Remedial law - Motion for execution & Stay of execution
digestFull description
case digest and raw
DigestFull description
Full description
eLECTIONFull description
ConstiFull description
Sanchez vs COMELECFull description
Digest of Lopez vs COMELEC
lkhhllkj
caseFull description
digest for ethicsFull description
Quasi-judicial function
Ejercito Vs COmelec
Grego vs. COMELEC GR. No. 125955, June 19, 1997 FACTS: On Oct. 31. 1981, private respondent Basco was removed from office as Deputy sheriff by the court upon finding of serious misconduct in an administrative complaint. Ran for councilor in the second district of Manila and had won the race for 3 term. On his final term, an election protest was filed against him by petitioner Grego, seeking to disqualify him on the ground that he was removed previously in an office as a result of an administrative case. On May 14, 1995, COMELEC ordered the parties to submit memoranda, but before the parties able to comply the directive, the Board of Canvassers proclaimed Basco as duly elected councilor and took his oath of office. Petitioner contends that, respondent COMELEC should have suspended the proclamation. Such act according to the petitioner violated the provision of sec. 6 of R.A 6646, which prohibits the proclamation of the elected candidate by the COMELEC pending final judgment on the case filed, uses the word may, therefore giving discretion to order the suspension of the proclamation. ISSUE: ISSUE: Whether or not respondent COMELEC violated the provision of R.A 6646 when it did not suspend the proclamation of the petitioner as the elected councilor pending final judgment of the case filed against it. HELD: It did not. The use of the word “may” in sec.6 of R.A 6646 indicates that the proclamation is merely directory and permissive in nature and confers no jurisdiction. What is merely mandatory, according to the provision itself, is the continuation of trial and hearing of the action, inquiry or protest. The rule or regulations should be within the scope of the authority granted by the legislature to the administrative agency. 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. Since section 6 of R.A 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.