BORN READY 2K18

Aratuc V. COMELEC
GR No. L-49705-09. February 8, 1979

Facts:
 Tomatic Aratuc et al. filed a petition for certiorari to review the decision of
COMELEC. In Cotabato City.
 A supervening panel headed by Commissioner Duque had conducted hearings of the
complaints of the petitioners of irregularities in the election records in the voting
centers (province of Lanao del Sur, Marawi, 8 towns of Lanao del Norte, 10 towns in
North Cotabato, 11 towns in Sultan Kudarat).
 The canvass was suspended before hearing. The court allowed resumption of the
canvass after the hearing the parties but delivered guidelines to be followed which
was modified.
 The guidelines included that It will have to go deeper into the examination of the
voting records and in case of voting centers whose voting and registration records
which have not yet been submitted for the Commission to decide to pen the ballot
boxes and to interview and get statements under oath of impartial and disinterested
persons from the area to determine whether actual voting took place on April 7,
1978 as well as those of the military authorities in the areas affected.
 COMELEC rendered its resolution being assailed declaring the final result of the
canvass.

Issue: WON the COMELEC committee committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction.

Held: No. Petition dismissed.

Ratio:
 Sec. 168 of the revised election code of 1978 provides that 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.
 As the Superior administrative body having control over boards of canvassers,
COMELEC may review the actuations of the Regional Board of Canvassers, such as by
extending its inquiry beyond the election records of the voting centers in
questions.“The authority of the Commission is in reviewing such actuations does not
sprng from any appellant jurisdiction conferred by any provisions of the law, for
there is none such provision a ny w he re i n t he e lec ti o n C o de, but from t he
pl e na ry pre ro ga ti ve o f di rec t co nt ro l and supervision endowed to it by the
provisions in Section 168. And in administrative law, it is a too well settled postulate
to need any supporting citation 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.