The determination of whether a candidate is eligible for the position he is seeking involves a determination of fact where parties must be allowed to adduce evidence in support of their contentions.31 We thus caution the Comelec against its practice of impetuous cancellation of COCs via minute resolutions adopting the recommendations of its Law Department when the situation properly calls for the case's referral to a Division for summary hearing. - G.R. No. 205136

See - G.R. No. 205136

G.R. No. 205136               

December 2, 2014

OLIVIA DA SILVA CERAFICA, Petitioner, 

vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

"x x x.

LACK OF DUE PROCESS

Moreover, in simply relying on the Memorandum of Director Amora Ladra in cancelling Kimberly’s COC and denying the latter’s substitution by Olivia, and absent any petition to deny due course to or cancel said COC, the Court finds that the Comelec once more gravely abused its discretion. The Court reminds the Comelec that, inthe exercise of it adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers, the Constitution27 mandates it to hear and decide cases first by Division and, upon motion for reconsideration, by the En Banc.

Where a power rests in judgment or discretion, so that it is of judicial nature or character, but does not involve the exercise of functions of a judge, or is conferred upon an officer other than a judicial officer, it is deemed quasi-judicial.28 As cancellation proceedings involve the exercise of quasi judicial functions of the Comelec, the Comelec in Division should have first decided this case.

In Bautista v. Comelec, et al.,29 where the Comelec Law Department recommended the cancellation of a candidate’s COC for lack of qualification, and which recommendation was affirmed by the Comelec En Banc, the Court held that the Comelec En Banc cannot short cut the proceedings by acting on the case without a prior action by a division because it denies due process to the candidate. The Court held:

A division of the COMELEC should have first heard this case. The COMELEC en banc can only act on the case if there is a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the COMELEC division. Hence, the COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction when it ordered the cancellation of Bautista’s certificate of candidacy without first referring the case to a division for summary hearing.

x x x x

Under Section 3, Rule 23 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a petition for the denial or cancellation of a certificate of candidacy must be heard summarily after due notice. It is thus clear that cancellation proceedings involve the exercise of the quasi-judicial functions of the COMELEC which the COMELEC in division should first decide. More so in this case where the cancellation proceedings originated not from a petition but from a report of the election officer regarding the lack of qualification of the candidate in the barangay election. The COMELEC en bane cannot short cut the proceedings by acting on the case without a prior action by a division because it denies due process to the candidate.30 (Emphasis supplied.)

The determination of whether a candidate is eligible for the position he is seeking involves a determination of fact where parties must be allowed to adduce evidence in support of their contentions.31 We thus caution the Comelec against its practice of impetuous cancellation of COCs via minute resolutions adopting the recommendations of its Law Department when the situation properly calls for the case's referral to a Division for summary hearing.

x x x."