Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 25 views

    Bedol Vs Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Pantas Diwa
    The petitioner, a provincial election supervisor, failed to attend scheduled canvassing proceedings for election results and failed to submit explanations for his absences when asked by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The COMELEC, exercising its investigatory powers through a special task force, cited the petitioner for contempt for his failure to cooperate. The petitioner argued the COMELEC did not have the power to cite him for contempt since no private party filed a complaint. However, the Supreme Court upheld the COMELEC's contempt powers, finding them necessary for the commission to effectively investigate allegations of election fraud.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bedol Vs Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Pantas Diwa
    25 views1 page
    The petitioner, a provincial election supervisor, failed to attend scheduled canvassing proceedings for election results and failed to submit explanations for his absences when asked by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The COMELEC, exercising its investigatory powers through a special task force, cited the petitioner for contempt for his failure to cooperate. The petitioner argued the COMELEC did not have the power to cite him for contempt since no private party filed a complaint. However, the Supreme Court upheld the COMELEC's contempt powers, finding them necessary for the commission to effectively investigate allegations of election fraud.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    Bedol vs Comelec

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner, a provincial election supervisor, failed to attend scheduled canvassing proceedings for election results and failed to submit explanations for his absences when asked by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The COMELEC, exercising its investigatory powers through a special task force, cited the petitioner for contempt for his failure to cooperate. The petitioner argued the COMELEC did not have the power to cite him for contempt since no private party filed a complaint. However, the Supreme Court upheld the COMELEC's contempt powers, finding them necessary for the commission to effectively investigate allegations of election fraud.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    25 views1 page

    Bedol Vs Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Pantas Diwa
    The petitioner, a provincial election supervisor, failed to attend scheduled canvassing proceedings for election results and failed to submit explanations for his absences when asked by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The COMELEC, exercising its investigatory powers through a special task force, cited the petitioner for contempt for his failure to cooperate. The petitioner argued the COMELEC did not have the power to cite him for contempt since no private party filed a complaint. However, the Supreme Court upheld the COMELEC's contempt powers, finding them necessary for the commission to effectively investigate allegations of election fraud.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    LINTANG BEDOL vs COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    G.R. No. 179830. December 3, 2009


    FACTS:

    Petitioner as Chair of the PBOC for the province of Maguindano performed his official
    functions and performed his ministerial duty to canvass the Certificates of Canvass. He
    was also charged to be the concurrent Provincial Elections Supervisor for the province
    of Shariff Kabungsuan. Respondent failed to attend scheduled canvassing of the PCOC
    of Maguindanao. He was informed of the resetting of the canvassing but failed to appear.
    The Commission and the NBOC exercising their investigatory power created the Task
    Force Mindanao and petitioner did appear before them. He explained that while in his
    custody, the election paraphernalia were stolen. He was asked to appear in another
    proceeding but petitioner failed to appeal, giving the impression that he does not give
    importance to this whole exercise. He also failed or refused to submit a written
    explanation of his absences. The COMELEC through the Task Force Mindanao cited
    petitioner in contempt, and he was also arrested by the PNP due to his failure to appear.
    Petitioner reiterated his objection to the COMELEC over the contempt charges since
    there were no complaints lodged against him with the COMELEC by any private party.
    HELD: The COMELEC, through the Task Force Mindanao was exercising its quasi-
    judicial power in ascertaining the truth behind the allegations of fraud held in the
    elections held in Maguindano. The effectiveness of the quasi-judicial power vested by
    law on a government institution hinges on its authority to compel attendance of the
    parties and/or their witnesses at the hearings or proceedings. To withhold the
    COMELEC from imposing punishment on individuals who refuse to appear during a
    fact-finding investigation would render nugatory the COMELEC’s investigatory power.

    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW HADIYA MAY D GAYED

    You might also like