Short answer. Rule 64 is narrow: it governs only the review of judgments and final orders or resolutions of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit — no other government agency's rulings are covered by this particular rule. A ruling from any other agency follows whatever separate rule or statute actually applies to it.
What the law says
This Rule shall govern the review of judgments and final orders or resolutions of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit.
Rule 64, Section 1 — Scope. Read the full provision →
A rule built for two specific commissions
Rule 64's scope is deliberately limited. It exists to govern how the judgments, final orders, and resolutions of exactly two constitutional bodies — the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit — are brought up for review, and it does not purport to cover rulings from any other government office, board, or agency, no matter how similar their functions might otherwise seem.
Why these two are grouped together
COMELEC and COA share a common feature: both are constitutional commissions whose decisions are reviewable directly, so the rules of court set out one procedural track for both rather than scattering their review procedure across multiple general rules. A litigant with a COMELEC or COA ruling needs to look specifically at this Rule 64 track rather than the ordinary Rule 43 route used for most other agencies.
What this means for other agencies
Because the scope is confined to these two commissions, a party aggrieved by a ruling from any other administrative body should not assume Rule 64 applies; the procedure for reviewing that other agency's decision follows whatever rule of court or statute actually covers it, which is a separate question from what Rule 64 addresses and requires its own separate research.
Rule 65 fills in what Rule 64 leaves open
Rule 64 does not stand entirely on its own — it works together with the certiorari procedure found in Rule 65, which supplies much of the substantive framework for how a COMELEC or COA ruling actually gets challenged once Rule 64 establishes that this track applies. A party relying on Rule 64 should expect to read it alongside Rule 65 rather than treating Rule 64 as a complete, self-contained procedure on its own terms and without further cross-reference.
Who this covers and the cost of using the wrong track
Section 1 binds a party aggrieved by a COMELEC or COA judgment, final order, or resolution to this specific review track rather than leaving that party a choice among several possible procedures — Rule 64 is the exclusive route for challenging rulings from these two commissions, not one option among equals. It also binds the reviewing court, since the Supreme Court's own certiorari jurisdiction over COMELEC and COA rulings is what Rule 64 channels this review into, distinct from the Court of Appeals track that governs most other agencies under Rule 43. A party who mistakenly files under Rule 43 against a COMELEC or COA ruling, or under Rule 64 against a ruling from an agency Rule 64 does not cover, risks having the petition dismissed for using the wrong procedural vehicle, since the two tracks carry different courts, different deadlines, and different grounds for review.