Brillantes vs COMELEC, G.R. No. 163193, June 15, 2004

Facts: On December 22, 1997, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 8436 authorizing the COMELEC to use an automated election system (AES) for the process of voting, counting of votes and canvassing/consolidating the results of the national and local elections. It also mandated the COMELEC to acquire automated counting machines (ACMs), computer equipment, devices and materials; and to adopt new electoral forms and printing materials. On October 29, 2002, the COMELEC adopted, in its Resolution No. 02-0170, a modernization program for the 2004 elections consisting of three (3) phases, to wit: (1) PHASE I – Computerized system of registration and voters validation or the so-called "biometrics" system of registration; (2) PHASE II – Computerized voting and counting of votes; and (3) PHASE III – Electronic transmission of results. It resolved to conduct biddings for the three phases. Problems were encountered as to the enforcement of phase I and II, leaving Phase III imposable. The COMELEC issues Resolution No. 6712 regarding the said phase which leads to this petition. Jose Concepcion, Jr., Jose De Venecia, Edgardo J. Angara, Dr. Jaime Z. Galvez-Tan, Franklin M. Drilon, Frisco San Juan, Norberto M. Gonzales, Honesto M. Isleta and Jose A. Bernas, filed with this Court their Motion to Admit Attached Petition-in-Intervention. In their petition-in-intervention, movants-petitioners urge the Court to declare as null and void the assailed resolution and permanently enjoin the respondent COMELEC from implementing the same.

Issue: 1. Whether the petitioner and the petitioners-intervenors have standing to sue;

2. Assuming that they have standing, whether the issues they raise are political in nature over which the Court has no jurisdiction;

3. Assuming the issues are not political, whether Resolution No. 6712 is void:

(a) for preempting the sole and exclusive authority of Congress under Art. VII, Sec. 4 of the 1987 Constitution to canvass the votes for the election of President and Vice-President;

(b) for violating Art. VI, Sec. 29 (par. 1) of the 1987 Constitution that "no money shall be paid out of the treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law;"

(c) for disregarding Rep. Acts Nos. 8173, 8436 and 7166 which authorize only the citizens’ arm to use an election return for an "unofficial" count;

(d) for violation of Sec. 52(i) of the Omnibus Election Code, requiring not less than thirty (30) days notice of the use of new technological and electronic devices; and,

(e) for lack of constitutional or statutory basis; and,

4. Whether the implementation of Resolution No. 6712 would cause trending, confusion and chaos.

Held: 1. The Petitioners And Petitioners-In-Intervention Possess The Locus Standi To Maintain The Present Action

2. The Issue Raised By The Petition Is Justiciable

3. The Respondent COMELEC Committed Grave Abuse Of Discretion Amounting To Lack Or Excess Of Jurisdiction In Issuing Resolution No. 6712

The assailed Resolution No. 6712 dated April 28, 2004 issued by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc is hereby declared NULL AND VOID.

Guieb vs. Fontanilla, 247 SCRA 348, Aug. 14, 1995

Facts: The petitioner and the private respondent Manuel Asuncion, were candidates for the position of Punong Barangay of Barangay Nilombot, Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan, in the barangay election of May 9, 1994. The former was proclaimed as the winning candidate then the latter filed an election protest with the MTC of Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan. On May 27, 1994, the MTC confirmed the proclamation of the petitioner and dismissed the protest of the private respondent. The private respondent then appealed the decision to the RTC of Dagupan City. In its decision of August 31, 1994, RTC reversed the decision of the MTC. On November 25, 1994, the private respondent immediately filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution. RTC declared that the motion should be properly filed with the court of origin and that the decision of 3August 31, 1994 had already become final. On December 12, 1994, the petitioner filed with this Court a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review on certiorari which was denied because of his failure to submit an affidavit of service of that motion. On February 8, 1995, he filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial. Meanwhile, on December 20, 1994, the private respondent filed with the MTC a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution. MTC deferred action on the said motion and required the petitioner's counsel to inform the court of the status of his petition with this Court but the latter failed to comply with the said order, so the court issued an order on granting the issuance of a writ of execution. However, the court received the said counsel's Compliance later on, wherein he informed the court of the petitioner's motion to reconsider this Court's resolution denying the motion for extension of time to file his petition. In a resolution the Court required the respondent to comment on the petition. The petitioner filed with the MTC an Urgent Motion to Stay and/or Suspend Execution which was denied on the ground that the writ must have already been implemented and, therefore, the motion to stay or suspend the same has become moot and academic. The sheriff returned the writ of execution with the information that he enforced the writ and proclaimed the private respondent as Punong Barangay of Barangay Nilombot, Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan.

Issue: Whether or not RTC has a jurisdiction over this case.

Held: No. Under Article IX, Section 2, Paragraph 2-C of the Constitution, it is the COMELEC, and not the Regional Trial Courts, that has exclusive jurisdiction over all contests involving elective barangay officials decided by courts of limited jurisdiction, which are the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.