Short answer. By filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, the mode of review this section names for COMELEC and COA rulings, brought directly by the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court itself rather than to an intermediate appellate court, except where Rule 64 sets out a different, more specific procedure for a particular step.
What the law says
A judgment or final order or resolution of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit may be brought by the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65, except as hereinafter provided.
Rule 64, Section 2 — Mode of review. Read the full provision →
Certiorari, not an ordinary appeal
A party unhappy with a COMELEC or COA judgment, final order, or resolution does not file an ordinary notice of appeal. The mode of review named for these two commissions is certiorari, brought directly to the Supreme Court, which is a distinctly different and more limited remedy than a regular appeal on the merits. Certiorari examines whether the Commission acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, rather than whether its factual findings were simply wrong.
Who can bring it, and where
Only the aggrieved party — the one adversely affected by the COMELEC or COA ruling — may bring the petition, and it goes straight to the Supreme Court rather than to an intermediate appellate court such as the Court of Appeals. This reflects the special constitutional status of COMELEC and COA, whose rulings are meant to be reviewed at the highest level rather than filtered through an intermediate tribunal first. A stranger to the case, or a party not adversely affected by the specific ruling, has no standing to bring this particular petition. A ruling from a subordinate agency does not follow this same certiorari-to-the-Supreme-Court path, which is reserved specifically for COMELEC and COA.
The default track, with built-in exceptions
The certiorari mode is the general rule for Rule 64 review, but it applies "except as hereinafter provided," meaning the rest of Rule 64 can, and does, layer on its own specific requirements — filing fees, form, deadlines — that a petitioner must also follow on top of the basic certiorari framework. A petitioner cannot simply rely on the general rules governing certiorari under Rule 65 alone; Rule 64 supplies its own timeline and formal requirements that take precedence whenever the two differ, so counsel must read both rules together rather than treating Rule 65 as sufficient by itself. Missing one of those Rule 64-specific deadlines can be fatal to the petition even if the underlying certiorari grounds are otherwise sound.
Related provisions
- Rule 64, Section 2 — Mode of review
- Rule 64, Section 1 — Scope
- Rule 64, Section 4 — Docket and other lawful fees