Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SABDULLAH T. MACABAGO v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 218787 2015-12-08	LEO Y. QUERUBIN v. COMELEC EN BANC VELASCO JR., J.
Consequently, Rule 64, which complemented the procedural requirement under Article IX-A, Section 7, should likewise be read in the same sense—that of excluding from its coverage decisions, rulings, and orders rendered by the COMELEC in the exercise of its administrative functions. In such instances, a Rule 65 petition for certiorari is the proper remedy. As held in Macabago v. COMELEC:[53]
	GR No. 201112 2012-06-13	ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
On June 9, 2009, the Comelec issued Resolution No. 8608 awarding the contract for the Project to respondent Smartmatic-TIM.[4] On July 10, 2009, the Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM entered into a Contract for the Provision of an Automated Election System for the May 10, 2010 Synchronized National and Local Elections,[5] (AES Contract, for brevity). The contract between the Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM was one of "lease of the AES with option to purchase (OTP) the goods listed in the contract." In said contract, the Comelec was given until December 31, 2010 within which to exercise the option.
	GR No. 201112 2012-06-13	ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
On September 23, 2010, the Comelec partially exercised its OTP 920 units of PCOS machines with corresponding canvassing/consolidation system (CCS) for the special elections in certain areas in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Bulacan.[6] In a letter[7] dated December 18, 2010, Smartmatic-TIM, through its Chairman Cesar Flores (Flores), proposed a temporary extension of the option period on the remaining 81,280 PCOS machines until March 31, 2011, waiving the storage costs and covering the maintenance costs. The Comelec did not exercise the option within the extended period. Several extensions were given for the Comelec to exercise the OTP until its final extension on March 31, 2012.
	GR No. 191084 2010-03-25	JOSELITO R. MENDOZA v. COMELEC PEREZ, J.
However, I disagree with the ponencia's ruling that the decision of the COMELEC Second Division was abandoned, resulting in the dismissal of the election protest, when the COMELEC En Banc failed to reach a majority decision. The COMELEC Second Division had jurisdiction to decide this election contest under Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution.[12] The failure of the COMELEC En Banc to reach a majority decision on the motion for reconsideration operated to affirm the decision of the COMELEC Second Division.
	GR No. 178884 2008-06-30	RICARDO P. PRESBITERO v. COMELEC NACHURA, J.
Stressed repeatedly in our prior decisions is that a failure of election may be declared only in the three instances[14] stated in Section 6[15] of the OEC: the election has not been held; the election has been suspended before the hour fixed by law; and the preparation and the transmission of the election returns have given rise to the consequent failure to elect, meaning nobody emerged as the winner.[16] Furthermore, the reason for such failure of election should be force majeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous causes.[17] Finally, before the COMELEC can grant a verified petition seeking to declare a failure of election, the concurrence of 2 conditions must be established, namely: (1) no voting has taken place in the precincts concerned on the date fixed by law or, even if there was voting, the election nevertheless resulted in a failure to elect; and (2) the votes cast would affect the result of the election.[18]