Relampagos vs COMELEC
GR No 118861
FACTS:
In the synchronized elections of 11 May 1992, the petitioner and private respondent Rosita Cumba were
candidates for the position of Mayor in the municipality of Magallanes, Agusan del Norte. The latter was
proclaimed the winning candidate, with a margin of only twenty-two votes over the former.
Unwilling to accept defeat, the petitioner filed an election protest with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Agusan del Norte, which was assigned to Branch 2 thereof in Butuan City.
On 29 June 1994, the trial court, per Judge Rosario F. Dabalos, found the petitioner to have won with a
margin of six votes over the private respondent and rendered judgement in favor of the petitioner as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing results, the court hereby declares the protestant as having
won the mayoralty election and as duly elected Mayor of the Municipality of Magallanes, Agusan del
Norte in the local election held on May 11, 1992, the protestant having obtained six (6) votes more
than that of the protestee's votes.
Copies of the decision were sent to and received by the petitioner and the private respondent on 1
July 1994.
On 4 July 1994, the private respondent appealed the decision to the COMELEC by filing her notice of appeal
and paying the appellate docket fees.
On 8 July 1994, the trial court gave due course to the appeal.
On 12 July 1994, the petitioner filed with the trial court a motion for execution pending appeal,
which the private respondent opposed on 22 July 1994.
On 3 August 1994, the trial court granted the petitioner's motion for execution pending appeal. The
corresponding writ of execution was forthwith issued. Thereafter, the private respondent filed a
motion for a reconsideration of the order of execution and the sheriff held in abeyance the
implementation of the writ. This motion was denied on 5 August 1994.
The private respondent then filed with the respondent COMELEC a petition for certiorari to
annul the aforesaid other of the trial court granting the motion for execution pending appeal
and the writ of execution. The petition was docketed as SPR No. 1-94.
On 9 February 1995, the COMELEC promulgated its resolution granting the petition.4 The dispositive
portion thereof reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission RESOLVES that is [sic] has exclusive
authority to hear and decide petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in election
cases as authorized by law, and therefore, assumes jurisdiction of the instant petition for
certiorari which is hereby GRANTED. The Order of the court a quo of August 3, 1994 is hereby
declared NULL and VOID and the Writ of Execution issued on August 4, 1994 LIFTED.
Accordingly, petitioner Rosita Cumba is ordered restored to her position .as Municipality Mayor of
Magallanes, Agusan del Norte, pending resolution of the appeal before this Commission in the case
of Relampagos vs. Cumba in EAC No. 108-94.
In upholding its jurisdiction in certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus cases, the respondent COMELEC
maintains that there is a special law granting it such jurisdiction, viz., Section 50 of B.P. Blg. 697, which
Sensitivity: Confidential
remains in full force as it was not expressly repealed by the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881),and that it
is not exactly correct that this law self-destructed after the May 1984 election. It further reasoned out that in
the performance of its judicial functions, the COMELEC, is the most logical body to issue the extraordinary
writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in election cases where it has appellate jurisdiction. It
ratiocinated as follows:
It is therefore clear that if there is a law which specifically confers jurisdiction to issue the prerogative
Writs, then the Commission has jurisdiction.
Such a law exists. Section 50, B.P. Blg. 697 is that law.
B.P. Blg. 697, approved on March 14, 1984, is entitled "AN ACT TO GOVERN THE ELECTION OF
MEMBERS OF THE BATASANG PAMBANSA ON MAY 14, 1984 AND THE SELECTION OF
SECTORAL REPRESENTATIVES THEREAFTER, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Section 50 provides:
Sec. 50. Definition.— Pre-proclamation controversy refers to any question pertaining to or affecting
the proceedings of the Board of Canvassers which may be raised by any candidate, political party or
coalition of political parties before the board or directly with the Commission.
The Commission Elections shall be the sole judge and shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all pre-
proclamation controversies.
The Commission is hereby vested with exclusive authority to hear and decide petitions for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus involving election cases.(Emphasis supplied).
We have debated among ourselves whether Section 50, B.P. Blg. 697, has been repealed. We have
come to the conclusion that it has not been repealed. The repealing provision in the Omnibus
Election Code (BP Blg. 881, December 3, 1985), provides:
Sec. 282. Repealing Clause. — Presidential Decree No. 1296 otherwise known as the The 1978
Election Code, as amended, is hereby repealed. All other election Laws, decrees, executive orders,
rules and regulations or parts thereof, inconsistent with the provisions of this Code is hereby
repealed, except Presidential Decree No. 1618 and Batas Pambansa Blg. 20 governing the election
of the members of the Sangguniang Pampook of Regions IX and XII. (Emphasis supplied).
B.P. Blg. 697 has not been expressly repealed, and Section 50 thereof is not inconsistent with the provisions
of the Omnibus Election Code.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the BP blg 697 is repealed, and whether or not the COMELEC has jurisdiction?
