Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Doctrines
Case Doctrines
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Purisima v. Salanga 15 SCRA 704 (1965)
Election laws; Petition for recount; Candidate affected can file
petition alone.A candidate affected can file a petition for recount
alone, without the concurrence of the provincial board of
canvassers (Cawa vs. Del Rosario, L-16837-40 May 30, 1960). From
the fact, therefore, that the provincial board of canvassers has not
petitioned for a recount it cannot be inferred that they were not
convinced a discrepancy existed.
Same; Same; Same; Commission on Elections' copies of election
returns authentic.The Commission on Elections' copies of election
returns are authentic copies within the meaning of Section 168 of
the Revised Election Code (Lawsin vs. Escalona, L-22540, July 31,
1964; Matanog vs. Alejandro, L22502-03, June 30, 1964).
Same; Same; Erasures and superimpositions in the election
returns; Duty of board of canvassers to suspend canvass; Case at
bar.Where, as in the case at bar, there were patent erasures and
superimpositions in words and figures on the face of the election
returns submitted to the board of canvassers, it was imperative for
said board to stop the canvass so as to allow time for verification of
authentic copies and recourse to the courts (Javier vs. Commission
on Elections, L22248, January 30, 1965). A canvass or proclamation
made notwithstanding such patent defects, without awaiting proper
remedies, is null and void (Ibid.).
Same; Same; Same; Failure to submit Commission on Elections'
copies to the board of canvassers.Where a candidate was
prevented from securing the Commission on Elections' copies of the
returns to establish a discrepancy between them and the Provincial
Treasurer's copies, the failure to submit the said copies to the board
should not prejudice his right to petition for recount before the
court
Same; Interpretation of election laws.Interpretation of election
laws should give effect to the expressed will of the electoratePatent erasures and superimpositions in words and figures of the
votes stated in the election returns strike at the reliability of said
returns as basis for canvass and proclamation. A comparison with
the other copies, and, in case of discrepancy, a recount, is the only
way to remove grave doubts as to the correctness of said returns
as well as of ascertaining that they reflect the will of the people.
has its flaws, Comelec and Smartmatic have seen to it that the
system is well-protected with sufficient security measures in order
to ensure honest elections.With the AES, the possibility of system
hacking is very slim. The PCOS machines are only online when they
transmit the results, which would only take around one to two
minutes. In order to hack the system during this tiny span of
vulnerability, a super computer would be required. Noteworthy also
is the fact that the memory card to be used during the elections is
encrypted and read-onlymeaning no illicit program can be
executed or introduced into the memory card. Therefore, even
though the AES has its flaws, Comelec and Smartmatic have seen
to it that the system is well-protected with sufficient security
measures in order to ensure honest elections.
Same; Same; Failure of all the machines would not necessarily
translate into failure of electionsmanual count tabulation and
transmission can be done, Precint-Count Optic Scan (PCOS) being a
paper-ballot technology.The disruption of the election process
due to machine breakdown or malfunction may be limited to a
precinct only or could affect an entire municipal/city. The worst case
scenario of course would be the wholesale breakdown of the 82,000
PCOS machines. Nonetheless, even in this most extreme case,
failure of all the machines would not necessarily translate into
failure of elections. Manual count tabulation and transmission, as
earlier stated, can be done, PCOS being a paper-ballot technology.
If the machine fails for whatever reason, the paper ballots would
still be there for the hand counting of the votes, manual tabulation
and transmission of the ERs. Failure of elections consequent to
voting machines failure would, in fine, be a very remote possibility.
Same; Same; The first step is always difficulthardly anything
works, let alone ends up perfectly the first time around.The first
step is always difficult. Hardly anything works, let alone ends up
perfectly the first time around. As has often been said, if one looks
hard enough, he will in all likelihood find a glitch in any new
system. It is no wonder some IT specialists and practitioners have
considered the PCOS as unsafe, not the most appropriate
technology for Philippine elections, and easily hackable, even.
And the worst fear expressed is that disaster is just waiting to
happen, that PCOS would not work on election day. Congress has
chosen the May 2010 elections to be the maiden run for full
automation. And judging from what the Court has heard and read in
the course of these proceedings, the choice of PCOS by Comelec
was not a spur-of-moment affair, but the product of honest-togoodness studies, consultations with CAC, and lessons learned from
the ARMM 2008 automated elections. With the backing of Congress
by way of budgetary support, the poll body has taken this historic,
if not ambitious, first step. It started with the preparation of the
RFP/TOR, with a list of voluminous annexes embodying in specific
detail the bidding rules and expectations from the bidders. And
after a hotly contested and, by most accounts, a highly transparent
public bidding exercise, the joint venture of a Filipino and foreign
corporation won and, after its machine hurdled the end-to-end
demonstration test, was eventually awarded the contract to
undertake the automation project. Not one of the losing or
disqualified bidders questioned, at least not before the courts, the
bona fides of the bidding procedures and the outcome of the
bidding itself.
Same; Same; The Comelec, in the discharge of its awesome
functions as overseer of fair elections, administrator and lead
implementor of laws relative to the conduct of elections, should not
be stymied with restrictions that would perhaps be justified in the
case of an organization of lesser responsibility.The Comelec is an
independent constitutional body with a distinct and pivotal role in
our scheme of government. In the discharge of its awesome
functions as overseer of fair elections, administrator and lead
implementor of laws relative to the conduct of elections, it should
not be stymied with restrictions that would perhaps be justified in
the case of an organization of lesser responsibility. It should be
afforded ample elbow room and enough wherewithal in devising
means and initiatives that would enable it to accomplish the great
objective for which it was createdto promote free, orderly, honest
and peaceful elections. This is as it should be for, too often,
Comelec has to make decisions under difficult conditions to address
unforeseen events to preserve the integrity of the election and in
the process the voice of the people. Thus, in the past, the Court has
steered away from interfering with the Comelecs exercise of its
power which, by law and by the nature of its office properly pertain
to it. Absent, therefore, a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion
on Comelecs part, as here, the Court should refrain from utilizing
the corrective hand of certiorari to review, let alone nullify, the acts
of that body.
PUNO (C.J.), Separate Concurring Opinion:
Election Law; Automated Election System; Separation of Powers; A
touchstone of our Constitution is that critical public policy
judgments belong to the legislative branch, and the Court must not
unduly intrude into this exclusive domain.A touchstone of our
Constitution is that critical public policy judgments belong to the
legislative branch, and the Court must not unduly intrude into this
Same; Same; Same; Neither the text nor purpose of Republic Act
No. 9525 supports the submission that Republic Act No. 9525 has
repealed Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8436, as amendedan
implementing statute cannot repeal what it intends to enforce.
Neither the text nor purpose of RA 9525 supports respondents
submission that RA 9525 has repealed Section 5 of RA 8436, as
amended. On the contrary, the proviso in Section 2 of RA 9525
states that the disbursement of the amounts herein appropriated
or any part thereof shall be authorized only in strict compliance
with the Constitution [and] the provisions of Republic Act No. 9369
x x x. Thus, the COMELEC is authorized to spend the appropriated
amount only in strict compliance with RA 9369, which mandates a
partial automation. The statement in Section 2 that such measures
that will guaranty transparency and accuracy in the selection of the
relevant technology of the machines to be used in the May 10,
2010 automated national and local election shall be adopted
should be read with the rest of Section 2. At any rate, RA 9525
funds the implementation of RA 8436, as amended by RA 9369. An
implementing statute cannot repeal what it intends to enforce.
Same; Same; Whoever controls the access keys controls the
electionscontrol of the access keys means the capacity to
instantaneously change the election results in any precinct in the
country.Items (1) and (3) are unmistakably repugnant to Section
26 of RA 8426. Whoever controls the access keys controls the
elections. Control of the access keys means the capacity to
instantaneously change the election results in any precinct in the
country. Giving to the Provider the access keysboth the private
and public access keysis like giving to the system administrator
of Yahoo or Hotmail ones private password to his or her email
account. The private key is supposed to be private to the Chair of
the Board of Election Inspectors, generated by him and unknown to
the Provider. Otherwise, the Provider will have the capacity to alter
the election results at the precinct level. Worse, even the private
keys at the canvassing level are generated by the Provider,
allowing the Provider to change the election results at the
canvassing level. Clearly, the COMELEC has abdicated control over
the elections to the Provider, putting the integrity and outcome of
the 10 May 2010 elections solely in the hands of the Provider.
Moreover, the polling places and canvassing centers, which are the
critical operational areas during the elections, must be under the
full control of the COMELEC.
Same; Same; Republic Act No. 8436 does not bifurcate control and
supervision along technical and non-technical linesSection 26
manually feed the ballot into the PCOS machine. There are
sufficient safeguards to the secrecy of the voting process in that
the voter alone will hold the ballot and feed it to the PCOS machine.
It is all up to the voter whether to discard caution and disclose the
contents of the ballot. The law can only do so much in protecting its
sanctity. Besides, assuming that the requirement under the
contract between the Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM as to the size of
the ballot poses concerns in connection with the secrecy of the
ballot, the Comelec is not without power to issue the necessary
rules and regulations that will effectively address them. Such rules
and regulations may include the specific manner on how assistance
on feeding the ballot to a PCOS machine may be rendered to a
voter to avoid compromising the secrecy of the ballot.
