Lawyerly

GR No. 189698

2010-02-22

ELEAZAR P. QUINTO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

PUNO, C.J.

An election is the embodiment of the popular will, perhaps the purest expression of the sovereign power of the people.[49] It involves the choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular vote.[50] Considering that elected officials are put in office by their constituents for a definite term, it may justifiably be said that they were excluded from the ambit of the deemed resigned provisions in utmost respect for the mandate of the sovereign will. In other words, complete deference is accorded to the will of the electorate that they be served by such officials until the end of the term for which they were elected. In contrast, there is no such expectation insofar as appointed officials are concerned.

GR No. 189698

2009-12-01

ELEAZAR P. QUINTO v. COMELEC

NACHURA, J.

An election is the embodiment of the popular will, perhaps the purest expression of the sovereign power of the people.[131] It involves the choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular vote.[132] Considering that elected officials are put in office by their constituents for a definite term, it may justifiably be said that they were excluded from the ambit of the deemed resigned provisions in utmost respect for the mandate of the sovereign will of the people. In other words, complete deference is accorded to the will of the electorate that they be served by such officials until the end of the term for which they were elected. In contrast, there is no such expectation insofar as appointed officials are concerned.

GR No. 156052

2008-02-13

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY v. JOSE L. ATIENZA

CORONA, J.

Supervisory power, when contrasted with control, is the power of mere oversight over an inferior body; it does not include any restraining authority over such body.[164] It does not allow the supervisor to annul the acts of the subordinate.[165] Here, what the DOE seeks to do is to set aside an ordinance enacted by local officials, a power that not even its principal, the President, has. This is because:Under our present system of government, executive power is vested in the President. The members of the Cabinet and other executive officials are merely alter egos. As such, they are subject to the power of control of the President, at whose will and behest they can be removed from office; or their actions and decisions changed, suspended or reversed. In contrast, the heads of political subdivisions are elected by the people. Their sovereign powers emanate from the electorate, to whom they are directly accountable. By constitutional fiat, they are subject to the President's supervision only, not control, so long as their acts are exercised within the sphere of their legitimate powers. By the same token, the President may not withhold or alter any authority or power given them by the Constitution and the law.[166]

GR No. 164527

2007-08-15

FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ v. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY

VELASCO, JR., J.

1. Sec. 17, Art. VII of the Constitution provides that "the President shall have control of all executive departments, bureaus and offices." The President is assigned the task of seeing to it that all laws are faithfully executed. "Control," in administrative law, means "the power of an officer to alter, modify, nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer has done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter."[71]

GR No. 130775

2004-09-27

NATIONAL LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY v. VICTORIA ISABEL A. PAREDES

TINGA, J,

Petitioners rely on decision in Taule v. Santos,[40] which, they claim, already passed upon the "extent of authority of the then Secretary of Local Government over the katipunan ng mga barangay or the barangay councils," as it specifically ruled that the "Secretary [of Local Government] has no authority to pass upon the validity or regularity of the election of officers of the katipunan."[41]

GR No. 130775

2004-09-27

NATIONAL LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY v. VICTORIA ISABEL A. PAREDES

TINGA, J,

In the early case of Mondano v. Silvosa, et al.,[83] this Court defined supervision as "overseeing, or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties, and to take such action as prescribed by law to compel his subordinates to perform their duties. Control, on the other hand, means the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter.[84] In Taule v. Santos,[85] the Court held that the Constitution permits the President to wield no more authority than that of checking whether a local government or its officers perform their duties as provided by statutory enactments.[86] Supervisory power, when contrasted with control, is the power of mere oversight over an inferior body; it does not include any restraining authority over such body.[87]

GR No. 160427

2004-09-15

POLALA SAMBARANI v. COMELEC

CARPIO, J.

An election is the embodiment of the popular will, the expression of the sovereign power of the people.[10] It involves the choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular vote.[11] The right of suffrage is enshrined in the Constitution because through suffrage the people exercise their sovereign authority to choose their representatives in the governance of the State. The fact that the elections involved in this case pertain to the lowest level of our political organization is not a justification to disenfranchise voters.

GR No. 147066

2001-03-26

AKBAYAN - YOUTH v. COMELEC

BUENA, J.

