(Decide Election Contests) Flores vs Comelec Facts: Roque Flores became Punong Barangay in a town in Abra.

His election was contested by 2 nd placer Nobelito Rapisora (MTCC ruled in his favour). Judge ordered that votes stating Flores be considered invalid. Flores appealed to COMELEC. Case dismissed on the ground that COMELEC has no jurisdiction .

ISSUE: WON COMELEC has no jurisdiction for not ruling on the case at bar? HELD: Art. IX- C of Consti provides that finality of decisions of COMELEC shall be applicable only to questions of fact. SC may review decisions covering questions of law. PET DISMISSED. Garcia and OHara vs. De Jesus and Comelec FACTS: (Consolidated cases) (The Antipolo Case) Garcia and O Hara were the winners for the office of Mayor and Vice -Mayor in Antipolo, Rizal. Their win was contested by De Jesus and David. (The Isabela Case) Neyra was proclaimed Mayor over petitioner Uy.

Principally, Petitioners in the two cases question the arrogation unto itself by the COMELEC of the power of issue Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus. (Used: Pimentel vs COMELEC: where 1973 Consti doesnt confer this power) On the other hand, all Respondents contend that since the 1987 Constitution expressly gives COMELEC appellate jurisdiction over election contests of elective municipal officials decided by trial courts. (Section 2[2], Article IX-C), and to promulgate its own rules based in specific conditions.-> (Section 6, Article IX-A and Section 3, Article IX-C), the COMELEC validly promulgated the rule which empowers it to issue the special Writs.

ISSUE: WON COMELEC has jurisdiction to Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus in electoral contests involving municipal and barangay officials HELD: In the absence of any specific conferment upon the COMELEC, either by the Constitution or by legislative fiat, the COMELEC is bereft of jurisdiction to issue said Writs. In the Philippine setting, the authority to issue Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus involves the exercise of original jurisdiction. Thus, such authority has always been expressly conferred, either by the Constitution or by law. Significantly, what the Constitution granted the COMELEC was appellate jurisdiction. The Constitution makes no mention of any power given the COMELEC to exercise original jurisdiction over Petitioners for Certiorari,Prohibition and Mandamus unlike in the case of the Supreme Court which was specifically conferred such authority (Art. VIII, Sec. 5[1]). The immutable doctrine being that jurisdiction is fixed by law, the power to issue such Writs cannot be implied from the mere existence of appellate jurisdiction. DISMISSED.

Relampagos vs. Cumba

FACTS: Background: Garcia and Veloria cases: jurisdiction regarding issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus-> no. Contested win of Rosita Cumba, Mayor of Magallanes, Agusan del Norte. COMELEC says it has jurisdiction to issue such writs because of Section 50 of B.P. Blg. 697, which remains in full force as it was not expressly repealed by the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881), and that it is not exactly correct that this law selfdestructed after the May 1984 election. ISSUE: WON COMELEC has jurisdiction to issue writs? HELD: Yes. B.P. Blg. 697 has not been expressly repealed, and Section 50 thereof is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code. Re: Pimentel case-> Power to issue writs was meant to fill the void in the laws and to prevent an incongruous situation. The Commission is the most logical body whenever it performs judicial functions to take jurisdiction of petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus because it has appellate jurisdiction in election cases granted by the Constitution itself. Justice de Castro in the Pimentel case pointed out, in his dissenting opinion that under the Constitution the certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in election cases should properly be limited to decisions, orders or rulings of the Commission on Elections, not from lower courts PETITTION DENIED. Manzala vs. COMELEC FACTS: Manzala contests Julie Montons win as Municipal Mayor of Magdiwang, Romblon. RTC ruled in favour of Mananzala. COMELEC ruled in favour of Monton. ISSUE:

1. WON COMELEC has appellate jurisdiction to review, revise, modify, or even reverse and set aside the
decision of the RTC?

