the results of the tally, petitioner immediately filed before the Municipal
Board of Canvassers (MBC) of Norzagaray a motion to suspend the proclamation of Germar and
Santos as winning candidates. Such motion, however, proved to be futile.

At exactly 7:45 a.m. on 14 May 2013, despite the petitioner’s motion, the MBC proclaimed
Germar and Santos as duly elected mayor and councilor of the municipality of Norzagaray,
respectively.

A few hours after the said proclamation, petitioner filed before the COMELEC a Petition for
Disqualification against Germar, Santos, and Esquivel. In it, petitioner accused Germar, Santos,
and Esquivel of having engaged in rampant vote buying during the days leading to the elections.

ISSUE:

Did the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it dismissed the electoral aspect of the
Petition for Disqualification docketed as SPA No. 13-323 (DC) by a “misapplication” of Section
6, Rule 18 of the Comelec Rules?

RULING:

No.

The COMELEC en banc did not err when it dismissed the electoral aspect of SPA No. 13-323
(DC) when it was unable to reach a majority vote after the rehearing. Contrary to what petitioner
asserts, SPA No. 13-323 (DC) is most definitely an action that was filed originally before the
COMELEC within the contemplation of the said provision. While SPA No. 13-323 (DC) reached
the COMELEC en banc only through a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Special
First Division, its character as an original case filed before the commission remains the same.
Hence, the failure of COMELEC en banc to decide in this case properly results in the application
of the first effect of Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules.

SPA No. 13- 323 (DC) was filed, at the first instance, with the COMELEC. Being a petition for
disqualification filed under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, SPA No. 13-323 (DC) was
initially raffled to and decided by a division of the commission. From that point, however, SPA
No. 13-323 (DC) found its way to the COMELEC en banc after a motion for reconsideration
from the decision of the division was filed. Hence, when the COMELEC en banc twice failed to
reach the necessary majority to decide the electoral aspect of SPA No. 13-323 (DC), it applied
the first effect under Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules. We find absolutely nothing
wrong with such application. It is, in fact, reinforced by the very provisions of the COMELEC
Rules and by Mendoza.

You might also like