Panlilio vs. COMELEC

Motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders issued by a COMELEC Division must be resolved by the same Division, not the En Banc; only motions for reconsideration of final decisions are decided by the En Banc.

Eddie T. Panlilio was proclaimed the duly elected governor of Pampanga having garnered 219,706 votes, winning by a margin of 1,147 votes over private respondent Lilia G. Pineda. Pineda filed an election protest alleging vote mis-appreciation, misreading of ballots, counting of stray votes for Panlilio, counting of fake or prepared ballots for Panlilio, and vote-buying. The COMELEC Second Division gave due course to the protest and directed the revision of ballots. Panlilio's subsequent motions for reconsideration and to certify the case to the En Banc were denied, prompting the elevation of the issue to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

• Proclamation and Protest: Petitioner Eddie T. Panlilio won the Pampanga gubernatorial race by 1,147 votes over private respondent Lilia G. Pineda. Pineda filed an election protest alleging multiple irregularities, including mis-appreciation of ballots, failure to count her nickname "NANAY BABY," invalidation of valid votes, counting of blank or fake ballots in favor of Panlilio, and vote-buying.
• COMELEC Second Division Action: On July 23, 2007, the COMELEC Second Division gave due course to the protest and directed the revision of ballots in the contested precincts. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Second Division swiftly denied on August 1, 2007.
• Elevation to the En Banc: Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion to certify his motion for reconsideration to the COMELEC En Banc and to stay the order directing the collection of ballot boxes. The COMELEC En Banc denied the omnibus motion, ratiocinating that the assailed Division orders were interlocutory and not among the orders required to be certified to the En Banc under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.

• Mandatory Certification to En Banc: Petitioner argued that Section 5, Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure mandates the Presiding Commissioner to certify a motion for reconsideration to the En Banc regardless of whether the order is interlocutory or final.
• Irregularities in Division Proceedings: Petitioner maintained that the Second Division's swift denial of his motion for reconsideration—decided the day after filing—and the issuance of an order signed only by the Presiding Commissioner constituted grave abuse of discretion.
• Sham Protest and Lack of Prior Objection: Petitioner insisted that the election protest was a sham, insufficient in form and substance, and that private respondent's failure to first raise objections before the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) deprived the COMELEC of jurisdiction.

• Interlocutory Orders Remain with the Division: Respondent countered that under Section 5(c), Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules, motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders are resolved by the Division that issued them, not the En Banc.
• Sufficiency of Protest Allegations: Respondent argued that the allegations of fraud and irregularities were sufficient in form and substance to warrant the opening of ballot boxes.
• Objection Before BEI Not Jurisdictional: Respondent maintained that raising objections before the BEI is not a condition precedent to the COMELEC acquiring jurisdiction over an election protest.

• Jurisdiction over Interlocutory Orders: Whether the COMELEC En Banc must resolve a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order issued by a Division.
• Propriety of Division Action: Whether the COMELEC Second Division committed grave abuse of discretion in swiftly denying the motion for reconsideration and issuing a minute order signed only by the Presiding Commissioner.
• Sufficiency of Protest and Prior Objection: Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in giving due course to the election protest despite alleged insufficiency in form and substance and the protestant's failure to raise objections before the BEI.

• Jurisdiction over Interlocutory Orders: The petition was dismissed on this ground. The assailed Second Division orders were interlocutory, as they did not completely dispose of the election protest. Under Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution and Section 5(c), Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, only motions for reconsideration of final decisions of a Division are decided by the En Banc. Motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders must be resolved by the issuing Division.
• Propriety of Division Action: No grave abuse of discretion was found in the Division's swift action. Expeditious resolution of election cases is mandated by public interest and the short terms of elective offices. The minute order was valid as it reiterated the earlier detailed order, and Section 6, Rule 2 of the COMELEC Rules authorizes the Presiding Commissioner to sign interlocutory resolutions.
• Sufficiency of Protest and Prior Objection: The allegations of fraud and irregularities in the protest were sufficient to order the opening of ballot boxes under Section 255 of the Omnibus Election Code. Furthermore, filing a protest before the BEI is not a condition sine qua non for the COMELEC to acquire jurisdiction, as jurisdiction is conferred by law and not by the parties' acts or omissions.

