G.R. No. 191084 March 2010 (Mendoza v COMELEC and Pagdanganan) Flashcards Preview

Stat Con Cases > G.R. No. 191084 March 2010 (Mendoza v COMELEC and Pagdanganan) > Flashcards

Flashcards in G.R. No. 191084 March 2010 (Mendoza v COMELEC and Pagdanganan) Deck (9):
1

What are the issues on this case (2)?

(1) Whether or not the Comelec en banc has the power to hear and decide the case and (2) whether or not the Comelec gravely abused its discretion.

2

Who was the petitioner?

Joselito Mendoza

3

Who were the respondents?

COMELEC and Roberto Pagdandanan

4

Who was proclaimed the winner of the 2007 gubernatorial election for the province of Bulacan?

Joselito Mendoza

5

Who filed the election protest anchored on the massive electoral fraud allegedly perpetrated by the petitioner?

Roberto Pagdanganan

6

What was the decision of COMELEC Second Division on the election protest filed by Roberto Pagdanganan?

Roberto Pagdanganan won the election with a margin of 4,321 votes. The resolution ordered petitioner to vacate the office, to cease and desist from discharging the functions pertaining thereto and to cause a peaceful turn-over thereof to respondent.

7

What are the grounds of Urgent Motion to Recall the Resolution Promulgated on February 8, 2010 filed by the petitioner on COMELEC?

(a) lack of concurrence of the majority of the members of the Commission pursuant to Section 5, Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure;
(b) lack of re-hearing pursuant to Section 6, Rule 18 of the Rules; and
(c) lack of notice for the promulgation of the resolution pursuant to Section 5, Rule 18 of said Rules.

8

Why did the Court grant the petition of Joselito Mendoza?

The failure of the COMELEC En Banc to muster the required majority vote even after the re-hearing should have caused the dismissal of respondents Election Protest.

9

What was the doctrine learned in this case?

When the language of the law is clear and explicit, there is no room for interpretation, only application. And if statutory construction be necessary, the statute should be interpreted to assure its being in consonance with, rather than repugnant to, any constitutional command or prescription.