3.s No. 24 Aratuc V Comelec, 88 Scra 251

G.R. No. L-49705-09 February 8, 1979 TOMATIC ARATUC, SERGIO TOCAO, CISCOLARIO DIAZ, FRED TAMULA, MANGONTAWAR GURO and BONIFACIO LEGASPI, petitioners, vs. The COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, REGIONAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS for Region XII (Central Mindanao), ABDULLAH DIMAPORO, JESUS AMPARO, ANACLETO BADOY, et al., respondents. Nos. L-49717-21 February 8,1979. LINANG MANDANGAN, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE REGIONAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS for Region XII, and ERNESTO ROLDAN, respondents. BARREDO, J.: Summary of Doctrine: The certiorari jurisdiction of the Court over orders, and decisions of the COMELEC is not as broad as it used to be and should be confined to instances of grave abuse of discretion amounting to patent and substantial denial of due process. Facts: The instant proceedings are sequels of the Court’s decision in GR no. L-48097 wherein Aratuc et al sought the suspension of the canvass then being undertaken by the respondent Board in Cotabato City. The petitioners in the instant case filed complaints re allege irregularities in the election records in the voting centers in the whole of Lanao Del Sur, Marawi, parts of Lanao del Norte, Maguindanao, North Cotabato and Sultan Kudarat. Before the start of the hearings, the canvass was suspended but after the supervisory panel presented its report, COMELEC lifted its order of suspension and directed the resumption of the canvass to be done in Manila. Thus respondent Board proceeded with the canvass, with the herein petitioners presenting with supporting handwritten report of finger print experts. On July 11, 1978, respondent Board terminated its canvass and declared the result of the voting. The petitioners brought the resolution of respondent Board to the COMELEC. Soon after hearing was held, the COMELEC rendered its resolution declaring the final result of the canvass. Hence, this instant petition for certiorari alleging that COMELEC "committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction". Issue: WON the invocation of Court’s certiorari jurisdiction, not the appellate authority of review is the proper remedy. Ruling: Yes. The Election Code of 1978, which is the first legislative construction of the pertinent constitutional provisions, makes the Commission also the "sole judge of all pre-proclamation controversies" and further provides that "any of its decisions, orders or rulings (in such contoversies) shall be final and executory", just as in election contests, "the decision of the Commission shall be final, and executory and inappealable. The framers of the new Constitution must be presumed to have definite knowledge of what it means to make the decisions, orders and rulings of the Commission “subject to review by the Supreme Court.” And since instead of maintaining that provision intact, it ordained that the Commission’s actuations be instead “brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari”, We cannot insist that there was no intent to change the nature of the remedy, considering that the limited scope of certiorari, compared to a review, is well known in remedial law.

We hold, therefore that under the existing constitution and statutory provisions, the certiorari jurisdiction of the Court over orders, and decisions of the Comelec is not as broad as it used to be and should be confined to instances of grave abuse of discretion amounting to patent and substantial denial of due process. In conclusion, the Court however finds insufficient merit in the petition to warrant its being given due course. Petition dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs.