Estrella vs COMELEC

GR No. 160465 May 27, 2004

FACTS: Rolando Salvador was proclaimed winner in a mayoralty race in May 14, 2001
elections. His opponent, Romeo Estrella, filed before Regional Trial Court (RTC) an
election protest which consequently annulled Salvadors proclamation and declared
Estrella as the duly elected mayor and eventually issued writ of execution. While
Salvador filed a petition for certiorari before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC),
raffled to the Second Division thereof, Estrella moved for inhibition of Commissioner
Ralph Lantion, but a Status Quo Ante Order was issued. However, Commissioner Lantion
voluntarily inhibited himself and designated another Commissioner to substitute him. The
Second Division, with the new judge, affirmed with modifications the RTC decision and
declared Estrella as the duly elected mayor. Salvador filed a Motion for Reconsideration
which was elevated to the COMELEC En Banc, in which this time, Commissioner
Lantion participated by virtue of Status Quo Ante Order issued by the COMELEC En
Banc. He said that as agreed upon, while he may not participate in the Division
deliberations, he will vote when the case is elevated to COMELEC En Banc. Hence,
Estrella filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC shall decide a case or matter by a majority vote
of all its members
RULING: Yes. The provision of the Constitution is clear that decisions reached by the
COMELEC En Banc should be the majority vote of ALL its members and not only those
who participated and took part in the deliberations. Under the rules of statutory
construction, it is to be assumed that the words in which constitutional provisions are
couched express the objective sought to be attained. Since the above-quoted
constitutional provision states all of its members, without any qualification, it should be
interpreted as such. In the case at bar, following the clear provision of the Constitution,
counting out Commissioner Lantions vote from the questioned COMELEC en banc
resolution would leave just three votes out of all seven members of the COMELEC.
Had the framers intended that it should be the majority of the members who participated
or deliberated, it would have clearly phrased it that way as it did with respect to the
Supreme Court in Section 4(2), Article VIII of the Constitution. For this reason, the Court
hereby abandons the doctrine laid down in Cua and holds that COMELEC En Banc shall
decide a case or matter brought before it by a majority vote of all its members and
NOT majority of the members who deliberated and voted thereon.