Under these circumstances, we rule that the COMELEC, in denying the request of petitioners to hold a special registration, acted within the bounds and confines of the applicable law on the matter --Section 8 of RA 8189. In issuing the assailed Resolution, respondent COMELEC simply performed its constitutional task to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election,[20] inter alia, questions relating to the registration of voters; evidently, respondent COMELEC merely exercised a prerogative that chiefly pertains to it and one which squarely falls within the proper sphere of its constitutionally-mandated powers. Hence, whatever action respondent takes in the exercise of its wide latitude of discretion, specifically on matters involving voters' registration, pertains to the wisdom rather than the legality of the act. Accordingly, in the absence of clear showing of grave abuse of power of discretion on the part of respondent COMELEC, this Court may not validly conduct an incursion and meddle with affairs exclusively within the province of respondent COMELEC- a body accorded by no less than the fundamental law with independence.

GR No. 147066

2001-03-26

AKBAYAN - YOUTH v. COMELEC

BUENA, J.

As an extraordinary writ, the remedy of mandamus lies only to compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one; mandamus will not issue to control the exercise of discretion of a public officer where the law imposes upon him the duty to exercise his judgment in reference to any manner in which he is required to act, because it is his judgment that is to be exercised and not that of the court.[21]

GR No. 142907

2000-11-29

JOSE EMMANUEL L. CARLOS v. ADORACION G. ANGELES

PARDO, J.

In this jurisdiction, an election means "the choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular vote"[19] through the use of the ballot, and the elected officials of which are determined through the will of the electorate.[20] "An election is the embodiment of the popular will, the expression of the sovereign power of the people."[21] "Specifically, the term `election', in the context of the Constitution, may refer to the conduct of the polls, including the listing of voters, the holding of the electoral campaign, and the casting and counting of votes."[22] The winner is the candidate who has obtained a majority or plurality of valid votes cast in the election.[23] "Sound policy dictates that public elective offices are filled by those who receive the highest number of votes cast in the election for that office. For, in all republican forms of government the basic idea is that no one can be declared elected and no measure can be declared carried unless he or it receives a majority or plurality of the legal votes cast in the election."[24] In case of protest, a revision or recount of the ballots cast for the candidates decides the election protest case. The candidate receiving the highest number or plurality of votes shall be proclaimed the winner. Even if the candidate receiving the majority votes is ineligible or disqualified, the candidate receiving the next highest number of votes or the second placer, can not be declared elected.[25] "The wreath of victory cannot be transferred from the disqualified winner to the repudiated loser because the law then as now only authorizes a declaration of election in favor of the person who has obtained a plurality of votes and does not entitle a candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be declared elected."[26] In other words, "a defeated candidate cannot be deemed elected to the office."[27]

GR No. 142907

2000-11-29

JOSE EMMANUEL L. CARLOS v. ADORACION G. ANGELES

PARDO, J.

In this jurisdiction, an election means "the choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular vote"[19] through the use of the ballot, and the elected officials of which are determined through the will of the electorate.[20] "An election is the embodiment of the popular will, the expression of the sovereign power of the people."[21] "Specifically, the term `election', in the context of the Constitution, may refer to the conduct of the polls, including the listing of voters, the holding of the electoral campaign, and the casting and counting of votes."[22] The winner is the candidate who has obtained a majority or plurality of valid votes cast in the election.[23] "Sound policy dictates that public elective offices are filled by those who receive the highest number of votes cast in the election for that office. For, in all republican forms of government the basic idea is that no one can be declared elected and no measure can be declared carried unless he or it receives a majority or plurality of the legal votes cast in the election."[24] In case of protest, a revision or recount of the ballots cast for the candidates decides the election protest case. The candidate receiving the highest number or plurality of votes shall be proclaimed the winner. Even if the candidate receiving the majority votes is ineligible or disqualified, the candidate receiving the next highest number of votes or the second placer, can not be declared elected.[25] "The wreath of victory cannot be transferred from the disqualified winner to the repudiated loser because the law then as now only authorizes a declaration of election in favor of the person who has obtained a plurality of votes and does not entitle a candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be declared elected."[26] In other words, "a defeated candidate cannot be deemed elected to the office."[27]

	GR No. 189698 2010-02-22	ELEAZAR P. QUINTO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS PUNO, C.J.
An election is the embodiment of the popular will, perhaps the purest expression of the sovereign power of the people.[49] It involves the choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular vote.[50] Considering that elected officials are put in office by their constituents for a definite term, it may justifiably be said that they were excluded from the ambit of the deemed resigned provisions in utmost respect for the mandate of the sovereign will. In other words, complete deference is accorded to the will of the electorate that they be served by such officials until the end of the term for which they were elected. In contrast, there is no such expectation insofar as appointed officials are concerned.
	GR No. 189698 2009-12-01	ELEAZAR P. QUINTO v. COMELEC NACHURA, J.
An election is the embodiment of the popular will, perhaps the purest expression of the sovereign power of the people.[131] It involves the choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular vote.[132] Considering that elected officials are put in office by their constituents for a definite term, it may justifiably be said that they were excluded from the ambit of the deemed resigned provisions in utmost respect for the mandate of the sovereign will of the people. In other words, complete deference is accorded to the will of the electorate that they be served by such officials until the end of the term for which they were elected. In contrast, there is no such expectation insofar as appointed officials are concerned.
	GR No. 156052 2008-02-13	SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY v. JOSE L. ATIENZA CORONA, J.
Supervisory power, when contrasted with control, is the power of mere oversight over an inferior body; it does not include any restraining authority over such body.[164] It does not allow the supervisor to annul the acts of the subordinate.[165] Here, what the DOE seeks to do is to set aside an ordinance enacted by local officials, a power that not even its principal, the President, has. This is because:Under our present system of government, executive power is vested in the President. The members of the Cabinet and other executive officials are merely alter egos. As such, they are subject to the power of control of the President, at whose will and behest they can be removed from office; or their actions and decisions changed, suspended or reversed. In contrast, the heads of political subdivisions are elected by the people. Their sovereign powers emanate from the electorate, to whom they are directly accountable. By constitutional fiat, they are subject to the President's supervision only, not control, so long as their acts are exercised within the sphere of their legitimate powers. By the same token, the President may not withhold or alter any authority or power given them by the Constitution and the law.[166]
	GR No. 164527 2007-08-15	FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ v. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY VELASCO, JR., J.
1. Sec. 17, Art. VII of the Constitution provides that "the President shall have control of all executive departments, bureaus and offices." The President is assigned the task of seeing to it that all laws are faithfully executed. "Control," in administrative law, means "the power of an officer to alter, modify, nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer has done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter."[71]
	GR No. 130775 2004-09-27	NATIONAL LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY v. VICTORIA ISABEL A. PAREDES TINGA, J,
Petitioners rely on decision in Taule v. Santos,[40] which, they claim, already passed upon the "extent of authority of the then Secretary of Local Government over the katipunan ng mga barangay or the barangay councils," as it specifically ruled that the "Secretary [of Local Government] has no authority to pass upon the validity or regularity of the election of officers of the katipunan."[41]
	GR No. 130775 2004-09-27	NATIONAL LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY v. VICTORIA ISABEL A. PAREDES TINGA, J,
In the early case of Mondano v. Silvosa, et al.,[83] this Court defined supervision as "overseeing, or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties, and to take such action as prescribed by law to compel his subordinates to perform their duties. Control, on the other hand, means the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter.[84] In Taule v. Santos,[85] the Court held that the Constitution permits the President to wield no more authority than that of checking whether a local government or its officers perform their duties as provided by statutory enactments.[86] Supervisory power, when contrasted with control, is the power of mere oversight over an inferior body; it does not include any restraining authority over such body.[87]
	GR No. 160427 2004-09-15	POLALA SAMBARANI v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
An election is the embodiment of the popular will, the expression of the sovereign power of the people.[10] It involves the choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular vote.[11] The right of suffrage is enshrined in the Constitution because through suffrage the people exercise their sovereign authority to choose their representatives in the governance of the State. The fact that the elections involved in this case pertain to the lowest level of our political organization is not a justification to disenfranchise voters.
