Two petitions for the cancellation of Certificate of Candidacy (CoC)/Denial of Due Course were filed with the Comelec against two candidates running as municipal mayors of different towns.
The first petition was against Anselmo. Years ago, Anselmo was charged and convicted of the crime of rape by final judgment, and was sentenced to suffer the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua which carried the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification. While Anselmo was in prison, the President commuted his sentence and he was discharged from prison.
The second petition was against Ambrosio. Ambrosio’s residency was questioned because he was allegedly a “green card holder,” i.e., a permanent resident of the US, as evidenced by a certification to this effect from the US Embassy.
Acting on the recommendations of its Law Department, the Comelec en banc motu proprio issued two resolutions granting the petitions against Anselmo and Ambrosio.
Both Anselmo and Ambrosio filed separate petitions with the Supreme Court assailing the resolutions cancelling their respective CoCs. Both claimed that the Comelec en bane acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction because the petitions should have first been heard and resolved by one of the Comelec’s Divisions.
Are Anselmo and Ambrosio correct? (5%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
Anselmo is incorrect, but Ambrosio is correct. Under Article IX-C, Section 3 of the Constitution and jurisprudence, only quasi-judicial election cases must be heard first by a COMELEC Division. Conversely, enforcing
Unlock the full Political Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Under Article IX-C, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution, how must quasi-judicial election cases be heard by COMELEC?
Article IX-C, Section 3 requires all election cases and pre-proclamation controversies to be heard first in Division.
When may the COMELEC En Banc directly enforce a candidate's disqualification without prior Division proceedings?
Enforcing a disqualification based on a final judgment carrying perpetual absolute disqualification is a purely administrative duty exercisable directly En Banc.
What is the legal effect of a presidential commutation of sentence on a candidate's accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification?
Sentence commutation merely reduces the length of punishment without restoring political rights or removing perpetual absolute disqualification.
Why was the COMELEC En Banc resolution against Ambrosio regarding his US residency void for grave abuse of discretion?
Choices available with full access.
Which constitutional provision mandates that election cases must be heard and decided in Division first by COMELEC?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. COMELEC Division Jurisdiction
Under Article IX-C, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution, the Commission on Elections must hear and decide all election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies and petitions to cancel a Certificate of Candidacy involving factual issues like residency, first in Division. The COMELEC En Banc lacks original jurisdiction to hear quasi-judicial election petitions in the first instance. Any resolution issued motu proprio by the COMELEC En Banc without prior hearing and determination by a Division in a quasi-judicial proceeding is void for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
2. Administrative Disqualification Enforcement
In contrast to quasi-judicial proceedings, the COMELEC possesses administrative power under its constitutional mandate to enforce election laws and prevent disqualified persons from holding public office. When a candidate has been convicted by final judgment of a crime carrying the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification, the disqualification is automatically attached by operation of law. Enforcing this perpetual disqualification is a purely administrative, non-litigious duty. Consequently, the COMELEC En Banc may validly issue an administrative resolution canceling or denying due course to the candidate's certificate of candidacy directly without prior Division proceedings.
3. Sentence Commutation Effects
Commutation of sentence is an executive clemency act that merely reduces the duration of a penalty or sentence imposed by final judicial judgment. Unlike a plenary executive pardon that expressly restores civil and political rights, a simple commutation of sentence does not erase the conviction or remove accessory penalties such as perpetual absolute disqualification. Therefore, a candidate whose prison sentence was commuted by the President remains disqualified from running for elective public office because the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification remains in full legal force and effect.