MACABAGO VS COMELEC

A was proclaimed Mayor of X City in the 2001 Elections. B, the losing candidate filed a petition with the
COMELEC alleging fraud and irregulatrities perpetrated the election which was then granted. A contends
that COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdtiction when it
issued the order that is not a pre-proclamation controversy but a regular election contest through Rule
65. Is A correct?

Yes. A is correct.

Pursuant to Rule 64 of ROC, this rule shall govern the review of judgments and final orders or resolutions
of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit. Moreover, when the COMELEC acts
capriciously or whimsically, with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
issuing such an order, the aggrieved party may seek redress from this Court via a special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules.

In this case, A is correct in saying that the attending fraud and irregularities does not warrant a pre-
proclamation controversy, hence, the COMELEC in granting the peition has acted with GAD amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction which is a proper remedy under Rule 64 via Rule 65.