inspectors to be proposed by the political parties and persons namedtherein. Petitioner, Juan Sumulong, President of the political partyPagkakaisa ng Bayan, claims the exclusive right to propose theappointment of such inspectors. He contends that the resolution of theComelec, by giving the so-called rebel candidate or free-zone faction ofthe Nationalista Party the right to propose one election inspector for eachof the precincts in each of the 53 legislative districts, contravenes Section5 of the Commonwealth Act No. 657. He argues that under that sectionthe Nationalista Party has the right to propose one, and only oneinspector for each precinct, and that the resolution has the effect of givingthat party two inspectors in each and every precinct within thoselegislative districts. Petitioner maintains that the discretion given bySection 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 657 to the Comelec in the Choice ofelection inspectors is not absolute, but limited by the provision of the Actthat the majority party shall have the right to propose only one inspector. Issue:Whether or not the Comelec, in giving the so-called rebelcandidates and free-zone factions of the Nationalista Party the right topropose election inspectors, has acted within the limits of the discretiongranted to it by law. Held:The present case is not an appropriate case for review by theSupreme Court. The Comelec is a constitutional body. It is intended toplay a distinct and important part in our scheme of government. It shouldbe allowed considerable latitude in devising means and methods that willinsure the accomplishment of the great objective for which it was created– free, orderly, and honest elections. The Supreme Court may not agreefully with its choice of means, but unless these are clearly illegal /constitute grave abuse of discretion, this court should not interfere. TheComelec because of its fact-finding facilities, its contacts with politicalstrategists, and its knowledge derived from actual experience in dealingwith political controversies, is in a peculiarly advantageous position todecide complex political questions. Due regard to the independentcharacter of the Commission, as ordained in the Constitution requiresthat the power of the Supreme Court to review the acts of that bodyshould, as a general proposition, be used sparingly, but firmly inappropriate cases.
LIDASAN vs COMELECFACTS:Lidasan is a resident of Parang, Cotabato. Later, RA 4790, which is entitled"An Act Creating the Municipality of Dianaton in the Province of Lanao delSur," was passed. Lidasan came to know later on that barrios Togaig andMadalum just mentioned are within the municipality of Buldon, Province ofCotabato, and that Bayanga, Langkong, Sarakan, Kat-bo, Digakapan,Magabo, Tabangao, Tiongko, Colodan, and Kabamakawan are parts andparcel of another municipality, the municipality of Parang, also in theProvince of Cotabato and not of Lanao del Sur. [Remarkably, even theCongressman of Cotabato voted in favor of RA 4790.] Pursuant to this law,