Guevara vs. COMELEC

The Commission on Elections may punish for contempt only when it acts in a quasi-judicial capacity to decide a controversy; the power cannot be exercised to protect or enforce administrative or ministerial duties, such as the procurement of election supplies. The contempt power, being inherent in courts and essential to the administration of justice, is invalid when wielded by an administrative body in furtherance of an administrative function.

The Commission on Elections, an independent constitutional body charged with the enforcement and administration of all election laws, undertook the procurement of 34,000 ballot boxes for the forthcoming elections. After negotiations, it awarded contracts to the National Shipyards & Steel Corporation (NASSCO), the Acme Steel Mfg. Co., Inc. (ACME), and the Asiatic Steel Mfg. Co., Inc. (ASIATIC). ACME failed to sign its contract on time, prompting the Commission to cancel its award and reallocate its share equally between NASSCO and ASIATIC. ACME filed successive petitions for reconsideration, the third of which led the Commission to conduct a formal investigation. While that third petition remained pending—before the Commission had issued its final resolution of denial—petitioner published an article in the Sunday Times criticizing the award of the ballot box contracts. The Commission initiated contempt proceedings, alleging that the article interfered with its adjudication of a pending controversy and degraded its constitutional functions.

• Award and Cancellation of the Ballot Box Contracts: On May 4, 1957, the Commission on Elections awarded contracts to manufacture and supply ballot boxes to NASSCO (12,000 boxes at ₱17.64 each), ACME (11,000 boxes at ₱14.00 each), and ASIATIC (11,000 boxes at ₱17.00 each). NASSCO and ASIATIC signed their contracts on May 8, 1957. Because ACME failed to sign within the designated period, the Commission, on May 13, 1957, cancelled the award to ACME and reallocated the 11,000 boxes equally between NASSCO and ASIATIC; the corresponding contracts were signed on May 16, 1957.

• ACME’s Motions for Reconsideration: ACME filed a series of petitions for reconsideration of the May 13 resolution. The first, filed May 14, 1957, was denied on May 16, 1957. The second, filed May 16, 1957, was denied on May 17, 1957. The third petition, filed May 20, 1957, raised serious grounds for annulment of the prior resolutions. The Commission resolved to conduct a formal investigation, ordered NASSCO and ASIATIC to answer, held a hearing on May 24, 1957, and received ACME’s memorandum on May 28, 1957. The Commission issued its resolution denying the third motion for reconsideration only on June 4, 1957.

• The Contempt Charge: On June 2, 1957, while the third motion for reconsideration was still pending determination, an article authored by petitioner and entitled “Ballot Boxes Contract Hit” was published in the Sunday Times, a newspaper of nationwide circulation. The Commission on Elections charged that the article tended to interfere with and influence the Commission and its members in the adjudication of the pending controversy, and tended to degrade, bring into disrepute, and undermine the Commission’s constitutional functions and the integrity of its Chairman and a Member.

• Petitioner’s Motion to Quash: Petitioner moved to quash the show-cause order on four grounds: (a) the Commission has no jurisdiction to punish the publication as contempt, and Section 5 of Republic Act No. 180 would be unconstitutional if applied to the case; (b) assuming contempt power exists, it cannot apply because the Commission was exercising a purely administrative function in purchasing ballot boxes; (c) the matter of the ballot box contracts was already a closed case when the article was published; and (d) even if a controversy was pending, the article constituted a fair report based on the allegations of fraud in ACME’s motion for reconsideration.

• Lack of Contempt Jurisdiction: Petitioner argued that neither the Constitution nor any statute grants the Commission on Elections the power to punish a publication as contempt. He contended that Section 5 of Republic Act No. 180, which purports to vest the Commission with power to punish contempts provided for in the Rules of Court, would be unconstitutional if applied to a published article, as such power is purely judicial.

• Purely Administrative Function: Petitioner maintained that the Commission, in awarding and procuring ballot boxes, was performing a ministerial and administrative duty; therefore, any contempt power it may possess could not be invoked in connection with an administrative act.

• Closed Case: Petitioner asserted that the procurement matter was already a closed and concluded transaction before the article was published, so no pending controversy existed to support contempt proceedings.

• Fair Report: Petitioner claimed that the article was a fair and accurate report of a matter of public concern, premised on the allegations of fraud raised in ACME’s pending motion for reconsideration.

• Pending Controversy and Interference: The Commission on Elections maintained that a controversy arising from ACME’s third petition for reconsideration and supplementary petition was pending investigation and determination before it, and that petitioner’s article tended to interfere with and influence the Commission and its members in resolving that controversy.

