The Diocese of Bacolod Doctrine of Heirarchy of Courts

The Diocese of Bacolod, Represented by the Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M.
Navarra and the Bishop

Himself in his Personal Capacity v. Commission on Elections and the Election Officer of Bacolod City,
Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon GR No. 205728 SUMMARY OF THE PETITION FACTS: Petitioner Diocese of
Bacolod is a Roman Catholic diocese and is represented in this petition by its Bishop, the Most Rev.
Vicente M. Navarra. Petitioner Bishop Navarra is also filing this petition in his individual and personal
capacity as the questioned orders are personally directed at him and also as a concerned citizen, as
the issues raised herein are matters of paramount and transcendental importance to the public
which must be settled early given the far-reaching implications of the unconstitutional acts of the
respondents. Named as respondents are the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and its Election
Officer of Bacolod City Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon. On 21 February 2013, the petitioners have caused
to be placed on the front wall of the Bacolod Cathedral two sets of Tarpaulin, each sized 6x10 feet,
with the messageConscience Vote (Team Buhay/Team Patay (Team Patay Tarpaulin). The Team
Patay Tarpaulin contained the names of both Antiand Pro-Reproductive Health Law senatorial
candidates. In their special civil action for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court, petitioners sought the nullification of the 22 February 2013 order issued by respondent Atty.
Majarucon, which orders them to remove the supposed oversizedTeam Patay Tarpaulin of the
Diocese of Bacolod. They also sought to nullify the 27 February 2013 order issued by the COMELEC,
through its Law Department, which orders the immediate removal of the Team Patay Tarpaulin and
threatening the petitioner Bishop of Bacolod with the filing of an election offense if he fails to cause
its immediate removal. On March 5, 2013, the Supreme Court En Banc issued a temporary
restraining order enjoining the respondents COMELEC and Atty. Majarucon from removing the Team
Patay Tarpaulin.
ISSUE
Petition be given due course; Issue a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction restraining respondents from further proceedings in enforcing their orders for the
removal of the subject Team Patay Tarpaulin; Declare the questioned orders of respondents as
unconstitutional and void and permanently restrain the respondents from enforcing them or any
other similar orders; and Issue other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable under the
premises.
THE ISSUES TO BE ARGUED AS PER ADVISORY OF THE COURT EN BANC DATED MARCH 12, 2013 1.
Whether or not the 22 February 2013 Notice/Order by Election Officer Majarucon and the 27
February 2013 Order by the COMELEC Law Department are considered judgments/final
orders/resolutions of the COMELEC which would warrant a review of this Court via a Rule 65
Petition. (a) Whether or not petitioners violated the hierarchy of courts doctrine and jurisprudential
rules governing appeals from COMELEC decisions; (b) Assuming arguendo that the aforementioned
Orders are not considered judgments/final orders/resolutions of the COMELEC, whether there are
exceptional circumstances which would allow this Court to take cognizance of the case.
ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION: 1. A petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court filed before this Honorable Court is not the proper remedy to question the subject notice and
letter of respondents. o Petitioners filed the petition before the Honorable Court, claiming that they
have no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy to assail the notice and letter issued by the
respondents. Contrary to their claim, prior resort to the COMELEC constitutes a plain, speedy and
adequate remedy that bars the petitioners from directly asking relief from the Honorable Court from
the alleged injurious effects of the subject letter and notice. o In filing the instant suit, the
petitioners violated the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies. Before a party is allowed to
seek intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he should have availed of all the means of
administrative processes afforded him. Petitioners should have first brought the matter to the
COMELEC En Banc or to any of its Divisions before going directly to the Supreme Court via petition
for certiorari and prohibition. o The letter and notice issued by the respondents are not subject to
review by the Supreme Court, as the power of the Court to review the decisions of the COMELEC is
limited only to final decisions, rulings and orders of the COMELEC en banc rendered in the exercise
of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial power (citing Ambil Jr. vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 143398 October 25,
2000). Considering that the assailed letter and notice are not final orders of the COMELEC En Banc
rendered in the exercise of its adjudicatory and quasi-judicial functions but mere issuances of Atty.
Marjucom and the COMELEC Law Department, the same are not reviewable by the Honorable Court
but by the COMELEC itself. o Granting that the assailed notice and letter are subject to review by the
Honorable Court, petitioners must be able to show that respondents committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the same. Petitioners have not shown
facts essential to prove that the assailed notice and letter were issued in a “whimsical, arbitrary or
capricious” manner or the abuse of discretion is so “patent and gross” to amount to grave abuse of
discretion. The respondents issued the notice andletter pursuant to the COMELEC’s mandate to
regulate and supervise the use of mass media during election period as embodied in the 1987
Constitution.
PRAYER: The Petition should be dismissed for lack of merit

The Diocese of Bacolod Doctrine of Heirarchy of Courts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Diocese of Bacolod Doctrine of Heirarchy of Courts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Diocese of Bacolod Doctrine of Heirarchy of Courts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Diocese of Bacolod, Represented by the Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M.

Navarra and the Bishop

PRAYER: The Petition should be dismissed for lack of merit

You might also like