ARATUC V. COMELEC
G.R. No. L-49705-09 February 8, 1979
TOMATIC ARATUC, SERGIO TOCAO,
CISCOLARIO DIAZ, FRED TAMULA,
MANGONTAWAR GURO and BONIFACIO
LEGASPI,
petitioners, vs. The COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, REGIONAL
BOARD OF CANVASSERS for Region XII
(Central Mindanao), ABDULLAH DIMAPORO,
JESUS AMPARO, ANACLETO BADOY, et al., respondents Nature: Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the respondent Comelec resolving their appeal from the respondent Regional Board of Canvassers for Region XII regarding the canvass of the results of the election in said region for representatives to the I.B.P. held on
April 7, 1978.
Facts:
Tomatic Aratuc et al. sought the suspension of the canvass then being undertaken by respondent Board in Cotabato city. A supervening panel headed by Commissioner of
Elections, Hon- Venancio S. Duque, had conducted of the complaints of the petitioners therein of alleged irregularities in the election records in the voting centers. Before hearing, the canvass was suspended. After hearing the parties, the Court allowed resumption of the canvass but issued guidelines to be followed but thereafter modified.
On July 11, 1978, respondent Board terminated its canvass and declared the result of the voting.
The petitioners brought the resolution of respondent Board to the Comelec. Hearing was held on April 25, 1978, after which , the case was declared submitted for decision.
In order to enable the Commission to decide the appeal properly :
a. It will have to go deeper into the examination of the voting records and registration records and in the case of voting centers whose voting and registration records which have not yet been submitted for the Commission to decide to open the ballot boxes; and
b. To interview and get statements under oath of impartial and disinterested persons from the area to determine whether actual voting took place on
April 7, 1978, as well as those of the military authorities in the areas affected.
On January 13, 1979, the Comelec rendered its resolution being assailed in these cases, declaring the final result of the canvass.

Issue:
WON there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the part of
COMELEC.
Held:
Under Section 168 of the Revised Election
Code of 1978, "the Commission (on Elections) shall have direct control and supervision over the board of canvassers" and that relatedly, Section
175 of the same Code provides that it "shall be the sole judge of all pre-proclamation controversies." The fact of the matter is that the authority of the
Commission in reviewing actuations of board of canvassers does not spring from any appellate jurisdiction conferred by any specific provision of law, for there is none such provision anywhere in the Election Code, but from the plenary prerogative of direct control and supervision endowed to it by the above-quoted provisions of
Section 168. And in administrative law, it is a too well settled postulate to need any supporting citation here, that a superior body or office having supervision and control over another may do directly what the latter is supposed to do or ought to have done.
We cannot fault respondent Comelec for its having extended its inquiry beyond that undertaken by the Board of Canvass On the contrary, it must be stated that Comelec correctly and commendably asserted its statutory authority born of its envisaged constitutional duties vis-a-vis the preservation of the purity of elections and electoral processes and in doing what petitioner it should not have done.