Aratuc Vs. Comelec88 Scra 251

Aratuc vs. COMELEC88 SCRA 251

FACTS: On April 7, 1978, election for the position of Representative to the BatasangPambansa were held throughout the Philippines. The cases at bar concern only the results of the elections in Region XII which comprises the provinces of Lanao Del Sur, Lanao Del Norte,Maguindanao, North Cotabato and Sultan Kudarat, and the cities of Marawi, Iligan andCotabato. Tomatic Aratuc sought the suspension of the canvass then being undertaken by Regional Board of Canvassers in Cotabato City and in which, the returns in 1,966 out of 4,107voting centers in the whole region had already been canvassed showing partial results. ASupervening Panel headed by Commissioner of Election Hon. Venancio S. Duque hadconducted the hearings of the complaints of the petitioners therein of the alleged irregularities in the election records of the mentioned provinces. On July 11, 1978, the Regional Board of Canvassers issued a resolution, over the objection of the Konsensiya ng Bayan candidates, declaring all the eight Kilusan ng Bagong Lipunan candidates elected. Appeal was taken by the KB candidates to the Comelec. On January 13, 1979, the Comelec issued its questioned resolution declaring seven KBL candidates and one KB candidate as having obtained the firsteight places, and ordering the Regional Board of Canvassers to proclaim the winningcandidates. The KB candidates interposed the present petition. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Comelec has committed grave abuse of discretion,amounting to lack of jurisdiction. HELD: “As the Superior administrative body having control over boards of canvassers, the Comelec may review the actuations of the Regional Board of Canvassers, such as by extending its inquiry beyond the election records of the voting centers in questions.” “The authority of the Commission is in reviewing such actuations does not spring from any appellant jurisdiction conferred by any provisions of the law, for there is none such provisionanywhere in the election Code, but from the plenary prerogative of direct control andsupervisi on endowed to it by the provisions in Section 168. And in administrative law, it is a too well settled postulate to need any supporting citation here, that a superior body or office having supervision and control over another may do directly what the latter is supposed to do or ought to have done