HELD:
Yes, As earlier stated, in Garcia and Uy, 9 and later, in Veloria, 10 this Court ruled that the COMELEC has no jurisdiction over
the extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus because there is no specific constitutional or
statutory conferment to it of such jurisdiction.
The respondent COMELEC, however, points out that Section 50 of B.P. Blg. 697 expressly granted it such
jurisdiction. Indeed, it did. Nevertheless, considering that the said law was, per Section 1 thereof, "to govern
the election for the regular Batasang Pambansa which shall be held on May 14, 1984, and the selection of
sectoral representatives thereafter as provided by the Constitution," and in view of the passage of the
Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881) by the regular Batasang Pambansa, 11 this Court is then confronted with
Sensitivity: Confidential
the twin issues of whether said B.P. Blg. 697 became functus officio after the 14 May 1984 election of
members of the regular Batasang Pambansa or the selection thereafter of the sectoral representatives at the
latest, and whether it was repealed by the Omnibus Election Code.
The Court agrees with the respondent COMELEC that there are provisions in B.P. Blg. 697 whose lifetime go
beyond the 14 May 1984 election or the subsequent selection of sectoral representatives. In fact, by the
very wording of the last paragraph of its Section 50, to: wit:
Sec. 50. Definition. —
xxx xxx xxx
The Commission is hereby vested with the exclusive authority to hear and decide petitions for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus involving election cases. (Emphasis supplied).
it is quite clear that the exercise of the power was not restricted within a specific period of time.
Taken in the context of the conspicuous absence of such jurisdiction as ruled in Pimentel vs. Commission
on Elections, 12 it seems quite obvious that the grant was intended as a remedial legislation to eliminate the
seeming incongruity or irrationality resulting in a splitting of jurisdiction pointed out in the dissenting opinion
of Justice De Castro in the said case.
But did not the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881) repeal B.P. Blg. 697? The repealing
clause of the latter reads as follows:
Sec. 282. Repealing clause. — Presidential decree No. 1296, otherwise known as The 1978
Election Code, as amended, is hereby repealed. All other election laws, decrees, executive orders,
rules and regulations, or parts thereof, inconsistent with the provisions of this Code are hereby
repealed, except Presidential Decree No. 1618 .and Batas Pambansa Blg. 20 governing the election
of the members of the Sangguniang Pampook of Regions IX and XII
The second sentence is in the nature of a general repealing clause. It has been said:
An express general repealing clause to the effect that. all inconsistent enactments are repealed; is in
legal contemplation a nullity. Repeals must either be expressed or result by implication. Although it
has in some instances been held to be an express recognition that there are acts in conflict with the
act in which it is included and as indicative of the legislative intent to repeal such acts, a general
repealing clause cannot be deemed an express repeal because it fails to identify or designate any
act to be repealed. It cannot be determinative of an implied repeal for if does not declare any
inconsistency but conversely, merely predicates a repeal upon the condition that a substantial
conflict is found under application of the rules of implied repeals. If its inclusion is more than mere
mechahical verbiage, it is more often a detriment than an aid to the establishment of a repeal, for
such clause is construed as an express limitation of the repeal to inconsistent acts.13
This Court is not unaware of the equally settled rule in statutory construction that in the revision or
codification of laws, all parts and provisions of the old laws that are omitted in the revised statute or
code are deemed repealed, unless the statute or code provides otherwise expressly or impliedly. 14
By the tenor of its aforequoted Repealing Clause, it does not evidently appear that the
Batasang Pambansa had intended to codify all prior election statutes and to replace them
with the new Code. It made, in fact, by the second sentence, a reservation that all prior
election statutes or parts thereof not inconsistent with any provisions of the Code shall
remain in force. That sentence
predicates the intended repeal upon the condition that a substantial conflict must be found on
existing and prior acts of the same subject matter. Such being the case, the presumption against
implied repeals and the rule on strict construction regarding implied repeals apply ex proprio vigore.
For the legislature is presumed to know the existing laws so that, if repeal of particular or specific law
or laws is intended, the proper step is to express it. The failure to add a specific repealing clause
Sensitivity: Confidential
particularly mentioning the statute to be repealed indicates that the intent was not to repeal any
existing law on the matter, unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exist in the terms
of the new and the old laws
This being the case, the Court painstakingly examined the aforesaid last paragraph of Section 50 of
the Omnibus Election Code to determine if the former is inconsistent with any of the provisions of the
latter, It found none.
In the face of the foregoing disquisitions, the Court must, as it now does, abandon the ruling in the
Garcia and Uy and Veloria cases, We now hold that the last paragraph of Section 50 of B.P. Blg.
697 providing as follows:
The Commission is hereby vested with exclusive authority to hear and decide petitions for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus involving election cases.
remains in full force and effect but only in such cases where, under paragraph (2), Section 1, Article
IX-C of the Constitution, it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction. Simply put, the COMELEC has the
authority to issue the extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus only in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction.
Sensitivity: Confidential
