Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 205505 2015-09-29	ATTY. ISIDRO Q. LICO v. COMELEC EN BANC SERENO, C.J.
On 8 December 2010, COMELEC proclaimed Ating Koop as one of the winning party-list groups.[5] Based on the procedure provided in BANAT Party-List v. COMELEC,[6] Ating Koop earned a seat in the House of Representatives. Petitioner Lico subsequently took his oath of office on 9 December 2010 before the Secretary-General of the House of Representatives,[7] and thereafter assumed office.
	GR No. 199082 2013-07-23	JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PERALTA, J.
This is not the first time that the Court is confronted with the issue of whether the Comelec has the exclusive power to investigate and prosecute cases of violations of election laws. In Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) Party-List v. Commission on Elections,[38] the constitutionality of Section 43[39] of RA 9369[40] had already been raised by petitioners therein and addressed by the Court. While recognizing the Comelec's exclusive power to investigate and prosecute cases under Batas Pambansa Bilang 881 or the Omnibus Election Code, the Court pointed out that the framers of the 1987 Constitution did not have such intention. This exclusivity is thus a legislative enactment that can very well be amended by Section 43 of RA 9369. Therefore, under the present law, the Comelec and other prosecuting arms of the government, such as the DOJ, now exercise concurrent jurisdiction in the investigation and prosecution of election offenses.
	GR No. 199082 2012-09-18	JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PERALTA, J.
This was an important innovation introduced by the 1987 Constitution, because the above-quoted provision was not in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions.[62]
	GR No. 199082 2012-09-18	JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PERALTA, J.
On November 14, 2011, petitioner Mike Arroyo filed a Motion to Defer Proceedings[24] before the Joint Committee, in view of the pendency of his petition before the Court. On the same day, petitioner GMA filed before the Joint Committee an Omnibus Motion Ad Cautelam[25] to require Senator Pimentel to furnish her with documents referred to in his complaint-affidavit and for the production of election documents as basis for the charge of electoral sabotage. GMA contended that for the crime of electoral sabotage to be established, there is a need to present election documents allegedly tampered which resulted in the increase or decrease in the number of votes of local and national candidates.[26] GMA prayed that she be allowed to file her counter-affidavit within ten (10) days from receipt of the requested documents.[27] Petitioner Abalos, for his part, filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings (Ex Abundante Ad Cautelam),[28] in view of the pendency of his petition brought before the Court.