This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-01-21 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Blanco v. COMELEC, another case cited by respondents, was a disqualification case of one of the mayoralty candidates of Meycauayan, Bulacan.[45] The COMELEC Second Division ruled that petitioner could not qualify for the 2007 elections due to the findings in an administrative case that he engaged in vote buying in the 1995 elections.[46] No motion for reconsideration was filed before the COMELEC En Banc. This court, however, took cognizance of this case applying one of the exceptions in ABS-CBN: The assailed resolution was a nullity.[47] | |||||
|
2011-04-12 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We cannot subscribe to petitioner's proposition. The landmark case of Repol, as affirmed in the subsequent cases of Soriano, Jr. v. COMELEC[6] and Blanco v. COMELEC,[7] leaves no room for equivocation. | |||||
|
2009-06-30 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Readily discernable is that the challenged September 4 and October 6, 2008 Orders[14] were issued not by the COMELEC en banc but by one of its divisions, the First Division. Settled is the rule that it is the decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC en banc which, in accordance with Article IX-A, Section 7[15] of the Constitution, may be brought to this Court on certiorari.[16] But this rule should not apply when a division of the COMELEC arrogates unto itself, and deprives the en banc of the authority to rule on a motion for reconsideration, as in this case. Further, the rule is not ironclad; it admits of exceptions as when the decision or resolution sought to be set aside, even if it were merely a Division action, is an absolute nullity.[17] | |||||