This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-03-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The CSC's rule-making power as a constitutional grant is an aspect of its independence as a constitutional commission. It places the grant of this power outside the reach of Congress, which cannot withdraw the power at any time. As we said in Gallardo v. Tabamo, Jr.,[30] a case which upheld the validity of a resolution issued by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), another constitutional commission: Hence, the present Constitution upgraded to a constitutional status the aforesaid statutory authority to grant the Commission broader and more flexible powers to effectively perform its duties and to insulate it further from legislative intrusions. Doubtless, if its rule-making power is made to depend on statutes, Congress may withdraw the same at any time. Indeed, the present Constitution envisions a truly independent Commission on Elections committed to ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections, and to serve as the guardian of the people's sacred right of suffrage the citizenry's vital weapon in effecting a peaceful change of government and in achieving and promoting political stability. [citation omitted] | |||||
|
2012-09-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Section 1,[95] Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution expressly describes all the Constitutional Commissions as independent. Although essentially executive in nature, they are not under the control of the President of the Philippines in the discharge of their respective functions.[96] The Constitution envisions a truly independent Comelec committed to ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections and to serve as the guardian of the people's sacred right of suffrage the citizenry's vital weapon in effecting a peaceful change of government and in achieving and promoting political stability.[97] | |||||
|
2003-07-10 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Section 1, Article IX-A of the Constitution providing for the independence of the constitutional commissions such as the COMELEC. It asserts that its power to formulate rules and regulations has been upheld in Gallardo vs. Tabamo, Jr.[42] where this Court held that the power of the COMELEC to formulate rules and regulations is implicit in its power to implement regulations under Section 2(1) of Article IX-C[43] of the Constitution. COMELEC joins the petitioner in asserting that as an independent constitutional body, it may not be subject to interference by any government instrumentality and that only this Court may review COMELEC rules and only in cases of grave abuse of discretion. The COMELEC adds, however, that another provision, vis-à-vis its rule-making power, to wit:SEC. 17. Voting by Mail. | |||||