Grego vs COMELEC G.R. No. 125955, June 19, 1997

 

WILMER GREGO, petitioner, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND HUMBERTO BASCO, respondents

 

G.R. No. 125955, June 19, 1997

 

FACTS:

In 1981, Basco was removed from his position as Deputy Sheriff for serious misconduct. Subsequently, he ran as a candidate for councilor in the Second District of the City of Manila during the 1988, local elections. He won and assumed office. After his term, Basco sought re-election. Again, he won. However, he found himself facing lawsuits filed by his opponents who wanted to dislodge him from his position.

Petitioner argues that Basco should be disqualified from running for any elective position since he had been “removed from office as a result of an administrative case” pursuant to Section 40 (b) of Republic Act No. 7160.

For a third time, Basco was elected councilor in 1995. Expectedly, his right to office was again contested. In 1995, petitioner Grego filed with the COMELEC a petition for disqualification. The COMELEC conducted a hearing and ordered the parties to submit their respective memoranda.

However, the Manila City BOC proclaimed Basco in May 1995, as a duly elected councilor for the Second District of Manila, placing sixth among several candidates who vied for the seats. Basco immediately took his oath of office.

COMELEC resolved to dismiss the petition for disqualification. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of said resolution was later denied by the COMELEC,, hence, this petition.

 

ISSUE:

Whether or not COMELEC acted in with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for disqualification.

 

RULING:

 

No. The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of COMELEC in dismissing the petition for disqualification, however, the Court noted that they do not agree with its conclusions and reasons in the assailed resolution.

 

The Court reiterated that being merely an implementing rule, Sec 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure must not override, but instead remain consistent with and in harmony with the law it seeks to apply and implement. Administrative rules and regulations are intended to carry out, neither to supplant nor to modify, the law. The law itself cannot be extended to amending or expanding the statutory requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute. An administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress.

In case of discrepancy between the basic law and a rule or regulation issued to implement said law, the basic law prevails because said rule or regulations cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the basic law. Since Section 6 of Rep. Act 6646, the law which Section 5 of Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure seeks to implement, employed the word “may,” it is, therefore, improper and highly irregular for the COMELEC to have used instead the word “shall” in its rules.

The Court DISMISSED the petition for lack of merit.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO G.R. No. 73748

  [President Corazon C. Aquino] was installed by direct sovereignty, the people. The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in effective control of the entire country. It is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a je jure government; and the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the new government. LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO (G.R. No. 73748 - May 22, 1986) (There is no "Full-Text" of this case. This is a Minute Resolution made by the SC.) Minute Resolutions EN BANC   SIRS/MESDAMES: Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court MAY 22, 1986. In G.R. No. 73748, Lawyers League for a Better Philippines vs. President Corazon C. Aquino, et al .; G.R. No. 73972, People's Crusade for Supremacy of the Constitution vs. Mrs. Cory Aquino, et al ., and G.R. No. 73990, Councilor Clifton U. Ganay vs. Corazon C. Aquino, et al ., the legitimacy of the government of President Aquin...
Read more

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR Natural Resources and Environmental Law; Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian Doctrine   GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000   FACTS : Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The petitioners assail certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.   ISSUE : Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?   HELD : No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there...
Read more

Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003,

V erba legis , that is, wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given their  ordinary meaning  except where technical terms are employed. ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR. vs. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES G.R. No. 160261. November 10, 2003. http://lapispapelatereyser.blogspot.com/2012/10/case-digest_9528.html FACTS: On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a Resolution, sponsored by Representative Felix William D. Fuentebella, which directed the Committee on Justice "to conduct an investigation, in aid of legislation, on the manner of disbursements and expenditures by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)."   On June 2, 2003, former President Joseph E. Estrada filed an impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. and seven Associate Justices of this Court for "culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of the public trust and other high crimes." The complaint ...
Read more