• Final vs. Interlocutory Orders in COMELEC Proceedings — An order is final if it completely disposes of the entire case; it is interlocutory if there is something more to be done. Only motions for reconsideration of final decisions of a COMELEC Division are decided by the Commission En Banc, pursuant to Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution. Motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders are resolved by the Division that issued them.
• Ministerial Duty to Open Ballot Boxes — When an election protest contains allegations that would require the perusal, examination, or counting of ballots as evidence, it is the ministerial duty of the election tribunal to order the opening of the ballot boxes and the examination of their contents.
• Objection Before BEI Not Jurisdictional — Filing a protest or raising objections before the Board of Election Inspectors is not a condition sine qua non before the COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over an election protest. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be acquired through, or waived by, any act or omission of the parties.

• "Under the above-quoted rule, the acts of a Division that are subject of a motion for reconsideration must have a character of finality before the same can be elevated to the COMELEC en banc. The elementary rule is that an order is final in nature if it completely disposes of the entire case. But if there is something more to be done in the case after its issuance, that order is interlocutory."
• "The rule in this jurisdiction is clear and jurisprudence is even clearer. In a string of categorical pronouncements, we have consistently ruled that when there is an allegation in an election protest that would require the perusal, examination or counting of ballots as evidence, it is the ministerial duty of the trial court to order the opening of the ballot boxes and the examination and counting of ballots deposited therein."
• "The filing of a protest before the Board of Election Inspectors is not a condition sine qua non before the COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over the present election protest. Jurisdiction is conferred only by law and cannot be acquired through, or waived by, any act or omission of the parties."

• Repol v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161418, April 28, 2004, 428 SCRA 321 — Followed. Established that the remedy to assail an interlocutory order of a COMELEC Division is neither a motion for reconsideration for certification to the En Banc nor a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, but a motion for reconsideration before the issuing Division.
• Gementiza v. Commission on Elections — Followed. Explained that only acts of a Division having a character of finality may be elevated to the COMELEC En Banc.
• Miguel v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 136966, July 5, 2000, 335 SCRA 172 — Followed. Ruled that allegations of fraud and irregularities in an election protest are sufficient to order the opening of ballot boxes and counting of ballots.
• Quintos v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 149800, November 21, 2002, 392 SCRA 489 — Followed. Held that COMELEC rules of procedure for verification and non-forum shopping should be liberally construed in the interest of justice and speedy disposition.

• Section 3, Article IX-C, 1987 Constitution — Mandates that motions for reconsideration of decisions of COMELEC Divisions shall be decided by the Commission En Banc. Interpreted to apply exclusively to final decisions, excluding interlocutory orders.
• Section 5(c), Rule 3, 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Provides that motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders of a Division shall be resolved by the Division which issued the order, while motions on decisions are resolved by the En Banc.
• Section 5, Rule 19, 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Governs the disposition of motions for reconsideration of decisions, resolutions, orders, or rulings of a Division, requiring the Clerk of Court to notify the Presiding Commissioner who shall certify the case to the En Banc. Interpreted to apply only when the assailed act has a character of finality.
• Section 6, Rule 2, 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Enumerates the powers and duties of the Presiding Commissioner of a Division, including the authority to sign interlocutory resolutions, orders, or rulings.
• Section 255, Omnibus Election Code — Authorizes the judicial counting of votes in election contests where allegations in a protest so warrant, directing the court to order the examination and recounting of ballots.
• Section 2(2), Article IX-C, 1987 Constitution — Confers upon the COMELEC exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials.

Reynato S. Puno (Chief Justice), Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Antonio T. Carpio, Renato C. Corona, Conchita Carpio Morales, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin.