Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUNE 6, 2006

G.R. No. 167033 (Estrelita "Neng" Juliano vs. Commission on Elections and Muslimin Sema)

Before the Court is the Motion for Reconsideration dated May 10, 2006 filed by private respondent Muslimin Sema, seeking the reversal of the Decision dated April 12, 2006, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED. The case is REMANDED to the COMELEC En Banc. The COMELEC En Banc is ORDERED to conduct forthwith the rehearing required under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure and render the appropriate decision thereon.

SO ORDERED.

Private respondent now calls attention to the Minute Resolution issued by this Court in G.R. No. 171232, entitled Alfredo C. Corona vs. Commission on Elections, et al., on April 25, 2006, or 13 days after promulgation of the Decision in this case. In that case, the Court held thus:

Third. Under Section 4, Rule 1 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the COMELEC may suspend its own rules for the speedy disposition of the case. Thus, although Section 6, Rule 18 of the COMELEC Rules provides that when the Commission en banc is equally divided in opinion the case shall be reheard, it may be dispensed with in this case. Since two Commissioners have retired when the February 7, 2006 Order was issued and it would take sometime for the appointment of new Commissioners, the COMELEC may no longer set the case for rehearing. Thus, it can consider its initial voting as its resolution of the motion. x x x (Emphasis supplied)

Private respondent then argues that the foregoing ruling should be applied to the instant case.

It should be noted that the factual circumstances obtaining in Corona vs. Comelec, et al., are quite different from those in this case. In Corona, at the time the COMELEC En Banc was conducting its first voting on the motion to set aside the writ of execution issued by the COMELEC 2^nd Division, there were only six Commissioners sitting in the COMELEC. The result of said voting was split to 2-2-2, i.e., 2 Commissioners voting to set aside the writ of execution, 2 Commissioners voting to uphold the writ and 2 Commissioners inhibited themselves. On February 7, 2006, the COMELEC En Banc resolved to maintain the writ of execution. However, two Commissioners had retired when the assailed February 7, 2006 Order was issued. With two Commissioners having retired and two Commissioners having inhibited from the case, this left only two Commissioners who may conduct a rehearing. Clearly, two Commissioners do not constitute a quorum for the COMELEC En Banc to transact business as Section 5 (a), Rule 3 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides that "[w]hen sitting en banc, four (4) Members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of transacting business." Thus, the Court took into consideration the fact that new Commissioners would have to be appointed first so there would be a quorum and such appointments would take some time, unduly delaying the disposition of said case. Under such circumstances, Section 4, Rule 1 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, should indeed apply.

Private respondent points out that in this case, two of the Commissioners who participated in the resolution being assailed in this case had already retired by this time. However, this fact has no bearing in this case.

In the present case, the factual circumstances obtaining in Corona did not exist at the time the Order dated February 10, 2005 was issued. At that time, the composition of the COMELEC was complete. Hence, there was no particular reason for the COMELEC not to have followed the usual course of proceedings required under its rules of procedures.

Moreover, the fact that, at present, the COMELEC is only composed of five members, should not preclude the COMELEC En Banc from conducting a rehearing because under the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, only four Commissioners are needed to constitute a quorum for transacting business. The five Commissioners presently composing the COMELEC are more than sufficient to constitute a quorum for purposes of conducting the required rehearing.

In sum, there is no cogent reason presented by private respondent to justify the reversal or modification of the Decision dated April 12, 2006.

WHEREFORE, private respondent's motion for reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY. The temporary restraining order issued on May 15, 2006 is LIFTED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Clerk of Court