Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
ESTRELLA vs COMELEC
ROMEO M. ESTRELLA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, et al.
429 SCRA 789 (2004), EN BANC (Carpio Morales, J.)
Nowhere in the COMELEC Rules does it allow a Commissioner to
voluntarily inhibit with reservation.
FACTS: Rolando Salvador was proclaimed winner in a mayoralty race in
May 14, 2001 elections. His opponent, Romeo Estrella, filed before
Regional Trial Court (RTC) an election protest which consequently annulled
Salvadors proclamation and declared Estrella as the duly elected mayor
and eventually issued writ of execution. While Salvador filed a petition for
certiorari before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), raffled to the
Second Division thereof, Estrella moved for inhibition of Commissioner
Ralph Lantion, but a Status Quo Ante Order was issued. However,
Commissioner Lantion voluntarily inhibited himself and designated another
Commissioner to substitute him. The Second Division, with the new judge,
affirmed with modifications the RTC decision and declared Estrella as the
duly elected mayor. Salvador filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was
elevated to the COMELEC En Banc, in which this time, Commissioner
Lantion participated by virtue of Status Quo Ante Order issued by the
COMELEC En Banc. He said that as agreed upon, while he may not
participate in the Division deliberations, he will vote when the case is
elevated to COMELEC En Banc. Hence, Estrella filed a Petition for Certiorari
before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether a COMELEC Commissioner who inhibited himself in
Division deliberations may participate in its En Banc deliberation
HELD: The Status Quo Ante Order dated November 5, 2003 issued by the
COMELEC En Banc is nullified. Commissioner Lantions voluntary piecemeal
inhibition cannot be countenanced. Nowhere in the COMELEC Rules does it
allow a Commissioner to voluntarily inhibit with reservation. To allow him
to participate in the En Banc proceedings when he previously inhibited
himself in the Division is, absent any satisfactory justification, not only
judicially unethical but legally improper and absurd.
Since Commissioner Lantion could not participate and vote in the issuance
of the questioned order, thus leaving three (3) members concurring
therewith, the necessary votes of four (4) or majority of the members of
the COMELEC was not attained. The order thus failed to comply with the
number of votes necessary for the pronouncement of a decision or order.