REVIEWER: Rule 64 Review of Judgments and Final Orders or Resolution of the Commission on Elections and Commission on Audit
RULE 64 REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS OR
RESOLUTIONS OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND COMMISSION ON AUDIT
WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF RULE 64?
This Rule shall govern the review of
judgments and final orders or resolutions of:
- Commission on Election; and the
- Commission on Audit
WHAT IS THE MODE OF REVIEW?
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.
WHAT IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE REVIEW?
A judgment or final order or resolution
of the:
- Commission on Elections; and
- Commission on Audit
WHO
INITIATED THE PETITION?
By the aggrieved party.
WHERE TO FILE THE PETITION?
Supreme Court.
NOTE:
- Constitutional
basis of the mode of review.
Article 9
Section 7 of the 19887 Constitution provides
“… Unless
otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision of each
Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved
party within thirty days from the receipt of a copy thereof.
- Review of
final decisions or resolutions of COMELEC en banc.
In Sahali v. Commission on Elections (First
Division) the Supreme Court held that the power of this Court to review
election cases falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the COMELEC only
extends to final decisions or resolutions of the COMELEC en banc not to
interlocutory orders issued by a Division thereof.
In Ambil Jr. v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court
elucidate on the import of Section 7 Article 9 of the Constitution.
“We have interpreted this
provision to mean final orders, rulings
and decisions of the COMELEC rendered in the exercise of his adjudicatory
or quasi-judicial powers.” This decision must be a final decision or resolution of the COMELEC en banc, not of a division, certainly not an interlocutory of a
division.
- The
Supreme Court has no power to review via certiorari, an interlocutory order or
even a final resolution of a Division of the Commission on Elections.
-
The
mode by which a decision, order or ruling of the Comelec en banc may be
elevated to the Supreme Court is by the special civil action of certiorari
under Rule 65 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court, now expressly provided in
Rule 64, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
- Rule
65, Section 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended requires that there be
no appeal, or any plain speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law.
- A
motion for reconsideration is a plain and adequate remedy provided by law.
Failure to abide by this procedural requirement constitutes a ground for
dismissal of the petition.
- In
like manner, a decision, order or resolution of a division of the Comelec must
be reviewed by the Comelec en banc via a motion for reconsideration before the
final en banc decision may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari.
- The
pre-requisite filing of a motion for reconsideration is mandatory.
- Thus
the orders issued by the First Division of the COMELEC were merely
interlocutory orders since they only disposed of an incident in the main case.
Hence, the proper recourse of the petitioners is to await the decision of the
COMELEC First Division in the election protest and should they be aggrieved
thereby, to appeal the same to the COMELEC en banc by filing a motion for
reconsideration.
- Remedy
to assail an interlocutory order by a COMELEC Division
GR. In Cagas v. COMELEC,
the Supreme Court that a party aggrieved by an interlocutory order issued
by a Division of the Commission on Elections in an election protest may not
directly assail the order in court through a special civil action for
certiorari.
- The
remedy is to seek the review of an interlocutory order during the appeal of the decision of the Division
in due course.
-
Appeal
the denial to the COMELEC en banc.
ETR. Kho v.
Commission on Elections
- Protestant
assailed the order of the COMELEC First Division admitting an answer with
counter-protest belatedly filed in an election protest by filing a petition for
certiorari directly in this Court on the ground that the order constituted
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC First Division.
- The
Court granted the petition and nullified the assailed order for being issued
without jurisdiction.
- In a
situation such as this where the Commission in division committed grave abuse
of discretion or acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing
interlocutory orders relative to an action pending before it and the
controversy did not fall under any instances mentioned in Section 2, Rule 3 of
the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the remedy of the aggrieved party is not to
refer the controversy to the Commission en banc as this is not permissible
under its present rules but to elevate it to this Court via a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
- THEREFORE,
under the exception the Supreme Court may take cognizance of a petition for certiorari
under Rule 64 to review an interlocutory
order issued by Division of the COMELEC on the ground of the issuance being
made without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when:
1.
it does not appear to be specifically
provided under the COMELEC Rules of procedure that the matter is one that the
COMELEC en banc may sit and consider; or
2.
a
Division is not authorized to act; or
3.
the
members of the Division unanimously vote to refer to the COMELEC en banc.
Of necessity,
the aggrieved party can directly resort to the Supreme Court because the
COMELEC en banc is not the proper forum in which the matter concerning the
assailed interlocutory order can be reviewed.
Dela Llana v. COMELEC
- The Kho v. COMELEC exception has no
application herein, because the COMELEC First Division had competence to
determine the lack of detailed specifications of the acts or omissions
complained of as required by Rule 6
Section 7 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8004, and whether such lack called for
the outright dismissal of the protest.