2. WON the RTCs ruling on the validity of the ballots should not be disturbed
HELD: 1. Yes. - In the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers, the Constitution also mandates the COMELEC to hear and decide cases first by division and upon motion for reconsideration, by the COMELEC en banc. Election cases cannot be treated in a similar manner as criminal cases where, upon appeal from a conviction by the trial court, the whole case is thrown open for review and the appellate court can resolve issues which are not even set forth in the pleadings. 2. No. The appreciation of the contested ballots and election documents involves a question of fact best left to the determination of the COMELEC, a specialized agency tasked with the supervision of elections all over the country. To reiterate, the COMELEC is the constitutional commission vested with the exclusive original jurisdiction over election contests involving regional, provincial and city officials, as well as appellate jurisdiction over election protests involving elective municipal and barangay officials.

PETITION DISMISSED. Masangkay vs. COMELEC FACTS: Masangcay, provincial treasurer of Aklan, charged with several others before the C O M E L E C with contempt for having opened three boxes containing official and sample

ballots for the municipalities of the province of Aklan without the presence of the authorized officers. . He was subsequently convicted by the COMELEC as Masangkay contended that, even if he can be held guilty of the act of contempt charged, the decision is null and void for lack of valid power on the part of the Commission to impose such disciplinary penalty under the principle of separation of powers. Issue: WON COMELEC can exercise the power to punish contempt. Held: NO. The COMELEC, although it cannot be classified a court of justice within the meaning of the Constitution (Section 30, Article VIII), for it is merely an administrative body, may however exercise quasijudicial functions insofar as controversies that by express provision law come under its jurisdiction. However, when the Commission exercises a ministerial function it cannot exercise the po wer to punish contempt because such power is inherently judicial in nature. In the instant case, the resolutions which the Commission tried to enforce a n d f o r w h o s e v i o l a t i o n t h e charge for contempt was filed against petitioner Masangcay merely call for the exercise of an administrative or ministerial function for they just concern the procedure to be followed in the distribution of ballots and o t h e r e l e c t i o n paraphernalia among the different municipalities. Thus, the COMELEC cannot exercise its power to punish contempt.

Lagumbay vs. COMELEC FACTS: COMELEC declined to reject the returns of certain precincts of some municipalities of Mindanao. The returns were obviously fabricated-> everyone voted for all the 8 candidates of the Liberal party and vote went to the Nacionalista party.-> main point: there is no block voting nowadays. ISSUE: WON COMELEC correctly denied prima facie recognition to the said returns on the ground that they are manifestly fabricated or falsified? HELD: Yes. - Its only practical that they do so. - General rule (where testimonial/ documentary evidence is necessary): frauds in the holding of the election should be handled and settled by the corresponding courts or electoral tribunals. - However, where fraud is clear from the returns itself (res ipsa loquitorthe thing speaks for itself), there is no reason to accept it and give it prima facie value - At any rate, fraud or no fraud, the verdict in these fifty precincts may ultimately be ascertained before the Senate Electoral Tribunal. (Rule-Making) ARUELO JR. vs. CA Facts: Aruelo contests the win of Gatchalian over him as Vice-Mayor of Balagtas, Bulacan. He says that there was fraudulent alteration and tampering" of votes in the tally sheets and the election returns. Procedural requirements re: counterclaims happened the last of which was Gatchalians Answer With Counter -Protest and Counterclaim was timely filed in response to the TRO issued against him. ISSUES:

1.

2.

WON in election contests, the COMELEC Rules of Procedure gives the respondent therein only five days from receipt of summons within which to file his answer to the petition and this had prescribed when Gatchalian filed his answer. WON the filing of motions to dismiss and motions for bill of particulars is prohibited by the COMELEC Rules of Procedure (thus, Gatchalians pleadings didnt suspend the running of the 5 -day period / give him a new 5-day period to file his answer)

HELD: No, on both counts. - Aruelo filed his protest with the RTC whose proceedings are governed by the Rules of Court. Thus, COMELEC Rules of Procedure isnt applicable. Constitutionally speaking, the COMELEC cannot adopt a rule prohibiting the filing of certain pleadings in the regular courts. The power to promulgate rules concerning pleadings, practice and procedure in all courts is vested on the Supreme Court PETITION DISMISSED.

