Cua v.

Commission on Elections | 156 SCRA 582

FACTS: The first division of Comelec rendered a 2-1decision favoring the petitioner but nevertheless suspended his
proclamation as winner in the lone congressional district of Quirino due to the lack of the unanimous vote required by the
procedural rules in Comelec Resolution No. 1669.
Section 5 of the said resolution states that, A case being heard by it shall be decided with theunanimous concurrence of
all three Commissionersand its decision shall be considered a decision ofthe Commission. If this required number is not
obtained, as when there is a dissenting opinion, the case may be appealed to the Commission En Banc, in which case the
vote of the majority thereof shall be the decision of the Commission.
Petitioner contends that the 2-1 decision of thefirst division was a valid decision despite theresolution stated above
because of Art. IX-A, Section 7 of the Constitution. He argues thatthis applies to the voting of the Comelec both in
division and En Banc.
Respondent, on the other hand, insists that no decision was reached by the first divisionbecause the required unanimous
vote was notobtained. It was also argued that no validdecision was reached by the ComelecEn Banc because only three
votes were cast in favor of the petitioner and these did not constitute the majority of the body.
ISSUE: Whether the 2-1 decision of the first division was valid.
RULING:YES. The Court held that the 2-1 decision rendered by the first Division was a valid decision under Article IXA, Section 7 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the three members who voted to affirm the First Division constituted a
majority of the five members who deliberated and voted thereon En Bancand their decision is also valid under
theaforecited constitutional provision. Hence, the proclamation of Cua on the basis of the two aforecited decisions was a
valid act that entitles him now to assume his seat in the House of Representatitves.
Estrella vs. Commission on Elections | 429 SCRA 789
FACTS: Before this Court is a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 seeking to set aside and nullify the November 5, 2003
Status Quo Ante Order issued by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc in EAC No. A0-10-2002, Romeo
F. Estrella v. Rolando F. Salvador.
Romeo M. Estrella (petitioner) and Rolando F. Salvador (respondent) were mayoralty candidates in Baliuag, Bulacan
during the May 14, 2001 Elections. The Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed respondent as 3inner. Petitioner
thereafter filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulacan an election protest, docketed as EPC No. 10-M-2001,
which was raffled to Branch 10 thereof.By Decision of April 10, 2002, the RTC annulled respondents proclamation and
declared petitioner as the duly elected mayor of Baliuag.
ISSUE: Whether the vote of majority consists of all the members of the COMELEC En Banc.
RULING: For the foregoing reasons then, this Court hereby abandons the doctrine laid down in Cuaand holds that the
COMELEC En Banc shall decide a case or matter brought before it by a majority vote of "all its members," and NOT
majority of the members who deliberated and voted thereon. The provision of the Constitution is clear that decisions
reached by the COMELEC En Banc should be the majority vote of all its members and not only those who participated
and took part in the deliberation.