BULAONG v.

COMELEC
G.R. No. 107987, March 31, 1993.
Facts:
Private respondent filed an election protest questioning the precinct results of ten (10)
Municipalities. Petitioner filed an "Urgent Motion for One-day Extension. A day after, petitioner
filed his motion for reconsideration dated September 21, 1992. There being no resolution yet on
his motion for extension, petitioner then filed a "Supplement to Urgent Motion for One-day
Extension," on October 6, 1992. On October 12, 1992, petitioner received his copy of the
COMELEC’s order dated October 6, denying petitioner’s urgent motion for one day extension.
On October 14, petitioner moved to reconsider. The COMELEC thru its First Division denied
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Hence, this instant petition for certiorari and
mandamus with prayer for a temporary restraining order to enjoin the order to the First
Division of the COMELEC dated September 9,1992. On December 14,1992, this Court
issued a temporary restraining order against public Respondent.
Issue:
Whether or not the First Division of the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it
denied petitioner’s motions for reconsideration.
Ruling:
It is not mandatory on the part of a division of the COMELEC to refer all pending
motions for reconsideration to the COMELEC en banc.
For said motion to be considered en banc, it requires the unanimous vote of the
members of the division as mandated by Section 2 of Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules. In
the case at bar, there was an absence of such vote. Instead of withholding its decision
on such interlocutory matter, the First Division of the COMELEC decided to exercise its
power under Section 6 of Rule 20 of the COMELEC Rules which states:
"When the allegations in a protest or counter-protest so warrant, or whenever in the
opinion of the Commission or Division the interest of justice so demands, it shall
immediately order the ballot boxes containing ballots and their keys, list of voters with
voting records, book of voters and other documents used in the election to be brought
before the Commission, and shall order the revision of the ballots.
"The revision of ballots shall be made in the office of the Clerk of Court concerned or at
such places as the Commission or Division shall designate, and shall be completed
within three (3) months from the date of the order, unless otherwise directed by the
Commission."
A mandamus proceeding involving a discretionary power of the COMELEC does not lie.
A perusal of the aforecited section impliedly reveals the discretionary power of the
COMELEC Division or En Banc to order a revision of ballots. This can be gleaned from
the use of the phrase, "whenever in the opinion of the Commission or Division the
interest of justice so demand." Although in most instances the revision of ballots takes
place in the office of the Clerk of Court concerned, revision of ballots may also be held
in "such places as the Commission or Division shall designate." Petitioner is to be
reminded that mandamus, as a remedy, is available to compel the doing of an act
specifically enjoined by law as a duty. It cannot compel the doing of an act involving
the exercise of discretion one way or the other. Undoubtedly, the First Division of the
COMELEC was within its powers in designating Manila as the venue of the revision of
ballots.