Same; Same; Same; No worst-case scenarios painted by
doomsayers, no speculative political catastrophe should be the
basis of invalidating the Comelecs official actsonly when the
exercise by the Comelec of its discretion is done with grave abuse
will this Court nullify the challenged discretionary act.Congress
has vested the Comelec with the authority to modernize the
Philippine electoral system through the adoption of an AES. In the
exercise of the said authority and considering the nature of the
office of the Comelec as an independent constitutional body
specifically tasked to enforce and administer all laws relative to the
conduct of elections, the Comelec enjoys wide latitude in carrying
out its mandate. No worst-case scenarios painted by doomsayers,
no speculative political catastrophe should be the basis of
invalidating the Comelecs official acts. Only when the exercise by
the Comelec of its discretion is done with grave abuse will this
Court nullify the challenged discretionary act. Otherwise, the
institutional independence of the Comelec will be unduly restricted
and eroded, and its constitutional and statutory prerogatives
encroached upon. This Court should not allow that in any situation.
This Court should not allow that in this case. Let us welcome the
significant change in our electoral system that is the automated
election system. The future is upon us. It beckons as it poses the
challenge of spurring technological innovation and safeguarding
values like accuracy and transparency in our electoral system. Let
us not turn our backs on it simply out of speculation and fear. Let us
give it a chance.
BRION,J., Dissenting Opinion:
Election Law; Automated Election System; Judicial Review; The
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) reigns supreme in
determining how automation shall be phased in, how it shall affect
and control over the AES that the law in its wisdom has put in
place, has simply been negated. To be wary of giving control of the
critical elements of our election process to an entity other than the
COMELEC cannot and should not be regarded as an unhealthy
skepticism that we should shy away from. On the contrary,
wariness should be our mindset, particularly on legal matters
bearing on elections and their automation, given the constitutional
and legal guidelines that foist on us the standard of a fair, clean,
honest and credible election. We must be wary, too, because we
are not wanting in warnings from those who have waded ahead of
us into the waters of automation.
10 February 2010
Arroyo v. DOJ and COMELEC G.R. No. 199082 18 September
2012
Election Law; Commission on Elections (COMELEC); Preliminary
Investigations; Under Section 2, Rule 34 of the Comelec Rules of
Procedure, provincial and city prosecutors and their assistants are
given continuing authority as deputies to conduct preliminary
investigation of complaints involving election offenses under
election laws and to prosecute the same.The constitutional grant
of prosecutorial power in the Comelec was reflected in Section 265
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus
Election Code, to wit: Section 265. Prosecution.The Commission
shall, through its duly authorized legal officers, have the exclusive
power to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses
punishable under this Code, and to prosecute the same. The
Commission may avail of the assistance of other prosecuting arms
of the government: Provided, however, That in the event that the
Commission fails to act on any complaint within four months from
his filing, the complainant may file the complaint with the office of
the fiscal [public prosecutor], or with the Ministry [Department] of
Justice for proper investigation and prosecution, if warranted. Under
the above provision of law, the power to conduct preliminary
investigation is vested exclusively with the Comelec. The latter,
however, was given by the same provision of law the authority to
avail itself of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the
government. Thus, under Section 2, Rule 34 of the Comelec Rules
of Procedure, provincial and city prosecutors and their assistants
are given continuing authority as deputies to conduct preliminary
investigation of complaints involving election offenses under
election laws and to prosecute the same. The complaints may be
filed directly with them or may be indorsed to them by the
petitioner or its duly authorized representatives.
the government.
Same; Same; Preliminary Investigations; 1993 COMELEC Rules of
Procedure; View that under the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure,
the Chief State Prosecutor, all Provincial and City Fiscals, and/or
their respective assistants were given continuing authority, as
deputies of the COMELEC, to conduct preliminary investigation of
complaints involving election offenses under election laws that
may be filed directly with them, or that may be indorsed to them
by the COMELEC or its duly authorized representatives and to
prosecute the same.As outlined in that case, Section 265 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881 (BP 881) of the Omnibus Election Code granted
the COMELEC the exclusive power to conduct preliminary
investigations and prosecute election offenses. Looking then at the
practical limitations arising from such broad grant of power,
Congress also empowered the COMELEC to avail of the assistance
of the prosecuting arms of the government. Under the 1993
COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the Chief State Prosecutor, all
Provincial and City Fiscals, and/or their respective assistants were
given continuing authority, as deputies of the COMELEC, to conduct
preliminary investigation of complaints involving election offenses
under election laws that may be filed directly with them, or that
may be indorsed to them by the COMELEC or its duly authorized
representatives and to prosecute the same.