LOKIN vs. COMELEC FACTS: Story of who should be the nominee of CIBAC. Conflict on whether Pia Derlas authority as acting secretarygeneral is valid. Petitioners didnt file their pleadings on time. ISSUES: 1. Whats the difference between the specific procedure for the review of judgements made by the COMELEC under Rule 64 and that of the general remedy afforded by Rule 65? 2. WON COMELEC has jurisdiction over intra party disputes? HELD: - Rule 64 of the ROC-> if petition is filed beyond the reglementary period-> it can be dismissed even on that basis alone. - ROC Rule 64: This governs SCs review of judgements and final orders of the COMELEC by way of certiorari. - Rule 64 and Rule 65 provides for the same remedy of certiorari but they cannot be equated since they provide for different reglementary periods. - Rule 65 provides for a period of 60 days from the notice of judgement sought to be assailed in the SC while Sec. 3 of Rule 64 provides for only 30 days. - Pates vs COMELEC: fresh period rule in Rule 65 doesnt apply to the timeliness of petitions under Rule 64. - Art IX-C of the Constitution expressly provides that the COMELECs rules of procedure should expedite the disposition of election cases.

Party-list law vested COMELEC with jurisdiction over the nomination of party-list representatives and prescribing the qualifications of each nominee.-> Thus, COMELEC promulgated its Rules on Disqualification Cases Against Nominees of Party-List Groups/ Organizations Participating in the May 10 2010 elections-> included intra party disputes. RESULT: Petitioners didnt file on time. PIA Derla is expunged from the records as a nominee. PETITION DISMISSED. (Review of COMELEC Decisions, Orders and Regulations) FLORES vs. COMELEC Facts: The petitioner went to COMELEC-> appeal dismissed saying that COMELEC has no power to review the decision of the RTC (presumably based on Sec 9 of RA 6679. Issue: 1. WON COMELEC has jurisdiction? 2. WON COMELECs decisions may be reviewed by the SC.

Held: 1. Yes. Petitioner's appeal was validly made to the Commission on Elections under its "exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all contests. . . involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction. 2. Yes. Final decisions of the COMELEC on election contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices is only final, executory and not appealable only on questions of FACT and NOT LAW. SC has authority to resolve questions of law as its inherent in the judicial po wer conferred upon it by the Constitution. SARMIENTO vs. COMELEC Facts: Consolidated cases seeking to set aside resolutions of COMELEC. Petitioners impugn the challenged resolutions as having been issued with the Commission, sitting en banc, took cognizance of and decided the appeals without first referring them to any of its Divisions Issue: WON COMELEC can just decide en banc without referring to its divisions? Held: No. - The 1987 Constitution provides that election cases including pre-proclamation controversies must first be heard and decided by a Division of the COMELEC. (Sec.3 Art. IX-C).The Commission, sitting en banc, does not have the authority to hear and decide the same at the first instance - In the COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE, pre-proclamation cases are classified as Special Cases 1 and, in compliance with the above provision of the Constitution, the two (2) Divisions of the Commission are vested with the authority to hear and decide these Special Cases. Indisputably then, the COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction, or with GAD, when it resolved the appeals of petitioners in the abovementioned Special Cases without first referring them to any of its Divisions. Said resolutions are, therefore, null and void and must be set aside. PETITIONS DISMISSED-> but this doesnt stop them from filing regular election protests. MILLA vs. BALMORES-LAXA FACTS: The petition at bar involves the power of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to annul the proclamation, due to an alleged error in the tabulation of the Statement of Votes, of a winning candidate for municipal councilor who had taken his oath and assumed office as such Petitioner was proclaimed 8th winning candidate. Respondent called for correction of entries in the Statement of Votes. He alleges that there was fraud and irregularities in the canvass of votes. Complaint was raised to the COMELEC-> declared petitioners proclamation as null and void and proclaimed responded as the 8th winning candidate.

ISSUE: WON the COMELEC has the power to annul the proclamation due to an alleged error in the tabulation of the Statement of Votes of a candidate who had already taken his oath and assumed office? HELD: Yes. If a candidate's proclamation is based on a Statement of Votes which contains erroneous entries, it is null and void. It is no proclamation at all and the proclaimed candidate's assumption of office cannot deprive the COMELEC of the power to annul the proclamation. Note: In this case, the petition was granted because the COMELEC decided en banc right away when it should have referred the pre-proclamation case to one of its divisions first. MUNOZ vs. COMELEC Facts:

Petitioner and private respondent were candidates for mayor of Camalig, Albay in the May 10, 2004 election. Private resp objected to the inclusion of 26 from various precincts because of physical irregularities and reasons of force and intimidation. Despite the pendency of the appeal, petitioner was later proclaimed by the MBC as the winning candidate. Private respondent then filed with the COMELEC a petition to annul the proclamation of the petitioner for being premature and illegal-> GRANTED. MFR of petitioner to the En Banc-> DENIED. ISSUES: 1) WON the COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion when it decided only the Petition to Annul Proclamation despite the agreement of the parties to consolidate private respondents appeal from the ruling of the MBC since both cases were raffled to the same Division and the issue in the latter case was connected to, if not determinative of, the merits of the former case. 2) WON the COMELEC En Banc correctly ordered the new MBC to re-canvass all the ERs and to proclaim the winner on the basis thereof despite the pendency of the appeal with the First Division. HELD: 1. No. COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides that when an action or proceeding involves a question of law and fact which is similar to or common with that of another action or proceeding, the same may be consolidated with the action or proceeding bearing the lower docket number, -> this rule is only permissive, not mandatory. Moreover, the two cases involve different matters of fact and law. 1 st case: a pre-proclamation controversy; 2nd case: conduct of the MBC in proclaiming the petitioner without authority of the COMELEC -> Hence, the rule isnt applicable. Mere pendency of the two cases is not a ground for their outright consolidation. On Re-canvassing: No. It exceeded its authority by ordering the re-canvass of all the ERs. The COMELEC En Banc in effect rendered a decision on the merits of SPC No. 04-087, which up to the present is still pending before its First Division, in violation of the rule that it does not have the authority to hear and decide election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, at the first instance On Proclamation: Yes. Time and again, this Court has given its imprimatur on the principle that COMELEC is with authority to annul any canvass and proclamation which was illegally made.

2.

3.

BAUTISTA vs. COMELEC FACTS: Bautista filed his CoC for Punong Barangay in Lumbagan. Election Officer Jareo refused to accept Bautista's Coc because he was not a registered voter in Lumbangan. On June 11, 2002, Bautista filed an action for mandamus against Jareno with the RTC. RTC- sided with Bautista. Jareno had to comply with the order of putting Bautistas name in the official list of candidates but he still brought up the matter with the COMELEC. COMELEC Law Dept- sided with Jareno, recommended the cancellation of Bautistas Coc but the COMELEC en banc failed to act on it-> Bautista already won and was proclaimed. Thereafter, the COMELEC en banc issued two resolutions resolved to cancel Bautistas Coc. ISSUES: 1. 2. 3. WON the COMELEC en banc committed GAD amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it issued the two resolutions? WON the COMELEC deprived Bautista of due process when it issued the two resolutions? WON the COMELEC can proclaim the 2nd Alcoreza (guy with the next highest number of votes) in view of the disqualification of Bautista?

HELD: 1. YES. A division of the COMELEC should have first heard the case. En banc can only act when there is a motion for reconsideration on the decision of the division. The proceeding for the cancellation of the CoC is not merely an administrative function of the COMELEC but also involves quasi-judicial functions. 2. YES. Bautistas side wasnt heard. A summary proceeding doesnt mean that COMELEC can do away with prior notice and hearing.

3. NO. Only exception as seen in Labo vs COMELEC is when there is a concurrence of these 2 assumptions: (1): when the proclaimed candidate is disqualified and (2): the electorate is fully aware of the disqualification but still voted for the disqualified candidate Baytan vs. COMELEC Facts: Reynato, Reynaldo and Adrian Bantan registered in the wrong place for the May 1998 elections (apparently because of the Brgy. Captain who led them ther)e. Upon realizing that their residence is not within the jurisdiction of the precinct, they registered again, this time to the right precinct. They sent a letter to the COMELEC seeking advice on ho w to cancel their previous registration. After this, the Provincial Election Supervisor recommended filing an information for double registration against the petitioners. ISSUE: 1. WON COMELEC acted with GAD when it recommended the prosecution of the petitioners despite lack of intent and substantial compliance with cancellation of double registration? 2. WON COMELEC has to refer this case to its divisions first? HELD: No on both counts. - Double Registration is malum prohibitum-> lack of intent is inconsequential. They also just sent their letter after the election officer had already reported their act. Petitioners defences of good faith and substantial compliance are best used for the trial proper and not the preliminary investigation. The 1987 Constitution does not prescribe how the COMELEC should exercise its administrative powers, whether en banc or in division. The Constitution merely vests the COMELECs administrative powers in the COMELEC while providing that the COMELEC may sit en banc or in two divisions.> this case is a prosecution of election law violators-> falls under the exercise of COMELECs administrative powers. Thus, the COMELEC en banc can directly approve the recommendation of its Law Department to file the criminal information for double registration against petitioners in the instant case. There is no constitutional requirement that the filing of the criminal information be first decided by any of the divisions of the COMELEC.

