JUNIE EVANGELISTA CUA, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND RICHARD S. PUZON, RESPONDENTS.

In SPC No. 87-454 and SPC No. 87-467, the First Division of the
COMELEC rendered a 2-1 decision on August 10, 1987, favoring the herein
petitioner Cua but nevertheless suspended his
proclamation as winner in the lone congressional district of Quirino due to the lack of the unanimous vote required by
the procedural rules in COMELEC Resolution No. 1669 dated May 2, 1984.  Pursuant to said rules, private respondent Puzon filed on August 14, 1987 a “motion for
reconsideration/appeal” of the said decision with the COMELEC en banc,
where on October 28, 1987, three members voted to sustain the First Division,
with two dissenting and one abstaining (one member having died earlier).  On the strength of this 3-2 vote, Cua moved for his proclamation by the board of canvassers,
which reconvened on November 9, 1987,
and granted his motion.  Cua took his oath
the same day, but the next day Puzon filed with the
COMELEC an urgent motion to suspend Cua’s
proclamation or to annul or suspend its effect if already made.  On November
11, 1987, the COMELEC set the motion for hearing and three days later
it issued a restraining telegram enjoining Cua from
assuming the office of member of the House of Representatives.  The petitioner then came to this Court to
enjoin the COMELEC from acting on the said motion and enforcing its restraining
order.

Section 5 of COMELEC Resolution No. 1669 reads as follows:

“SEC. 5.  Quorum; votes required; substitution.  – Two members shall constitute a quorum for
the transaction of the official business of the Division.

“A case being heard by it shall be decided with the unanimous
concurrence of all three Commissioners and its decision shall be considered a
decision of the Commission.  If this
required number is not obtained, as when there is a dissenting opinion, the
case may be appealed to the Commission en banc, in which case the
vote of the majority thereof shall be the decision of the Commission.  x x x“

The position of the petitioner is that the 2-1 decision of the
First Division was a valid decision of the COMELEC itself despite the above
rule because of Article IX-A.  Section 7
of the new Constitution, providing that “each Commission shall decide by a
majority vote of all its members any case or matter brought before it.” He
argues that this applies to the votings of the
COMELEC both in division and en banc and that the private
respondent himself recognized this when he filed the motion for
reconsideration/appeal with the COMELEC en banc.

Cua also contends that Puzon’s move, treated as a motion for reconsideration, is
deemed denied for lack of the necessary majority to overturn the challenged
decision.  As an appeal, it should be
considered dismissed, also for the same reason, resulting in the decision being
regarded as affirmed in accordance with Rule 56, Section 11 of the Rules of
Court applied suppletorily, reading as follows:

“SEC. 11.  Procedure if opinion is equally divided.  – Where the court en banc is equally divided
in opinion, or the necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall be reheard,
and if on re-hearing no decision is reached, the action shall be dismissed if
originally commenced in the court; in appealed cases, the judgment or order
appealed from shall stand affirmed; and on all incidental matters, the petition
or motion shall be denied.”

For their part, the respondents insist that no decision was reached
by the First Division on August 10,
1987, because the required unanimous vote was not obtained and
there was therefore nothing to be affirmed on appeal by the COMELEC en banc
and nothing to reconsider either. 
Additionally, they argue that in any case no valid decision was reached
by the COMELEC en banc because only three votes were cast in
favor of the petitioner and these did not constitute a majority of the body.

After considering the issues and the arguments raised by the
parties, the Court holds that the 2-1 decision rendered by the First Division
was a valid decision under Article IX-A, Section 7 of the Constitution.  Furthermore, the three members who voted to
affirm the First Division constituted a majority of the five members who
deliberated and voted thereon en banc and their decision is also
valid under the aforecited constitutional
provision.  Hence, the proclamation of Cua on the basis of the two aforecited
decisions was a valid act that entitles him now to assume his seat in the House
of Representatives.

It is expected that the above categorical rulings will put an end
to the seemingly interminable debates on this matter that have been festering
for quite some time now not only in this case but also in other cases still
pending in the COMELEC.  The
indecisiveness of the public respondent in the appreciation and application of
its own rules has seriously prejudiced a considerable number of our people who
remain unrepresented to date in the House of Representatives despite the fact
that the congressional elections were held more than seven months ago.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED and the public
respondent is enjoined from further proceeding with the private respondent’s
motion dated November 10, 1987.  The restraining order issued by the COMELEC
on November 14, 1987, enjoining petitioner from assuming office as member of
the House of Representatives for the lone congressional district of Quirino is LIFTED. 
This Resolution is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.

Teehankee C.J., Fernan,
Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera,
Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, and
Cortes, JJ., concur.

Yap, J., on leave.