Aratuc vs.

COMELEC

Petitioner Aratuc filed a petition for certiorari, to review the decision of respondent
Comelec.A supervening panel headed by Comelec had conducted hearings of the complaints
of the petitioner therein alleged irregularities in the election records. In order for the
Commission to decide properly. It will have to go deep into the examination of the voting
records and registration records and it will have to interview and getstatements from
persons under oath from the area to determine whether actual voting took place. The
Comelec then rendered its resolution being assailed in these cases, declaring the final result
of the canvass.

Issue: Whether the Comelec committee committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction?

Ruling:
No.Under section 168 of the revised election code of the 1978 the commission on elections
shall have direct control and supervision over the board of canvassers. In administrative
law, a superior body or office having supervision or control over another may do directly
what the latter is supposed to do or ought to have done. The petition is hereby dismissed,
for lack of merit.