- The
1987 constitution vested in the COMELEC broad powers involving not only the
enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the
conduct of elections but also the resolution and determination of election
controversies.
- The
breadth of such powers encompasses the authority to determine the sufficiency
of allegations contained in every election protest and decide based on such
allegations whether to admit the protest and proceed with the hearing or to
outrightly dismiss the protest in accordance with Section 9, rule 76 of COMELEC
Resolution No. 8004.
- Certiorari
to SC assailing interlocutory orders of COMELEC DIVISION
ETR. In Sahali v. COMELEC citing
Kho v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court
may take cognizance of a certiorari action directed against an interlocutory
order issued by a Division of the COMELEC when the following circumstances are
present:
1. The order was issued without jurisdiction
or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to
lack or excess of jurisdiction;
2. Under the COMELEC Rules and procedure, the
subject matter of the controversy is a matter which:
a.
The
COMELEC en banc may not sit and consider; or
b.
A
division is not authorized to act; or
c.
the
members of the Division unanimously vote to refer to the COMELEC en banc.
- In
Repol v. COMELEC – Remedy to assail Interlocutory Orders of the COMELEC in
Division
-
Where
the COMELEC in division allegedly committed grave abuse of discretion or acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing an interlocutory order, the applicable rule is Section 5 (c), Rule
3 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which states –
Section 5.
Quorum; Votes required. –
c. Any motion
to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of a division shall be
resolved by the Commission en banc except
motions on interlocutory orders of the division, which shall be resolved by the
division which issued the order.
- The Supreme Court held that since the COMELEC First Division issued the interlocutory order, the same COMELEC First Division should resolve Repol’s motion for reconsideration of the order.
- The
remedy of the aggrieved party is neither to file a motion for reconsideration
for certification to the COMELEC en banc nor to elevate the issue to Supreme
Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure.
- Ratiocination why the case of Kho was not applied in Sahali v. COMELEC
|
Kho v. COMELEC |
Sahali v. COMELEC |
|
COMELEC First Division did not acquire
jurisdiction on the answer with counter-protest since it was filed beyond the
reglementary period and, consequently, did not have any authority to act on
the issues raised therein and all the incidents arising therefrom. |
COMELEC First Division is authorized to
act on the ex-parte motion for the technical examination of the said election
paraphernalia. The COMELEC First Division has already acquired jurisdiction
over the election protest filed.
Concomitant such
acquisition of jurisdiction is the authority of the COMELEC First Division to
rule on the issues raised by the parties and all the incidents arising
therefrom, including the authority to act on the ex-parte motion for
technical examination of said election paraphernalia. |
- Review
of judgments and final orders of Commission on Audit
In Reblora v. AFP, the Supreme Court dismiss the petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 on account of it being the wrong remedy.
- Decisions
and resolutions of the COA are reviewable by the Supreme Court thru a special
civil action of certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to rule 65 of the Rules of
Court.
- Rule
64 Section 2 which implements the mandate of Article 9-A Section 7 of the Constitution
is clear on this.
- The
Constitution and Rules of Court precisely limits the permissible scope of
inquiry in such cases only to errors of jurisdiction r grave abuse of
discretion.
- Hence,
unless tainted with grave abuse of discretion, simple errors of judgment
committed by the COA cannot be reviewed- even by the Supreme Court.
- Decision
of the COMELEC on the disqualification may be reviewed under Rule 64
In case of Tecson v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court held that the decision of the COMELEC on disqualification cases may be reviewed by the Supreme Court per Rule 64 in an action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of the Civil Procedure.
WHEN TO FILE THE PETITION? (Timeliness of the petition)
Within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed.
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF FILING A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR
RECONSIDERATION?
The filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration of said judgment or final order or resolution, if allowed under the procedural rules of the Commission concerned, shall interrupt the period herein fixed.
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THE DENIAL OF MOTION FOR NEW
TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION?
If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of denial.
IS FRESH PERIOD RULE APPLICABLE IN RULE 64?
No. Fresh
period is not applicable.
In Pates
v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court did not find any merit on the petitioner’s
contention that the fresh period under Rule 65 should likewise apply to
petition for certiorari of COMELEC ruling filed under Rule 64.
- The
Rules of Court provide for a separate rule (Rule 64) specifically applicable
only to decisions of the COMELEC and COA. This Rule expressly refers to the
application of Rule 65 in the filing of the petition for certiorari, subject to
the exception clause – “except as hereinafter provided.
- Rule
64 cannot be equated to Rule 65 even if it expressly refers to the latter rule.
They exist as separate rules for substantive reasons.
