G.R. No. L-27833 (April 18, 1969) Freedom of Speech and Assembly - Subsequent PunishmentFull description
caseFull description
digestFull description
Full description
Digest for ABS CBN v. COMELECFull description
Constitutional Law IFull description
Full case
aaa
Case digestFull description
digest
Chavez v. COMELECFull description
ROMEO JALOSJOS vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS G.R. No. 205033 JUNE 18, 2013 FACTS OF THE CASE
Petitioner Romeo Jalosjos was convicted by final judgement of two counts of rape and six counts of acts of lasciviousness. He served his sentence and was later on issued a Certificate of Discharge from Prison. ears after! Petitioner applied to register as a voter in "amboanga City but was denied by the #cting City $lection %fficer of the $lection Registration &oard due to his previous conviction. Petitioner then filed a petition for inclusion in the permanent 'ist of (oters (oters before the )unicipal *rial *rial Court. Pending resolution of this petition! petitioner filed a CoC in the upcoming local elections. )*C later on ruled for the denial of the petition on account of petitioner+s absolute dis,ualification dis,ualification which in effect deprived him of the right to vote in any election. -ive -ive petiti petitions ons were were filed filed before before the C%)$' C%)$'$C $C first first and second second divisi divisions ons!! intend intended ed for the purpose of cancelling Jalosjos C%C. Pending resolution! the C%)$'$C en C resolved for the denial of petitioner Jalosjos C%C due to the latter+s perpetual absolute dis,ualification as well as his failure to comply with the voter registration re,uirement. *hus this petition. ISSUE
/% the C%)$ C%)$'$C '$C En Banc act acted bey beyond ond its its juri urisdi sdicti ction when hen proprio Resolution o. 0123 and in so doing! violated petitioner+s right to due process.
it
issue ssued d motu
RULING
4ection 3 #rticle 567c of the Philippine Constitution re,uiring a motion for reconsideration before the C%)$'$C $n &anc may ta8e action is confined only to cases where the COMELEC exercises its quasi-judicial power . 5t finds no application! however! in matters concerning the C%)$'$C+s exercise of administrative functions. *he C%)$'$C En Banc did did not exercise its ,uasi7judicial functions when it issued Resolution o. 0123 as it did not assume jurisdiction over any pending petition or resolve any election case before it or any of its divisions. Rather, it merely performed its duty to enforce and administer election laws in cancelling petitioners CoC on the !asis of his perpetual a!solute disqualification, the fact of which which had already !een esta!lished esta!lished !y his final con"icti con"iction on . 5n this this regard regard!! the C%)$'$C C%)$'$C En Banc was was exercising its administrative functions! dispensing with the need for a motion for reconsideration of a division ruling under 4ection 3! #rticle 567C of the Constitution! the same being re,uired only in ,uasi7 judicial proceedings. proceedings. DOCTRINE 9 /hile the denial of due course to and:or cancellation of one+s CoC generally necessitates
the exercise of the C%)$'$C+s ,uasi7judicial functions commenced through a petition based on either 4ections 2;;< or =>;2 of the %$C! or 4ection ?< ;; of the '@C! when the grounds therefor are rendered conclusive on account of final and executory judgments A as when a candidate+s dis,ualification dis,ualification to run for public office is based on a final conviction A such exercise falls within the C%)$'$C+s administrative functions.