Zaldivar vs. Estenzo

ZALDIVAR vs.
ESTENZO
G.R. No. L-26065, May 3, 1968
Doctrine: The judiciary may not be a co-participant in the enforcement of election laws.
In the literal language of the Constitution, it empowers the Commission on Elections to “have exclusive charge of
the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections. It is hostile to a democratic
system to involve the judiciary in the politics of the people.
Parties:
Petitioner Geronimo Zaldivar -incumbent municipal mayor of Albuera, Leyte
Respondent Judge Numeriano Estenzo- judge of the CFI of Ormoc City
Facts: A petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction was filed by Zaldivar questioning the competence of CFI
to pass upon and entertain a special civil action to prohibit municipal mayors, presumed to be partial to the
candidacy of a congressional candidate, from appointing special policemen, and agents with the sole purpose, so it
is alleged, to terrorize voters and thus frustrate the basic objective of the Election Code, which is to assure the free
and honest expression of popular will.
In Special Civil Case No. 753-0, Zaldivar was named as respondent with the municipal mayor of another
municipality, a certain Feliciano Larrazabal, acting in their official capacities as Municipal Mayors are known to be
sympathetic to the candidacy of Rodolfo Rivilla, and with grave abuse of discretion have caused to appoint special
policemen and agents to be paid from public funds and to be provided with uniforms and firearms for the sole
purpose of utilizing said special policemen and agents to terrorize and arrest electors sympathetic to Congressman
Dominador M. Tan during the elections of 1965, in the aforesaid municipalities within the 4th District of Leyte.
As contended, the municipal mayors acted without and in excess of their powers as executives of their respective
jurisdictions for there was no authority or sanction that has been obtained from the Executive Secretary and the
COMELEC. Furthermore, the exercise of such powers would be detrimental to the interest of the electorate which
they are bound to protect. In conclusion, the intended acts would frustrate the will of the people to vote freely for
the men of their choice during the elections.
Judge Estenzo issued the order for the arrest of Zaldivar and granted the issuance of WPI in the said special civil
case. Thus, Zaldivar sought for the setting aside of the orders as they were issued by the trial court without
jurisdiction.
Issue: Whether or not Judge Estenzo has the jurisdiction to rule over cases on prohibiting the municipal mayors
from such alleged abuse of authority that is deemed detrimental to the said elections.NO.
Ruling: The function and duties of the COMELEC relative to the conduct of elections and enforcement of election
laws.
Under the Constitution, the Commission on Elections has exclusive charge of the enforcement and
administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections and shall exercise all other functions which may be
conferred upon it by law.
In the implementation of the above constitutional prerogative, the Commission on Elections is vested under the
Election Code with direct and immediate supervision over the provincial, municipal, and city officials designated by
law to perform duties relative to the conduct of elections.
It could even suspend from the performance of said duties any of said officials who shall fail to comply with its
instructions, orders, decisions, or rulings and appoint their temporary substitutes and, upon recommendation of
the Commission, the President of the Philippines may remove any or all such officials who shall be found guilty of
non-feasance, malfeasance, or misfeasance in connection with the performance of their duties relative to the
conduct of elections.
In the special civil action for prohibition before respondent Judge Estenzo, its essentially political character is
manifest, the main allegation being the alleged utilization of the power of petitioner Zaldivar, as municipal
mayor, named respondent therein, to avail himself of the authority of his office to appoint special policemen or
agents to terrorize voters so that they would support the congressional candidate of his choice. Both under the
Constitution and the Revised Election Code, it is not so much the power, but the duty of the Commission on
Elections to exercise supervision over municipal officials precisely to enforce the Election Code. No other agency is
better suited to preclude abuse of authority on the part of local officials, the sanction being that it could
recommend to the President their removal if found guilty of “non-feasance, malfeasance or misfeasance in
connection with the performance of their duties relative to the conduct of elections.”
As early as 1941 in Sumulong v. Commission on Elections, full recognition and awareness of the crucial role to be
played by the Commission in the conduct of elections was evident, the language employed in the opinion of the
then Justice Abad Santos being quite explicit. Thus: "The Commission on Elections is a constitutional body. It is
intended to play a distinct and important part in our scheme of government. In the discharge of its functions, it
should not be hampered with restrictions that would be fully warranted in the case of a less responsible
organization.
The Commission may err, so may this court also. It should be allowed considerable latitude in devising means
and methods that will insure the accomplishment of the great objective for which it was created — free, orderly
and honest elections. The Supreme Court may not agree fully with its choice of means, but unless these are clearly
illegal or constitute gross abuse of discretion, this court should not interfere.
The judiciary may not be a co-participant in the enforcement of election laws.
The obvious answer is the literal language of the Constitution which empowers the Commission on Elections to
“have exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections. It is
hostile to a democratic system to involve the judiciary in the politics of the people.” And it is not less pernicious if
such judicial intervention in an essentially political contest be dressed up in the abstract phrases of the law.
Here, it is easy to realize the chaos that would ensue if the Court of First Instance of each and every province were
to arrogate unto itself the power to disregard, suspend, or contradict. any order of the Commission on Elections;
that constitutional body would be speedily reduced to impotence.

Zaldivar vs. Estenzo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zaldivar vs. Estenzo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zaldivar vs. Estenzo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ZALDIVAR vs.

Petitioner Geronimo Zaldivar -incumbent municipal mayor of Albuera, Leyte

Respondent Judge Numeriano Estenzo- judge of the CFI of Ormoc City

The judiciary may not be a co-participant in the enforcement of election laws.

You might also like