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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 114 views

    Grego V Comelec

    Uploaded by

    André Braga
    The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for disqualification of Humberto Basco from running for councilor. While the Court did not agree with COMELEC's reasoning, it found no grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition. Basco had previously been removed from his position as Deputy Sheriff for misconduct. The petitioner argued this removal meant Basco could not run for elective office. However, the Court noted COMELEC rules could not override or modify the underlying law, which used the word "may" not "shall" in describing disqualification. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    Grego V Comelec

    Uploaded by

    André Braga
    114 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for disqualification of Humberto Basco from running for councilor. While the Court did not agree with COMELEC's reasoning, it found no grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition. Basco had previously been removed from his position as Deputy Sheriff for misconduct. The petitioner argued this removal meant Basco could not run for elective office. However, the Court noted COMELEC rules could not override or modify the underlying law, which used the word "may" not "shall" in describing disqualification. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed.

    Original Description:

    statcon

    Original Title

    Grego v 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 Supreme Court dismissed the petition for disqualification of Humberto Basco from running for councilor. While the Court did not agree with COMELEC's reasoning, it found no grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition. Basco had previously been removed from his position as Deputy Sheriff for misconduct. The petitioner argued this removal meant Basco could not run for elective office. However, the Court noted COMELEC rules could not override or modify the underlying law, which used the word "may" not "shall" in describing disqualification. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    114 views2 pages

    Grego V Comelec

    Uploaded by

    André Braga
    The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for disqualification of Humberto Basco from running for councilor. While the Court did not agree with COMELEC's reasoning, it found no grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition. Basco had previously been removed from his position as Deputy Sheriff for misconduct. The petitioner argued this removal meant Basco could not run for elective office. However, the Court noted COMELEC rules could not override or modify the underlying law, which used the word "may" not "shall" in describing disqualification. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    TITLE:

    WILMER GREGO, petitioner, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND HUMBERTO BASCO,


    respondents

    G.R. NO. 125955 DATE: June 19, 1997


    PONENTE: NATURE:
    FACTS:

    FACTS:

    In 1981, Basco was removed from his position as Deputy Sheriff for serious misconduct. Subsequently,
    he ran as a candidate for councilor in the Second District of the City of Manila during the 1988, local
    elections. He won and assumed office. After his term, Basco sought re-election. Again, he won.
    However, he found himself facing lawsuits filed by his opponents who wanted to dislodge him from his
    position.

    Petitioner argues that Basco should be disqualified from running for any elective position since he had
    been “removed from office as a result of an administrative case” pursuant to Section 40 (b) of Republic
    Act No. 7160.

    For a third time, Basco was elected councilor in 1995. Expectedly, his right to office was again
    contested. In 1995, petitioner Grego filed with the COMELEC a petition for disqualification. The
    COMELEC conducted a hearing and ordered the parties to submit their respective memoranda.

    However, the Manila City BOC proclaimed Basco in May 1995, as a duly elected councilor for the
    Second District of Manila, placing sixth among several candidates who vied for the seats. Basco
    immediately took his oath of office.

    COMELEC resolved to dismiss the petition for disqualification. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of
    said resolution was later denied by the COMELEC,, hence, this petition.

    ISSUE/S:

    1
    ISSUE:

    Whether or not COMELEC acted in with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for
    disqualification.

    DOCTRINES | HELD:

    RULING:

    RULING:

    No. The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of COMELEC in dismissing the
    petition for disqualification, however, the Court noted that they do not agree with its conclusions and
    reasons in the assailed resolution.

    The Court reiterated that being merely an implementing rule, Sec 25 of the COMELEC Rules of
    Procedure must not override, but instead remain consistent with and in harmony with the law it seeks to
    apply and implement. Administrative rules and regulations are intended to carry out, neither to supplant
    nor to modify, the law. The law itself cannot be extended to amending or expanding the statutory
    requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute. An administrative agency cannot amend
    an act of Congress.

    In case of discrepancy between the basic law and a rule or regulation issued to implement said law, the
    basic law prevails because said rule or regulations cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the
    basic law. Since Section 6 of Rep. Act 6646, the law which Section 5 of Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules
    of Procedure seeks to implement, employed the word “may,” it is, therefore, improper and highly
    irregular for the COMELEC to have used instead the word “shall” in its rules.

    Still, the Court DISMISSED the petition for lack of merit.

    NOTES:

    You might also like