Aggabao vs COMELEC; Guerrero vs COMELEC, Ruiz and Fariñas; and Romualdez-Marcos vs COMELEC

  

Aggabao vs COMELEC

Facts: Aggabao and Miranda were Congressional candidates of the 2004 elections. During the canvassing of COCVs (Certificate of canvass of votes) Miranda moved for the exclusion of the copy from Municipality of Cordon on the ground that it was tampered with thus manifest errors. The PBC (Provisional Board of Canvassers) excluded the contested COCVs; based on the results Miranda garnered the highest votes. On appeal with COMELEC Second Division Aggabao asserted that PBC acted without jurisdiction when it heard Miranda’s Petition for exclusion. COMELEC En Banc directed the proclamation of Miranda as duly elected Congressman. Aggabao filed this petition for certiorari, assailing the proclamation of Miranda. He claimed that the COMELEC En Banc acted without jurisdiction when it ordered Miranda’s proclamation considering that the appeal had not yet been resolved. In his Comment, Miranda moved for the dismissal of the petition considering that the issue raised by Aggabao is best addressed to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET).

Issue: W/n the petition of Aggabao in under jurisdiction of COMELEC or HRET

Ruling: The HRET has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relative to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives. Thus, once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a Member of the House of Representatives, COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications ends, and the HRET’s own jurisdiction begins. It is undisputed that Miranda has already been proclaimed, taken his oath and assumed office on June 14, 2004. As such, petitioner’s recourse would have been to file an electoral protest before the HRET. His remedy is not this petition for certiorari.

The SC applied the same ruling in Guerrero case and Romuladez-Marcos case.

Guerrero vs COMELEC, Ruiz and Fariñas

Facts: Ruiz sought to disqualify Fariñas as candidate for the position of Congressman in the May 11, 1998 elections because Fariñas had been campaigning despite failure to file coc, the latter should be declared as “nuisance candidate” and be disqualified from running. Only on May 8, 1998 did Fariñas file his COC, substituting Chevylle Fariñas. On May 10 COMELEC dismiss the petition, “no coc to be cancelled, consequently, no candidate to be disqualified.” The elections pushed through, Fariñas obtained the highest number of votes and was duly proclaimed winner. Ruiz filed motion for reconsideration contended that the substitution was invalid since Fariñas was not member of chevylle’s partylist. Meanwhile, Fariñas took his oath of office as member of the House of Representatives. Guerrero filed his "Petition-In-Intervention" contended that Fariñas, having failed to file his coc on or before the last day illegally resorted to the remedy of substitution thus; Fariñas’ disqualification was in order. COMELEC dismiss the motion of Ruiz and the petition of Guerrero for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner argued that COMELEC gravely abused its discretion and acted in excess and/or without jurisdiction in refusing to rule on the validity or invalidity of the candidacy of Fariñas.

Issue: Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion in holding that the determination of the validity of the certificate of candidacy of respondent Fariñas is already within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives?

Ruling: In the present case, SC found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC when it held that its jurisdiction over case of Fariñas had ceased with his assumption of office of as Representative for the first district of Ilocos Norte. While the COMELEC is vested with the power to declare valid or invalid a certificate of candidacy, its refusal to exercise that power following the proclamation and assumption of the position by Fariñas is recognition of the jurisdictional boundaries separating the COMELEC and the HRET. Under Article VI, Section 17 of the Constitution, the HRET has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relative to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives. Thus, once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a member of the House of Representatives, COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications ends, and the HRETs own jurisdiction begins. Thus, the COMELEC’s decision to discontinue exercising jurisdiction over the case is justifiable; in deference to the HRETs own jurisdiction and functions.

Romualdez- Marcos (RM) vs COMELEC and Montejo

Facts: Petitioner filed her coc for the position of Representative of 1st District of Leyte. Montejo filed for cancellation and disqualification of Petitioner alleging that latter did not meet the constitutional requirement for residency. In Petitioner’s defense there was an honest mistake or misinterpretation regarding her residency. COMELEC filed a resolution declaring her not qualified to run for the position. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but on May 11, 1995, COMELEC issued a Resolution directing that the proclamation of petitioner be suspended in the event that she obtains the highest number of votes. In a Supplemental Petition dated 25 May, 1995, petitioner averred that she was the overwhelming winner of the elections for the congressional seat in the May 8, 1995 election based on the canvass completed by the Provincial Board of Canvassers on May 14, 1995. On account of the Resolution disqualifying petitioner from running for the congressional seat and the Resolution suspending her proclamation, petitioner comes to SC for relief. Petitioner alleges that the jurisdiction of the COMELEC had already lapsed considering that the assailed resolutions were rendered on April 24, 1995, fourteen (14) days before the election in violation of Sec. 78 of the OEC. Moreover, petitioner contends that it is the HRET and not the COMELEC which has jurisdiction over the election of members of the HR in accordance with Article VI, Sec. 17 of the Constitution. 

Issues:

W/N the COMELEC properly exercised its jurisdiction in disqualifying petitioner outside the period mandated by the OEC for disqualification cases under Art. 78.

W/N the HRET assumed exclusive jurisdiction over the question of petitioner's qualifications after the May 8, 1995 elections.

Ruling:

R.A. 6646 in relation to Section 78 of B.P. 88 provides:

Section 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. - Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong.

Section 7. Petition to Deny Due Course To or Cancel a Certificate of Candidacy. - The procedure hereinabove provided shall apply to petitions to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy as provided in Section 78 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881.

It is evident that the respondent Commission does not lose jurisdiction to hear and decide a pending disqualification case under Section 78 of B.P. 881 even after the elections.

As to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal's supposed assumption of jurisdiction over the issue of petitioner's qualifications after the May 8, 1995 elections, suffice it to say that HRET's jurisdiction as the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of members of Congress begins only after a candidate has become a member of the House of Representatives. Petitioner not being a member of the House of Representatives, it is obvious that the HRET at this point has no jurisdiction over the question.