5. Aratuc vs.

Comelec, 88 SCRA 251 Nature: Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the respondent Comelec resolving their appeal from the respondent Regional Board of Canvassers for Reg ion XII regarding the canvass of the results of the election in said region for representatives to the I.B.P. held on April 7, 1978. Facts: Tomatic Aratuc et al. sought the suspension of the canvass then being und ertaken by respondent Board in Cotabato city. A supervening panel headed by Comm issioner of Elections, Hon- Venancio S. Duque, had conducted of the complaints o f the petitioners therein of alleged irregularities in the election records in t he voting centers. Before hearing, the canvass was suspended. After hearing the parties, the Court allowed resumption of the canvass but issued guidelines to be followed but thereafter modified. On July 11, 1978, respondent Board terminated its canvass and declared the resul t of the voting. The petitioners brought the resolution of respondent Board to the Comelec. Heari ng was held on April 25, 1978, after which , the case was declared submitted for decision. In order to enable the Commission to decide the appeal properly : a. It will have to go deeper into the examination of the voting records and regi stration records and in the case of voting centers whose voting and registration records which have not yet been submitted for the Commission to decide to open the ballot boxes; and b. To interview and get statements under oath of impartial and disinterested per sons from the area to determine whether actual voting took place on April 7, 197 8, as well as those of the military authorities in the areas affected. On January 13, 1979, the Comelec rendered its resolution being assailed in these cases, declaring the final result of the canvass. Issue: WON there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the part of COMELEC. Held: Under Section 168 of the Revised Election Code of 1978, "the Commission (o n Elections) shall have direct control and supervision over the board of canvass ers" and that relatedly, Section 175 of the same Code provides that it "shall be the sole judge of all pre-proclamation controversies." The fact of the matter is that the authority of the Commission in reviewing actu ations of board of canvassers does not spring from any appellate jurisdiction co nferred by any specific provision of law, for there is none such provision anywh ere in the Election Code, but from the plenary prerogative of direct control and supervision endowed to it by the above-quoted provisions of Section 168. And in administrative law, it is a too well settled postulate to need any supporting c itation here, that a superior body or office having supervision and control over another may do directly what the latter is supposed to do or ought to have done . We cannot fault respondent Comelec for its having extended its inquiry beyond th at undertaken by the Board of Canvass On the contrary, it must be stated that Co melec correctly and commendably asserted its statutory authority born of its env isaged constitutional duties vis-a-vis the preservation of the purity of electio ns and electoral processes and in doing what petitioner it should not have done.