Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 136 views

    Won The Comelec Could Cite Masangcay in Contempt? (No)

    Uploaded by

    Camille Britanico
    The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has the duty to enforce election laws and decide controversies related to elections, giving it quasi-judicial functions. However, when exercising administrative or ministerial functions, COMELEC cannot punish for contempt, as that power is judicial in nature. In this case, the resolutions COMELEC tried to enforce through contempt charges concerned procedures for distributing ballots, a ministerial function. Therefore, COMELEC exceeded its jurisdiction in finding Masangcay in contempt, making its decision null and void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Won The Comelec Could Cite Masangcay in Contempt? (No)

    Uploaded by

    Camille Britanico
    136 views1 page
    The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has the duty to enforce election laws and decide controversies related to elections, giving it quasi-judicial functions. However, when exercising administrative or ministerial functions, COMELEC cannot punish for contempt, as that power is judicial in nature. In this case, the resolutions COMELEC tried to enforce through contempt charges concerned procedures for distributing ballots, a ministerial function. Therefore, COMELEC exceeded its jurisdiction in finding Masangcay in contempt, making its decision null and void.

    Original Description:

    notes

    Original Title

    Ratio

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has the duty to enforce election laws and decide controversies related to elections, giving it quasi-judicial functions. However, when exercising administrative or ministerial functions, COMELEC cannot punish for contempt, as that power is judicial in nature. In this case, the resolutions COMELEC tried to enforce through contempt charges concerned procedures for distributing ballots, a ministerial function. Therefore, COMELEC exceeded its jurisdiction in finding Masangcay in contempt, making its decision null and void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    136 views1 page

    Won The Comelec Could Cite Masangcay in Contempt? (No)

    Uploaded by

    Camille Britanico
    The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has the duty to enforce election laws and decide controversies related to elections, giving it quasi-judicial functions. However, when exercising administrative or ministerial functions, COMELEC cannot punish for contempt, as that power is judicial in nature. In this case, the resolutions COMELEC tried to enforce through contempt charges concerned procedures for distributing ballots, a ministerial function. Therefore, COMELEC exceeded its jurisdiction in finding Masangcay in contempt, making its decision null and void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    -

    WON THE COMELEC COULD CITE MASANGCAY IN CONTEMPT? (NO)


    Guevarra v. COMELEC: under the law and the constitution, the Commission on
    Elections has not only the duty to enforce and administer all laws relative to the
    conduct of elections, but also the power to try, hear and decide any controversy that
    may be submitted to it in connection with the elections
    o In this sense, the Commission, although it cannot be classified as a court of
    justice within the meaning of the Constitution (Section 30, Article VIII), for it is
    merely an administrative body, may however exercise quasi-judicial functions
    insofar as controversies that by express provision of law come under its
    jurisdiction.
    o In the same case, we also expressed the view that when the Commission
    exercises a ministerial function it cannot exercise the power to punish for
    contempt because such power is inherently judicial in nature
    o 'The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts; its existence is
    essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings, and to the
    enforcement of judgments, orders and mandates of courts, and, consequently,
    in the administration of justice'
    Its exercise by administrative bodies has been invariably limited to
    making effective the power to elicit testimony (People vs. Swena, 296
    P., 271). And the exercise of that power by an administrative body in
    furtherance of its administrative function has been held invalid
    In the instant case, the resolutions which the Commission tried to enforce and for
    whose violation the charge for contempt was filed against petitioner Masangcay
    merely call for the exercise of an administrative or ministerial function for they
    merely concern the procedure to be followed in the distribution of ballots and other
    election paraphernalia among the different municipalities.
    In this sense, the Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction in punishing him for
    contempt, and so its decision is null and void.
    Question re: the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Revised Election Code was not
    discussed; the Court deemed it unnecessary to pass upon such question

    You might also like