Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
REGINA
ONGSIAKO
REYES,
petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JOSEPH SOCORRO
B. TAN, respondents.
Election Law House of Representative House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) Jurisdiction As held
in Marcos v. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 300 (1995), the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over
a candidate who is not a member of the House of
Representatives.As held in Marcos v. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 300
(1995), the HRET does not have jurisdiction over a candidate who
is not a member of the House of Representatives, to wit: As to the
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunals supposed
assumption of jurisdiction over the issue of petitioners
qualifications after the May 8, 1995 elections, suffice it to say that
HRETs 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.
Same Same To be considered a Member of the House of
Representatives, there must be a concurrence of the following
requisites:(1) a valid proclamation, (2) a proper oath, and (3)
assumption of office.It is then clear that to be considered a
Member of the House of Representatives, there must be a
concurrence of the following requisites: (1) a valid proclamation,
(2) a proper oath, and (3) assumption of office. Indeed, in some
cases, this Court has made the pronouncement that once a
proclamation has been made, COMELECs jurisdiction is already
lost and, thus, its jurisdiction over contests relating to elections,
returns, and qualifications ends, and the HRETs own jurisdiction
begins. However, it must be noted that in these cases, the
doctrinal pronouncement was made in the context of a proclaimed
candidate who had not only taken an oath of office, but who had
also assumed office.
_______________
*EN BANC.
523
523
524
525
an order from the Court to act on the petition and to require the
respondents to file their comments. The same rule also provides
that the Court may dismiss the petition outright (as the majority
did in the present case) if it was filed manifestly for delay or if
the questions raised are too unsubstantial to warrant
further proceedings. In the present case, the petition is
indisputably sufficient in form and substance no issue on this
point was even raised. Thus, the question before the Court if
Rule 64, Section 6 were to be followed is whether the issues
raised by Reyes were too unsubstantial to warrant further
proceedings.
Election Law House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
(HRET) Jurisdiction View that the proclamation of a winning
candidate divests the COMELEC of its jurisdiction over matters
pending before it at the time of the proclamation and the party
questioning the qualifications of the winning candidate should
now present his or her case in a proper proceeding (i.e. quo
warranto) before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
who, by constitutional mandate, has the sole jurisdiction to hear
and decide cases involving the election, returns and qualification
of members of the House of Representatives.I submit on this
point that the proclamation of the winning candidate is the
operative fact that triggers the jurisdiction of the HRET over
election contests relating to the winning candidates election,
return and qualifications. In other words, the proclamation of a
winning candidate divests the COMELEC of its jurisdiction over
matters pending before it at the time of the proclamation and the
526
527
528
admitted to the California State Bar on June 12, 1995 (b) [petitioner]
maintained a US address and earned her undergraduate studies in
Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. (c) [petitioner] married an
American citizen named Saturnino S. Ador Dionisio in 1997, which
marriage was subsequently dissolved and (d) [petitioner] acquired
properties and established businesses in the U.S. COMELEC Resolution
dated 27 March 2013. Id., at p. 44.
5 Id., at p. 71.
6 Id., at p. 72.
7 Id., at p. 84.
8 Id., at p. 87.
9 Id., at p. 93.
10Id., at p. 94.
529
529
530
531
and who has already taken her oath of office for the position
of Member of the House of Representatives for the lone
congressional district of Marinduque.
32)Whether or not Respondent Comelec committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction when it took cognizance of Respondent Tans
alleged newlydiscovered evidence without the same
having been testified on and offered and admitted in
evidence which became the basis for its Resolution of the
case without giving the petitioner the opportunity to
question and present controverting evidence, in violation of
Petitioners right to due process of law.
_______________
17Section 13, Rule 18 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure in relation to
Par. 2, Sec. 8 of Resolution No. 9523 provides that a decision or resolution of the
COMELEC En Banc in special actions and special cases shall become final and
executory five (5) days after its promulgation unless a restraining order is issued
by the Supreme Court. Sec. 3, Rule 37, Part VII also provides that decisions in
petitions to deny due course to or cancel certificates of candidacy shall become
final and executory after the lapse of five (5) days from promulgation, unless
restrained by the Supreme Court.
18Id., at p. 162.
19Id., at p. 9.
532
532
533
Senate
and
the
House
of
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
DISSENTING OPINION
BRION,J.:
The petition before us is a petition for certiorari1 with a
prayer for a temporary restraining order, preliminary
injunction and/or status quo ante order, that seeks to
annul: (1) the respondent Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) March 27, 20132 and May 14, 20133
COMELEC Resolutions cancelling petitioner Regina
Ongsiako Reyes (petitioner or Reyes) Certificate of
Candidacy (COC) for the position of Representative in the
lone district of Marinduque, and (2) the June 5, 2013
Certificate of Finality4 declaring the May 14, 2013
Resolution final and executory in SPA Case No. 13
053(DC).
I.THE CASE AND THE DISSENT IN CONTEXT
I submit this Dissenting Opinion to express my strong
reservations to the majoritys outright dismissal of this
most unusual case a term I do not use lightly as shown
by the reasons stated below.
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
557
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
executory?
By the petitioners theory, the COMELEC en bancs May
14, 2013 Resolution (cancelling Reyes CoC) did not attain
finality because Reyes proclamation on May 18, 2013
divested the COMELEC of its jurisdiction over matters
pending before it relating to Reyes eligibility. Two material
records are critical on this point. First, the fact of
proclamation on May 18, 2013 which came one (1) day
ahead of the May 19, 2013 deadline for the finality of the
May 14, 2013 Resolution pursuant to the COMELEC Rules
of Procedure. The second
567
567
COMELECs error.19
It is also basic in the law of evidence that one who
alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. In
administrative cases, the
_______________
19 Sabili v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 193261, April 24, 2012,
670 SCRA 664.
568
568
Filipino citizen?
Second, Tan also submitted a photocopy of a
certification issued by one Simeon L. Sanchez of the
BID showing the travel records of Reyes from February 15,
2000 to June
_______________
20 Matugas v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 151944, January 20,
2004, 420 SCRA 365.
569
569
relied
upon
by
petitioner
is
the
the Rules of Court, such declaration may be given in evidence against him.
The rule cited by petitioner does not apply in this case because the rule
pertains to the admissibility of evidence. There is no issue here as to the
admissibility of the BID Certification the COMELEC did not hold that
the same was inadmissible. In any case, the BID Certification suffers
from the same defect as the notation from the supposed US
Embassy official. Said Certification is also a photocopy, not a
certified copy.
Moreover, the certification contains inconsistent entries regarding the
nationality of private respondent. While some entries
570
570
571
572
573
574
575
Copyright2015CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.