- The
exception that Rule 64 Section 2 refers to is Section 3 which provides for a
special period for the filing of petitions for certiorari from the decision or
ruling – they provide for different reglementary periods.
|
RULE 64 |
RULE 65 |
|
The period of filing of petition for certiorari is 30 days from the notice of the
decision or ruling |
The period of filing of petition for certiorari is 60 days from the notice of the
decision or ruling |
|
With the intervening period used for the filing of any
motion for reconsideration deductible
from the originally-granted 30 days -
fresh period is not applicable |
With the intervening period used for the filing of any
motion for reconsideration but provides
a fresh period of 60 days. |
In Lokin v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court denied the petition under Rule 64 for being filed outside the requisite period.
CAN THE PROCEDURAL RULES ON THE TIME TO FILE A
PETITION UNDER RULE 64 BE RELAXED?
In Osmena v. COA, the Supreme Court to
give effect to a party’s right to appeal relaxed the procedural rule involving
the time to file the petition under Rule 64.
The Supreme Court have recognized
exceptions to the Rules but only for the
most compelling reasons where stubborn obedience to the Rules defeat rather
than serve the ends of justice.
- Every
plea for a liberal construction of the Rules must at least be accompanied by an
explanation of why the party litigant failed to comply with the Rules and by a
justification for the requested liberal construction.
- Where strong considerations of substantive justice are manifest in the petition, the Supreme Court may relax the strict application of the rules of procedure in the exercise of its legal jurisdiction.
WHEN TO PAY DOCKET AND OTHER LAWFUL FEES?
Upon filing of the petition, the petitioner shall pay to the clerk of court the docket and other lawful fees and deposit the amount of P500.00 for costs.
WHAT IS THE FORM AND CONTENTS OF THE
PETITION?
The petition
shall:
1. Be verified and filed in eighteen (18)
legible copies;
2. Name the aggrieved party as petitioner and
join as respondents the Commission concerned and the person or persons
interested in sustaining the judgment, final order or resolution a quo;
3. State the facts with certainty, present clearly the issues involved; set forth the grounds; and
4. Brief arguments relied upon the review, and pray for judgment annulling or modifying the questioned judgment, final order or resolution; findings of facts of the commission supported by substantial evidence shall be final and non-reviewable.
5. Accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate
original or certified true copy of the judgment, final order or resolution
subject thereof, together with certified true copies of such material portions
of the record as are referred to therein and other documents relevant and
pertinent thereto;
6. The requisite number of copies of the petition shall contain plain copies of all documents attached to the original copy of said petition. State the specific material dates showing that it was filed within the period fixed herein, and shall contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3 Rule 46.
7. Accompanied by proof of service of a copy
thereof on the Commission concerned and on the adverse party, and of the timely
payment of docket and other lawful fees.
NOTE: The number of copies of the petition is now subject to the Efficient Use of Paper Rule (A.M. 11-9-4-SC)
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT
OF THE RULES?
The failure of petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
WHAT IS THE EFFECT IF PETITION IS
SUFFICIENT IN FORM AND SUBSTANCE?
If the Supreme Court finds the petition sufficient in form and substance it shall order the respondents to file their comments on the petition within ten (10) days from notice thereof.
WHAT IS THE EFFECT IF PETITION IS NOT
SUFFICIENT IN FORM AND SUBSTANCE?
The Court may dismiss the petition outright.
WHAT IS THE EFFECT IF PETITION IS FOR
DELAY OR QUESTIONS REASIED ARE TOO SUBSTANTIAL?
The Court may
also dismiss the petition if:
1. it was filed manifestly for delay; or
2. the questions raised are too unsubstantial to warrant the proceedings.
HOW MANY COPIES OF RESPONDENTS’ COMMENTS
MUST BE FILED?
The comments of the respondents shall be filed in eighteen (18) legible
copies.
However, the number of copies is now subject to the Efficient Use of Paper Rule (A.M. 11-9-4-SC).
WHAT TO ACCOMPANY THE ORIGINAL AND OTHER
COPIES?
The original shall be accompanied by certified true copies of such
material portions of the record as are referred to therein together with other
supporting papers.
The requisite number of copies of the comments shall contain plain copies of all documents attached to the original and a copy thereof shall be served on the petitioner.
NOTE:
GR. No other pleading may be filed by any party
ETR. Unless required or allowed by the court.
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF FILING OF PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI?
GR. The effect of filing of a petition for certiorari shall not stay the
execution of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed.
ETR. Unless the Supreme Court shall direct otherwise upon such terms as it may deem just.
WHEN PETITION CONSIDERED SUBMITTED FOR
DECISION?
GR. The case
shall be deemed submitted for decision:
1. Upon the filing of the comments on the
petition or of such other pleadings or papers as may be required or allowed; or
2. The expiration of the period to do so.
ETR. Unless the court:
1. sets the case for oral argument; or
2. requires the parties to submit memoranda.
REFERENCE: Provisional Remedies and Special Civil Actions by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano, LLM; First Edition 2015
Comments
Post a Comment