Garcia Vs de Jesus (Jurisdiction To Issue Writs)
Garcia Vs de Jesus (Jurisdiction To Issue Writs)
Garcia Vs de Jesus (Jurisdiction To Issue Writs)
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
In the 18 January 1988 local elections, Petitioners Daniel GARCIA and Teodoro O’HARA
were the winning candidates for Mayor and Vice Mayor, respectively, of Antipolo, Rizal.
They were proclaimed as such on 22 January 1988.
Petitioner TOBON UY filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court of Ilagan,
Isabela, Branch 16 (RTC
The day before, or on 9 January 1991, NEYRA filed before the COMELEC a Petition
for Certiorari and/or Prohibition,virtua1aw library
On 10 January 1991, the RTC, after due hearing, gave due course to NEYRA’s appeal,
granted execution pending appeal stating the special reasons
On the same date, the COMELEC issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the
RTC from further proceeding with the case. NEYRA’s application for a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction was likewise set for hearing by the COMELEC on 24 January 1991.
ISSU library
ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction to issue Writs of certiorari, prohibition
I.
In the absence of any specific conferment upon the COMELEC, either by the
Constitution or by legislative fiat, the COMELEC is bereft of jurisdiction to issue said
Writs.
It is the COMELEC alone, invoking its Constitutionally invested appellate jurisdiction and
rule-making power, that arrogated unto itself the authority to issue Writs of Certiorari,
Prohibition and Mandamus in Rule 28, Section 1, of its Rules of Procedure, thus: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
In the Philippine setting, the authority to issue Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and
Mandamus involves the exercise of original jurisdiction. Thus, such authority has always
been expressly conferred, either by the Constitution or by law. As a matter of fact, the
well-settled rule is that jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or by law. It is
never derived by implication
Significantly, what the Constitution granted the COMELEC was appellate jurisdiction.
The Constitution makes no mention of any power given the COMELEC to exercise
original jurisdiction over Petitions for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus unlike in the
case of the Supreme Court which was specifically conferred such authority (Art. VIII,
Sec, 5[1]). The immutable doctrine being that jurisdiction is fixed by law, the power to
issue such Writs cannot be implied from the mere existence of appellate jurisdiction.
NOTE: