TAN v. COMELEC G.R. No.

112093

October 4, 1994 Vitug, J.

TOPIC IN SYLLABUS: Proceedings (Judicial and Administrative) Arising from the Same Facts
SUMMARY: Tan was City Prosecutor of Davao, who was deputized by COMELEC as Vice Chairman
of Board of Canvassers. A complaint was filed against him for Misconduct, Neglect of Duty, Gross
Incompetence and Acts Inimical to the Service before the COMELEC. He claimed that he comes
under the administrative disciplinary authority of the DOJ Secretary. Court held that COMELEC has
jurisdiction to inquire into the charges, under the Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code.
COMELEC has power of supervision and control over all officials required by law to perform duties
relative to conduct of elections. It may RECOMMEND disciplinary action but it is the executive
department to which employee belongs that has ultimate authority to impose the disciplinary penalty.
The law then does not detract from, but is congruent with, the general administrative authority of the
department of government concerned over its own personnel. To this end, it may inquire into
charges against them for the proper exercise of this recommendatory power.

FACTS:
Tan, as incumbent City Prosecutor of Davao, was designated by COMELEC as Vice-Chairman
of City Board of Canvassers of Davao City for the 11th May 1992 synchronized national and local
election pursuant to RA 6646 and Omnibus Election Code.
On the basis of votes canvassed, GARCIA was proclaimed Congressman to represent Second
District of Davao.
Private respondent ALTERADO, also a candidate, filed a number of cases questioning validity of
Garcias proclamation and accusing members of Board of Canvassers of unlawful, erroneous,
incomplete, irregular canvass.
o HRET dismissed electoral protest of Alterado.
o Ombudsman dismissed criminal complaint for Falsification of Public Documents and
Violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for lack of criminal intent
o CASE AT BAR concerns itself with an administrative charge that is STILL PENDING before
COMELEC against Canvassers and Tan for Misconduct, Neglect of Duty, Gross
Incompetence and Acts Inimical to the Service.
Tan filed Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction of the COMELEC. He claimed that he, as City
Prosecutor of Davao, belongs under the Executive Department, particularly the Department of
Justice. Hence, he is under DOJs administrative jurisdiction and not the COMELEC. COMELEC
DENIED M2D. Hence, this.

TANS ARGUMENTS:
1. The Civil Service Law provides that department heads "shall have jurisdiction to investigate and
decide matters involving disciplinary action against officers under their jurisdiction"
2. Authority of COMELEC to deputize public officers belonging to executive department is only for the
purpose of insuring free, orderly and honest elections. It doesnt include administrative disciplinary
jurisdiction over executive officials.
3. Sec 38 of PD 807 relied upon by COMELEC is not applicable because it applies only to admin
cases against non-presidential appointees while he was a presidential appointee.

ISSUES: WoN COMELEC has jurisdiction over the case? YES.

HELD:
The COMELEC's authority under Article IX of the Constitution is virtually all-encompassing when it
comes to election matters. In respect particularly to sanctions against election offenses. This is
JALASCO, JENAIRA MAE A. CASE # 90
 supported by power conferred by the Omnibus Election Code, which grants COMELEC authority
to recommend dismissal of deputized executive officials to the proper authority. (SEE LAWS
BELOW!)
It should be stressed that the administrative case against Tan is in relation to the performance of
his duties as an election canvasser and not as a city prosecutor.
The COMELEC's mandate includes its authority to exercise direct and immediate supervision and
control over national and local officials or employees, including members of any national or local
law enforcement agency and instrumentality of the government, required by law to perform duties
relative to the conduct of elections.
In order to help ensure that such duly deputized officials and employees of government carry out
their respective assigned tasks, the law has also provided than upon the COMELEC's
recommendation, the corresponding proper authority (the Secretary of the Department of Justice
in the case at bar) shall take appropriate action, either to suspend or remove from office the officer
or employee who may, after due process, be found guilty of violation of election laws or failure to
comply with instructions, orders, decision or rulings of the COMELEC.
The COMELEC, prior to making its recommendation, must first satisfy itself that there indeed has
been an infraction of the law, or of its directives issued conformably therewith, by the person
administratively charged. It also stands at the best position to assess them. To deprive COMELEC
of authority to conduct administrative inquiry on charges of election offenses against employees
outside the regular employ of COMELEC would e to deny it is recommendatory power, and more
than that, deny due process to official or employee concerned.
Nevertheless, COMELEC merely may issue a recommendation for disciplinary action but it is the
executive department to which the charged official or employee belongs which has the ultimate
authority to impose the disciplinary penalty. The law then does not detract from, but is congruent
with, the general administrative authority of the department of government concerned over its own
personnel.
RE: FORUM-SHOPPING: Criminal case proceedings before Ombudsman and administrative
case in COMELEC are entirely independent proceedings. Neither would the results in one
conclude the other. An absolution from criminal charge is not a bar to an administrative
prosecution, or vice versa.
So, also, the dismissal by the COMELEC of SPC Case No. 92-232 on the ground that the case
constituted an electoral protest within the jurisdiction of the HRET and not of the COMELEC
(affirmed by this Court in G.R. No. 106452) does not necessarily foreclose the matter of possible
liability, if warranted, of those who might have improperly acted in the canvass of votes. (A wild
case appears!)

RELEVANT LAW:
- Section 2(6-8), Article IX, of the Constitution: COMELEC may recommend to the President the
removal of any officer or employee it has deputized or the imposition of any other disciplinary
action, for violation or disregard of, or disobedience to its directive, order, or decision.
- Section 52, Article VII, of the Omnibus Election Code: Exercise direct and immediate
supervision and control over national and local officials or employees, including members of any
national or local law enforcement agency and instrumentality of the government required by law to
perform duties relative to the conduct of elections.
- Sec 52, Par 2, Omnibus Election Code: The Commission may relieve any officer or employee
referred to in the preceding paragraph from the performance of his duties relating to electoral
processes who violates the election law or fails to comply with its instructions, orders, decisions or
rulings, and appoint his substitute. Upon recommendation of the Commission, the corresponding
proper authority shall suspend or remove from office any or all of such officers or employees, who
may, after due process, be found guilty of such violation or failure.
JALASCO, JENAIRA MAE A. CASE # 90