Cua v. COMELEC

Cua v. COMELEC

G.R. No. 80519-21 December 17,1987

Per Curiam

Issue:

                whether or not the 2-1 Decision reached by the First Division of COMELEC is valid under Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution despite Section 5 of COMELEC Resolution No. 1669 which reads as follows:

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. ...

Held:

                Yes. 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.