• Protection of Constitutional Functions: The Commission argued that the article degraded, brought into disrepute, and undermined the exclusive constitutional function of the Commission and the integrity of its Chairman and Member in the administration of election laws, justifying the exercise of its contempt power to preserve its authority.

• Contempt Power Over Administrative Acts: Whether the Commission on Elections possesses the power and jurisdiction to punish for contempt a person who published a newspaper article that allegedly interfered with and degraded the Commission, when the underlying subject matter—the procurement of ballot boxes—was a purely administrative or ministerial duty, not a quasi-judicial controversy.

• Contempt Power Over Administrative Acts: The Commission on Elections lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the contempt case. The procurement of ballot boxes constitutes an imperative ministerial duty that the Commission performs in its administrative capacity to set in motion the preparatory processes for elections; it does not involve the exercise of any judicial function. Although the negotiations generated a dispute among dealers, that dispute arose from a ministerial act, not from a controversy that the Commission was called upon to adjudicate in a quasi-judicial capacity. The power to punish for contempt, being inherently judicial, is invalid when exercised by an administrative body in furtherance of an administrative function. Under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 180, the Commission may punish contempt only as an incident of its power to try, hear, and decide controversies properly submitted to it—that is, when it acts in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity. Since the matter here was purely administrative, the contempt power could not attach.

• Contempt Power of Administrative Bodies — The power to punish for contempt is an inherent attribute of courts, essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings and the enforcement of judgments. Its exercise by administrative bodies is permissible only to make effective the power to elicit testimony, and an administrative body may not wield it to discipline persons or protect its actions when performing purely administrative functions. The Supreme Court relied on the principle that the exercise of the contempt power by an administrative body in furtherance of an administrative function is invalid (Langenberg v. Decker, 31 N.E. 190; In re Sims, 37 P. 135; Roberts v. Hackney, 58 S.W. 810).

• Quasi-Judicial vs. Administrative Functions of the Commission on Elections — The Commission on Elections acts in a quasi-judicial capacity only when it decides administrative questions affecting elections that are controversial in nature and relate to the enforcement and administration of election laws. In contrast, purely ministerial or administrative duties—such as the procurement of election supplies, printing of election forms, appointment of election inspectors, and preparation of registry lists of voters—do not constitute the adjudication of a controversy and thus do not trigger the Commission’s quasi-judicial powers, including the power to punish for contempt.

• “The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts; its existence is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings, and to the enforcement of judgments, orders and mandates of courts, and, consequently, in the administration of justice.”

• “The exercise of that power by an administrative body in furtherance of its administrative function has been held invalid.”

• Slade Perkins v. Director of Prisons, 58 Phil. 271; U.S. v. Loo Hoe, 36 Phil. 867; In re Sotto, 46 Off. Gaz. 2570; In re Kelly, 35 Phil. 944 — Cited to establish that the power to punish for contempt is an inherent and indispensable attribute of courts.

• Langenberg v. Decker, 31 N.E. 190; In re Sims, 37 P. 135; Roberts v. Hackney, 58 S.W. 810 — American precedents relied upon for the rule that an administrative body may not exercise the contempt power in connection with a purely administrative function.

• Sumulong v. Commission on Elections, 73 Phil. 288; Nacionalista Party v. The Solicitor General, 85 Phil. 101 — Cited to define the Commission on Elections as an independent administrative body entrusted with the enforcement of election laws.

• Prudente, et al. v. Genuino, et al., G.R. No. L-5222, November 6, 1951 (upholding Commission on Elections Decision in In Re Petition of Angel Genuino v. Prudente, et al. , Case No. 196, October 28, 1951) — Referred to in affirming the enumeration of the Commission’s ministerial duties and the distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial functions.

• Article X, Section 2, 1935 Constitution — Vested the Commission on Elections with “exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections” and the power to “decide, save those involving the right to vote, all administrative questions, affecting elections, including the determination of the number and location of polling places, and the appointment of election inspectors and of other election officials.” The Court interpreted this as distinguishing between administrative duties (such as procurement of election supplies) and the quasi-judicial function of resolving administrative questions that are controversial in nature.

• Section 5, Republic Act No. 180 (Revised Election Code) — Conferred upon the Commission the power to “punish contempts provided for in rule sixty-four of the Rules of Court, under the same procedure and with the same penalties provided therein.” The Court construed this grant as limited to contempt arising in connection with the Commission’s quasi-judicial adjudication of controversies, not as a blanket authority to punish contempt in the performance of administrative acts.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concurred.