	GR No. 147066 2001-03-26	AKBAYAN - YOUTH v. COMELEC BUENA, J.
Under these circumstances, we rule that the COMELEC, in denying the request of petitioners to hold a special registration, acted within the bounds and confines of the applicable law on the matter --Section 8 of RA 8189. In issuing the assailed Resolution, respondent COMELEC simply performed its constitutional task to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election,[20] inter alia, questions relating to the registration of voters; evidently, respondent COMELEC merely exercised a prerogative that chiefly pertains to it and one which squarely falls within the proper sphere of its constitutionally-mandated powers. Hence, whatever action respondent takes in the exercise of its wide latitude of discretion, specifically on matters involving voters' registration, pertains to the wisdom rather than the legality of the act. Accordingly, in the absence of clear showing of grave abuse of power of discretion on the part of respondent COMELEC, this Court may not validly conduct an incursion and meddle with affairs exclusively within the province of respondent COMELEC- a body accorded by no less than the fundamental law with independence.
	GR No. 147066 2001-03-26	AKBAYAN - YOUTH v. COMELEC BUENA, J.
As an extraordinary writ, the remedy of mandamus lies only to compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one; mandamus will not issue to control the exercise of discretion of a public officer where the law imposes upon him the duty to exercise his judgment in reference to any manner in which he is required to act, because it is his judgment that is to be exercised and not that of the court.[21]
	GR No. 142907 2000-11-29	JOSE EMMANUEL L. CARLOS v. ADORACION G. ANGELES PARDO, J.
In this jurisdiction, an election means "the choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular vote"[19] through the use of the ballot, and the elected officials of which are determined through the will of the electorate.[20] "An election is the embodiment of the popular will, the expression of the sovereign power of the people."[21] "Specifically, the term `election', in the context of the Constitution, may refer to the conduct of the polls, including the listing of voters, the holding of the electoral campaign, and the casting and counting of votes."[22] The winner is the candidate who has obtained a majority or plurality of valid votes cast in the election.[23] "Sound policy dictates that public elective offices are filled by those who receive the highest number of votes cast in the election for that office. For, in all republican forms of government the basic idea is that no one can be declared elected and no measure can be declared carried unless he or it receives a majority or plurality of the legal votes cast in the election."[24] In case of protest, a revision or recount of the ballots cast for the candidates decides the election protest case. The candidate receiving the highest number or plurality of votes shall be proclaimed the winner. Even if the candidate receiving the majority votes is ineligible or disqualified, the candidate receiving the next highest number of votes or the second placer, can not be declared elected.[25] "The wreath of victory cannot be transferred from the disqualified winner to the repudiated loser because the law then as now only authorizes a declaration of election in favor of the person who has obtained a plurality of votes and does not entitle a candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be declared elected."[26] In other words, "a defeated candidate cannot be deemed elected to the office."[27]
	GR No. 142907 2000-11-29	JOSE EMMANUEL L. CARLOS v. ADORACION G. ANGELES PARDO, J.
In this jurisdiction, an election means "the choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular vote"[19] through the use of the ballot, and the elected officials of which are determined through the will of the electorate.[20] "An election is the embodiment of the popular will, the expression of the sovereign power of the people."[21] "Specifically, the term `election', in the context of the Constitution, may refer to the conduct of the polls, including the listing of voters, the holding of the electoral campaign, and the casting and counting of votes."[22] The winner is the candidate who has obtained a majority or plurality of valid votes cast in the election.[23] "Sound policy dictates that public elective offices are filled by those who receive the highest number of votes cast in the election for that office. For, in all republican forms of government the basic idea is that no one can be declared elected and no measure can be declared carried unless he or it receives a majority or plurality of the legal votes cast in the election."[24] In case of protest, a revision or recount of the ballots cast for the candidates decides the election protest case. The candidate receiving the highest number or plurality of votes shall be proclaimed the winner. Even if the candidate receiving the majority votes is ineligible or disqualified, the candidate receiving the next highest number of votes or the second placer, can not be declared elected.[25] "The wreath of victory cannot be transferred from the disqualified winner to the repudiated loser because the law then as now only authorizes a declaration of election in favor of the person who has obtained a plurality of votes and does not entitle a candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be declared elected."[26] In other words, "a defeated candidate cannot be deemed elected to the office."[27]

RUPERTO TAULE v. SECRETARY LUIS T. SANTOS