Indeed, even Commissioner Maambong who dissented from the majority ruling, clings to the view that "Resolution No. 2050 cannot divest the Commission of its duty to resolve disqualification cases under the clear provision of section 6 of R.A. No. 6646." [10] Clearly too, Blanco's contention that he was denied equal protection of the law is off-line. He was not the object of any invidious discrimination. COMELEC assumed direct jurisdiction over his disqualification case not to favor anybody but to discharge its constitutional duty of disposing the case in a fair and as fast a manner as possible. Blanco also urges that COMELEC erred in using summary proceedings to resolve his disqualification case. Again, the COMELEC action is safely anchored on section 4 of its Rules of Procedure which expressly provides that petitions for disqualification "shall be heard summarily after due notice." Vote-buying has its criminal and electoral aspects. Its criminal aspect to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused cannot be the subject of summary hearing. However, its electoral aspect to ascertain whether the offender should be disqualified from office can be determined in an administrative proceeding that is summary in character. The next issue is whether there is substantial evidence to prove the vote buying activities of Blanco. The factual findings of the COMELEC (First Division) are as follows:[11] "x x x "Respondent argues that the claim of vote-buying has no factual basis because the affidavits and sworn statements admitted as evidence against him are products of hearsay; inadmissible because of the illegal searches; they violate the Rule of Res Inter Alios Acta and the offense of vote-buying requires consummation. We are not impressed. A studied reading of the affidavits [Respondent's affidavit is unsigned] attached to the Reply of the Respondent to the Position Paper of the