digested by Ms. Iola Vianka M. Pi non
Facts: On May 10, 1992, the petitioner, as an incumbent City Prosecutor of Davao City, was designated by the COMELEC as Vice-Chairman of the City Board of Canvassers in the said area for the May 11, 1992, synchronized national and local elections conformably with the provisions of Section 20 (a) of Republic Act 6646 and Section 221 (b) of the Omnibus Election Code. Manuel Garcia was proclaimed the winning candidate for a Congressional seat to represent the 2nd District of Davao City. Alterado, the private respondent, filed a number of cases questioning the validity of the proclamation. The cases filed in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and the Office of the Ombudsman was dismissed. What is still pending is an administrative charge, against the Board of Canvassers and herein petitioner for “Misconduct, Neglect of Duty, Gross Incompetence, and Acts Inimical to the Service”, instituted in the COMELEC.
Facts: On May 10, 1992, the petitioner, as an incumbent City Prosecutor of Davao City, was designated by the COMELEC as Vice-Chairman of the City Board of Canvassers in the said area for the May 11, 1992, synchronized national and local elections conformably with the provisions of Section 20 (a) of Republic Act 6646 and Section 221 (b) of the Omnibus Election Code. Manuel Garcia was proclaimed the winning candidate for a Congressional seat to represent the 2nd District of Davao City. Alterado, the private respondent, filed a number of cases questioning the validity of the proclamation. The cases filed in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and the Office of the Ombudsman was dismissed. What is still pending is an administrative charge, against the Board of Canvassers and herein petitioner for “Misconduct, Neglect of Duty, Gross Incompetence, and Acts Inimical to the Service”, instituted in the COMELEC.
Issue: Whether or not the COMELEC has the jurisdiction to take action on the administrative case when in fact the petitioner as a City prosecutor is under the Administrative jurisdiction.
Held: The COMELEC’s authority under Section 2 (6-8), Article 9 of the Constitution is virtually all-encompassing when it comes to election matters, also Section 52, Article 7 of the Omnibus Election Code. It should be stressed that the administrative case against petitioner is in relation to the performance of his duties as an Election canvasser and not as a City Prosecutor. The COMELEC’s mandate includes its authority to exercise direct and immediate suspension and control over national and local officials or employees, including members of any national and local law enforcement agency and instrumentality of the government, required by law to perform duties relative to the conduct of elections. To say that the COMELEC is without jurisdiction to look into charges of election offenses committed by officials and employees of government outside the regular employ of the COMELEC would be to unduly deny to it the proper and sound exercise of such recommendatory power and, perhaps more than that, even a possible denial of the process to the official or employee concerned.
No comments:
Post a Comment