GREGO V COMELEC (DIGEST)

NOVEMBER 26, 2017 BY THELOWLYLAWSTUDENT

WILMER GREGO, petitioner, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND HUMBERTO
BASCO, respondents (DIGEST)
G.R. No. 125955, June 19, 1997

FACTS:
In 1981, Basco was removed from his position as Deputy Sheriff for serious misconduct.
Subsequently, he ran as a candidate for councilor in the Second District of the City of Manila
during the 1988, local elections. He won and assumed office. After his term, Basco sought
re-election. Again, he won. However, he found himself facing lawsuits filed by his
opponents who wanted to dislodge him from his position.
Petitioner argues that Basco should be disqualified from running for any elective position
since he had been “removed from office as a result of an administrative case” pursuant to
Section 40 (b) of Republic Act No. 7160.
For a third time, Basco was elected councilor in 1995. Expectedly, his right to office was
again contested. In 1995, petitioner Grego filed with the COMELEC a petition for
disqualification. The COMELEC conducted a hearing and ordered the parties to submit their
respective memoranda.
However, the Manila City BOC proclaimed Basco in May 1995, as a duly elected councilor
for the Second District of Manila, placing sixth among several candidates who vied for the
seats. Basco immediately took his oath of office.
COMELEC resolved to dismiss the petition for disqualification. Petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration of said resolution was later denied by the COMELEC,, hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not COMELEC acted in with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition
for disqualification.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of COMELEC in
dismissing the petition for disqualification, however, the Court noted that they do not agree
with its conclusions and reasons in the assailed resolution.
The Court reiterated that being merely an implementing rule, Sec 25 of the COMELEC Rules
of Procedure must not override, but instead remain consistent with and in harmony with
the law it seeks to apply and implement. Administrative rules and regulations are intended
to carry out, neither to supplant nor to modify, the law. The law itself cannot be extended to
amending or expanding the statutory requirements or to embrace matters not covered by
the statute. An administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress.
In case of discrepancy between the basic law and a rule or regulation issued to implement
said law, the basic law prevails because said rule or regulations cannot go beyond the
terms and provisions of the basic law. Since Section 6 of Rep. Act 6646, the law which
Section 5 of Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure seeks to implement, employed the
word “may,” it is, therefore, improper and highly irregular for the COMELEC to have used
instead the word “shall” in its rules.
Still, the Court DISMISSED the petition for lack of merit.