Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 218 views

    Cua V Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Princess Ayoma
    1) The first document discusses a case where the Comelec first division rendered a 2-1 decision in favor of the petitioner but did not unanimously vote to proclaim him winner due to internal rules. The petitioner argued the constitutional provision overrides these rules. 2) The Supreme Court ultimately ruled the 2-1 first division decision and subsequent 3-2 Comelec En Banc decision were both valid based on the constitutional provision. 3) The second document discusses a subsequent case where the Supreme Court abandoned the prior Cua ruling and held that for a Comelec En Banc decision to be valid it requires a majority vote of all its members, not just a majority of those who deliberated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cua V Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Princess Ayoma
    218 views1 page
    1) The first document discusses a case where the Comelec first division rendered a 2-1 decision in favor of the petitioner but did not unanimously vote to proclaim him winner due to internal rules. The petitioner argued the constitutional provision overrides these rules. 2) The Supreme Court ultimately ruled the 2-1 first division decision and subsequent 3-2 Comelec En Banc decision were both valid based on the constitutional provision. 3) The second document discusses a subsequent case where the Supreme Court abandoned the prior Cua ruling and held that for a Comelec En Banc decision to be valid it requires a majority vote of all its members, not just a majority of those who deliberated.

    Original Description:

    Article IX of the 1987 Constitution

    Original Title

    Cua v Comelec

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The first document discusses a case where the Comelec first division rendered a 2-1 decision in favor of the petitioner but did not unanimously vote to proclaim him winner due to internal rules. The petitioner argued the constitutional provision overrides these rules. 2) The Supreme Court ultimately ruled the 2-1 first division decision and subsequent 3-2 Comelec En Banc decision were both valid based on the constitutional provision. 3) The second document discusses a subsequent case where the Supreme Court abandoned the prior Cua ruling and held that for a Comelec En Banc decision to be valid it requires a majority vote of all its members, not just a majority of those who deliberated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    218 views1 page

    Cua V Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Princess Ayoma
    1) The first document discusses a case where the Comelec first division rendered a 2-1 decision in favor of the petitioner but did not unanimously vote to proclaim him winner due to internal rules. The petitioner argued the constitutional provision overrides these rules. 2) The Supreme Court ultimately ruled the 2-1 first division decision and subsequent 3-2 Comelec En Banc decision were both valid based on the constitutional provision. 3) The second document discusses a subsequent case where the Supreme Court abandoned the prior Cua ruling and held that for a Comelec En Banc decision to be valid it requires a majority vote of all its members, not just a majority of those who deliberated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Cua v.

    Commission on Elections | 156 SCRA 582


    FACTS: The first division of Comelec rendered a 2-1decision favoring the petitioner but nevertheless suspended his
    proclamation as winner in the lone congressional district of Quirino due to the lack of the unanimous vote required by the
    procedural rules in Comelec Resolution No. 1669.
    Section 5 of the said resolution states that, A case being heard by it shall be decided with theunanimous concurrence of
    all three Commissionersand its decision shall be considered a decision ofthe Commission. If this required number is not
    obtained, as when there is a dissenting opinion, the case may be appealed to the Commission En Banc, in which case the
    vote of the majority thereof shall be the decision of the Commission.
    Petitioner contends that the 2-1 decision of thefirst division was a valid decision despite theresolution stated above
    because of Art. IX-A, Section 7 of the Constitution. He argues thatthis applies to the voting of the Comelec both in
    division and En Banc.
    Respondent, on the other hand, insists that no decision was reached by the first divisionbecause the required unanimous
    vote was notobtained. It was also argued that no validdecision was reached by the ComelecEn Banc because only three
    votes were cast in favor of the petitioner and these did not constitute the majority of the body.
    ISSUE: Whether the 2-1 decision of the first division was valid.
    RULING:YES. The Court held that the 2-1 decision rendered by the first Division was a valid decision under Article IXA, Section 7 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the three members who voted to affirm the First Division constituted a
    majority of the five members who deliberated and voted thereon En Bancand their decision is also valid under
    theaforecited constitutional provision. Hence, the proclamation of Cua on the basis of the two aforecited decisions was a
    valid act that entitles him now to assume his seat in the House of Representatitves.
    Estrella vs. Commission on Elections | 429 SCRA 789
    FACTS: Before this Court is a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 seeking to set aside and nullify the November 5, 2003
    Status Quo Ante Order issued by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc in EAC No. A0-10-2002, Romeo
    F. Estrella v. Rolando F. Salvador.
    Romeo M. Estrella (petitioner) and Rolando F. Salvador (respondent) were mayoralty candidates in Baliuag, Bulacan
    during the May 14, 2001 Elections. The Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed respondent as 3inner. Petitioner
    thereafter filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulacan an election protest, docketed as EPC No. 10-M-2001,
    which was raffled to Branch 10 thereof.By Decision of April 10, 2002, the RTC annulled respondents proclamation and
    declared petitioner as the duly elected mayor of Baliuag.
    ISSUE: Whether the vote of majority consists of all the members of the COMELEC En Banc.
    RULING: For the foregoing reasons then, this Court hereby abandons the doctrine laid down in Cuaand holds that the
    COMELEC En Banc shall decide a case or matter brought before it by a majority vote of "all its members," and NOT
    majority of the members who deliberated and voted thereon. The provision of the Constitution is clear that decisions
    reached by the COMELEC En Banc should be the majority vote of all its members and not only those who participated
    and took part in the deliberation.

    You might also like