Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NORODIN M. MATALAM v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 193261 2012-04-24	MEYNARDO SABILI v. COMELEC SERENO, J.
Lipa City Assessor Certificate of No Improvement on Block 2, Lot 3, Brgy. Lood, Lipa City registered in the name of petitioner[14]
	GR No. 170365 2010-02-02	ABDUL GAFFAR P.M. DIBARATUN v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
The findings of fact of the COMELEC en banc are binding on this Court. The grounds for failure of election (i.e., force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud, or other analogous cases) involve questions of fact, which can only be determined by the COMELEC en banc after due notice to and hearing of the parties.[14] An application for certiorari against actions of the COMELEC is confined to instances of grave abuse of discretion,[15] amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The COMELEC, as the administrative agency and specialized constitutional body charged with the enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall, has the expertise in its field so that its findings and conclusions are generally respected by and conclusive on the Court.[16]
	GR No. 181869 2009-10-03	ISMUNLATIP H. SUHURI v. COMELEC BERSAMIN, J.
Clearly, Section 243, supra, limits a pre-proclamation controversy to the questions enumerated therein. The enumeration is restrictive and exclusive.[20] Resultantly, the petition for a pre-proclamation controversy must fail in the absence of any clear showing or proof that the election returns canvassed are incomplete or contain material defects (Section 234, Omnibus Election Code); or appear to have been tampered with, falsified or prepared under duress (Section 235, Omnibus Election Code); or contain discrepancies in the votes credited to any candidate, the difference of which affects the result of the election (Section 236, Omnibus Election Code).[21]
	GR No. 180088 2009-01-19	MANUEL B. JAPZON v. COMELEC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The COMELEC, taking into consideration the very same pieces of evidence presently before this Court, found that Ty was a resident of the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, one year prior to the 14 May 2007 local elections. It is axiomatic that factual findings of administrative agencies, such as the COMELEC, which have acquired expertise in their field are binding and conclusive on the Court. An application for certiorari against actions of the COMELEC is confined to instances of grave abuse of discretion amounting to patent and substantial denial of due process, considering that the COMELEC is presumed to be most competent in matters falling within its domain.[21]
	GR No. 178413 2008-03-13	AQUILINO L. PIMENTEL III v. COMELEC EN BANC SITTING AS NATIONAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Boards of canvassers are ad hoc bodies that exist only for the interim task of canvassing election returns. They do not have the facilities, the time and even the competence to hear, examine and decide on alleged election irregularities, unlike regular courts or the COMELEC itself or the electoral tribunals (Presidential, Senate, and House), which are regular agencies of government tasked and equipped for the purpose. While this Court has time and again expressed its abhorrence of the nefarious "grab the proclamation and prolong the protest" strategy of some candidates, nonetheless, it recognizes the very limited jurisdiction of MBOCs and PBOCs. Unless Pimentel is able to show cogently and clearly his entitlement to the summary exclusion of clearly unacceptable certificates of canvass, this Court must uphold the constitutional and legal presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions and authenticity of official documents.[37]
	GR NOS. 166143-47 2006-11-20	ABDUSAKUR M. TAN v. COMELEC VELASCO, JR., J.
For one, there is no law or rule prohibiting the simultaneous prosecution or adjudication of pre-proclamation controversies and elections protests. Allowing the simultaneous prosecution scenario may be explained by the fact that pre-proclamation controversies and election protests differ in terms of the issues involved and the evidence admissible in each case[95] and the objective each seeks to achieve. Moreover, the Court, under certain circumstances, even encourages the reinforcement of a pre-proclamation suit with an election protest. As we held in Matalam v. Commission on Elections:[96]
	GR No. 159369 2004-03-03	NANCY SORIANO BANDALA v. COMELEC SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Matalam vs. Commission on Elections,[8] we stressed that "in a pre-proclamation controversy, the COMELEC, as a rule, is restricted to an examination of the election returns and is without jurisdiction to go beyond or behind them and investigate election irregularities."