Cua v.

Commission on Elections | 156 SCRA 582

FACTS: The first division of Comelec rendered a 2-1 decision 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. Pursuant to said rules, private respondent Puzon then filed on a
"motion for reconsideration/appeal" of the said decision with the COMELEC en banc, where three members voted to
sustain the First Division, with two dissenting and one abstaining (one member having died earlier).

On the strength of this 3-2 vote, Cua moved for his proclamation by the board of canvassers, which was granted. But
the next day Puzon filed with the COMELEC an urgent motion to suspend Cua's proclamation or to annul or suspend
its effect if already made. Subsequently, the Court issued a restraining telegram enjoining Cua from assuming the
office of member of the HOR. The petitioner then came to this Court to enjoin the COMELEC from acting on the said
motion and enforcing its restraining order.

Section 5 of the said resolution states that, A case being heard by it shall be decided with the unanimous concurrence
of all three Commissioners and its decision shall be considered a decision of the 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 the first division was a valid decision despite the resolution stated above
because of Art. IX-A, Section 7 of the Constitution. He argues that this 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 division because the required
unanimous vote was not obtained. It was also argued that no valid decision was reached by the Comelec En 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 SC held, after considering the issues and the arguments raised by the parties, that the 2-1
decision rendered by the first Division was a valid decision under Article IX-A, 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 Banc and their decision is also valid under the aforecited 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 Representatives.

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.