Jaramilla vs. COMELEC FACTS: [Respondent] Antonio Suyat and [petitioner] Alberto J. Jaramilla both ran for the position of Member of the Sangguniang Bayan in the Municipality of Sta. Cruz, Ilocos Sur in the May 14, 2001 elections. Suyat ranked 9th. He was reviewing the results when he saw that Jaramilla only got (23) votes per Election Return from a certain precinct. However, when the figures were forwarded to the Statement of Votes by Precinct, petitioner was already credited with seventy three 73 votes. Suyat filed to the COMELEC and his petition was granted. Jaramillas proclamation was annulled. ISSUES: 1. WON COMELEC may decide this case en banc right away? 2. WON COMELEC erred in taking cognizance of Suyats petition even if the 5 -day reglementary period fixed in the COMELEC Rules of Procedure had prescribed and its lack of certification against forum shopping 3. WON COMELEC erred in not dismissing a case for non-payment of filing fee. HELD:

1.

2. 3.

Yes. A Petition for Correction of Manifest Errors/ incorrect copying of figures from the election returns is just a clerical error-> exercise of administrative power only. Thus, the COMELEC en ban properly assumed original jurisdiction. No. Petitioner overlooks the fact that the COMELEC has the discretion to suspend its rules or any portion thereof in the interest of justice and speedy resolution of cases. No. As correctly pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor General, the COMELEC is not constrained to dismiss a case before it by reason of non-payment of filing fee

MUTILAN vs. COMELEC FACTS: Petitioner Mutilan and Respondent Ampatuan were candidates for ARMM Governor. Pet says, there were many parts of ARMM wherein no voting actually happened, substitute voting occurred, etc. Petitoners counsel admitted that the case is not an election protest but an annulment of elections and prayed that it be elevated to the COMELEC en banc and not the 2nd Division where it was originally in. Petitioner argued that jurisdiction of this case may be heard by both division and en banc so the second division can legally elevate the case to the Commission En Banc pursuant to its rules of procedure to expedite disposition of election case. The COMELEC Second Division ruled that jurisdiction over petitions for annulment of elections is vested in the COMELEC En Banc. However, the elevation of the case to the COMELEC En Banc is not sanctioned by the rules or by jurisprudence. Thus, the COMELEC Second Division dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUES: 1. WON the COMELEC Second Division acted with GAD amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the petition to annul elections and in not elevating the petition to the COMELEC En Banc. WON the COMELEC En Banc acted in the same way in denying petitioners motion for reconsideration for lack of verification.

2.

HELD: The petition is partly meritorious 1. 2. Division can elevate. While automatic elevation of a case erroneously filed with the Division to En Banc is not provided in the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, such action is not prohibited. MFR must be verified before it may be acted by the COMELEC en banc.

GALIDO vs. COMELEC FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent were candidates for Mayor in a municipality in Bohol. Petitioner was proclaimed as Mayor. Private respondent appealed the RTC decision to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Through its First Division, the COMELEC reversed the trial court's decision and declared private respondent the duly-elected mayor by a plurality of five (5) votes. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the COMELEC in its en banc resolution. ISSUE: WON the COMELEC decision may be brought to the SC by a petition for certiorari? HELD: Yes. The fact that decisions, final orders or rulings of the Commission on Elections in contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices are final, executory and not appealable, does not preclude a recourse to this Court by way of a special civil action of certiorari.

But COMELEC didnt commit GAD amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in rendering the decision. It is settled that the function of a writ of certiorari is to keep an inferior court or tribunal within the bounds of its jurisdiction and to prevent it from committing GAD. As COMELEC correctly says, it has the inherent power to decide an election contest on physical evidence, equity, law and justice, and apply established jurisprudence in support of its findings and conclusions; and that the extent to which such precedents apply rests on its discretion, the exercise of which should not be controlled unless such discretion has been abused to the prejudice of either party. Finally, the records disclose that private respondent had already assumed the position of Mayor as the dulyelected mayor of the municipality by virtue of the COMELEC decision. The main purpose of prohibition is to suspend all action and prevent the further performance of the act complained of. In this light, the petition at bar has become moot and academic. PETITION DISMISSED. RIVERA vs. COMELEC FACTS: Rivera and Garcia were candidates for Mayor of a town in Albay. Rivera was proclaimed as Mayor. Garcia filed an election protest to the RTC which ruled in his favour. Rivera appealed to the COMELEC which still maintained the annulment of his proclamation. MFR: COMELEC en banc still sided with Garcia. Garcia assumes as mayor. SC issued a TRO against him upon Riveras motion. ISSUE: 1. WON the decisions of the COMELEC in election contests involving elective municipal and barangay officials, being final and executory and not appealable, preclude the filing of a special civil action of certiorari 2. WON the SC can decide on the issue of allegedly misappreciated ballots? HELD:

1. No. This was decided in the said Galido case. 2. No. Re-evaluation of ballots are factual determinations. The SC can only deal with questions of law.
Findings of fact of administrative bodies are final unless grave abuse of discretion has marred such factual determinations. None was found in this case. PETITION DISMISSED. TRO LIFTED. BULILIS vs NUEZ FACTS: Petitioner Ceriaco Bulilis (Bulilis) was proclaimed winner of the elections for punong barangay of Barangay Bulilis, Ubay, Bohol. He won over respondent Victorino Nuez (Nuez) by a margin of four (4) votes. Nuez filed an Election Protest (for judicial recount and annulment of proclamation) with the MCTC. Bulilis filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the (RTC)-> DISMISSED on the ground that COMELEC has over petitions for certiorari in election cases involving municipal and barangay officials. Hence, he filed the present petition for certiorari (under Rule 65) with prayer for writ of preliminary injunction with this Court (the Petition), claiming that he is raising purely questions of law. Petitioner says that what he filed with the RTC is not an election case ( i.e., not relating to elections, returns or qualifications of elective officials), but one imputing GAD on the part of the MCTC judge in his issuance of an interlocutory order. He further claims that the COMELECs appellate jurisdiction is only limited to decided barangay election cases. ISSUE: WON under the rules relied upon by the RTC, the COMELECs appellate jurisdiction in election cases is allegedly limited to decisions of election courts and not interlocutory order? HELD: No. Election cases and cases on GAD of a judge hearing an election case arent mutually exclusive.

Also, in Galang v. Geronimo: the Court had the opportunity to rule that a petition for certiorari questioning an interlocutory order of a trial court in an electoral protest was within the appellate jurisdiction of the COMELEC> Since it is the COMELEC which has jurisdiction to take cognizance of an appeal from the decision of the regional trial court in election contests involving elective municipal officials, then it is also the COMELEC which has jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. PETITION DISMISSED. (FISCAL AUTONOMY) PENERA vs COMELEC FACTS: The assailed Decision dismissed Peneras petition and affirmed the Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc as well as the Resolution of the COMELEC Second Division. The Decision disqualified Penera from running for the office of Mayor in Sta. Monica, Surigao del Norte and declared that the Vice-Mayor should succeed Penera. ISSUE: LOLL THIS CASE IS TOTALLY NOT RELATED THAT IS MY ISSUEEEE! HELD: Theres this RA mentioned in the case RA 8436 that says: Section 8. Procurement of equipment and materials. - The Commission shall procure the automated counting machines, computer equipment, devices and materials needed for ballot printing and devices for voting, counting and canvassing from local or foreign sources free from taxes and import duties, subject to accounting and auditing rules and regulations.