Same; Same; Same; View that the COMELEC must be given
considerable latitude in the fulfillment of its duty of ensuring the
prompt investigation and prosecution of election offenses.I agree
with the majority that the COMELEC must be given considerable
latitude in the fulfillment of its duty of ensuring the prompt
investigation and prosecution of election offenses. I duly
acknowledge that the COMELEC exercises considerable latitude and
the widest discretion in adopting its chosen means and methods of
discharging its tasks, particularly its broad power to enforce and
administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall.
Same; Same; Same; View that to discharge its duty effectively, the
Constitution endowed the COMELEC with special features which
elevate it above other investigative and prosecutorial agencies of
the government.Section 2, Article IX (C) of the Constitution
specifically vests in the COMELEC the plenary power to investigate
and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election
laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds,
offenses and malpractices. To discharge its duty effectively, the
Constitution endowed the COMELEC with special features which
elevate it above other investigative and prosecutorial agencies of
Same; Same; Same; View that under the present legal framework,
the COMELEC and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and its
prosecuting arms, have equal jurisdiction to conduct preliminary
investigation and prosecute election offenses.With respect to the
power to conduct preliminary investigation and to prosecute
election offenses, Congress has mandated under Section 42 of RA
No. 9369 that the COMELEC shall have the power concurrent with
the other prosecuting arms of the government, to conduct
preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under
the Omnibus Election Code, and to prosecute these offenses.
Concurrent jurisdiction has been defined as equal jurisdiction to
deal with the same subject matter. Thus, under the present legal
framework, the COMELEC and the DOJ, and its prosecuting arms,
have equal jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation and
prosecute election offenses. Effectively, this means that the DOJ
and its prosecuting arms can already conduct preliminary
investigations and prosecute election offenses not merely as
deputies, but independently of the COMELEC.
Same; Same; Same; View that while the COMELEC and the
Department of Justice (DOJ) have equal jurisdiction to investigate
and prosecute election offenses (subject to the rule that the body
or agency that first takes cognizance of the complaint shall
exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others), the COMELEC
whenever it directly acts in the fact-finding and preliminary
investigation of elections offencescan still work with the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and seek its assistance without
violating its constitutionally guaranteed independence, but it can
only do so as the principal in a principal-delegate relationship with
the DOJ where the latter acts as the delegate.The only
arrangement constitutionally possible, given the independence of
the COMELEC and despite Section 42 of RA 9369, is for the DOJ to
be a mere deputy or delegate of the COMELEC and not a co-equal
partner in the investigation and prosecution of election offenses
WHENEVER THE COMELEC ITSELF DIRECTLY ACTS. While the
COMELEC and the DOJ have equal jurisdiction to investigate and
prosecute election offenses (subject to the rule that the body or
agency that first takes cognizance of the complaint shall exercise
jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others), the COMELEC
whenever it directly acts in the fact-finding and preliminary
investigation of elections offencescan still work with the DOJ and
seek its assistance without violating its constitutionally guaranteed
independence, but it can only do so as the principal in a principaldelegate relationship with the DOJ where the latter acts as the
delegate.
MENDOZA,J., Concurring Opinion:
Election Law; Preliminary Investigations; Commission on Elections
(COMELEC); View that the arraignment of petitioner Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo (GMA), on her very own motion, is tantamount to
her submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court.I am in
agreement with the ponencia that the arraignment of petitioner
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (GMA), on her very own motion, is
tantamount to her submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court.
The entry of her plea of not guilty to the crime of electoral
sabotage can only be deemed as a waiver of her right to question
the alleged irregularities committed during the preliminary
investigation conducted by the Joint DOJ-COMELEC Preliminary
Investigation Committee, headed by the Prosecutor General (Joint
Committee) and/or Comelec. Consequently, her own actions
rendered the issues on probable cause and on the validity of the
preliminary investigation as moot and academic.
Same; Same; View that the right to a preliminary investigation is
not a mere formal or technical right but a substantive one, forming
part of due process in criminal justice.Although a preliminary
investigation is not a trial and is not intended to usurp the function
of the trial court, it is not a casual affair. The right to a preliminary
investigation is not a mere formal or technical right but a
substantive one, forming part of due process in criminal justice. The
prosecutor conducting the same investigates or inquires into the
facts concerning the commission of a crime to determine whether
or not an Information should be filed against a respondent. A
preliminary investigation is in effect a realistic appraisal of the
merits of the case. Sufficient proof of the guilt of the accused must
be adduced so that when the case is tried, the trial court may not
be bound, as a matter of law, to order an acquittal. A preliminary
investigation has been called a judicial inquiry; it is a judicial
proceeding. An act becomes a judicial proceeding when there is an
opportunity to be heard and for the production of, and weighing of,
evidence, and a decision is rendered thereon.
Same; Same; Motion for Reconsideration; View that true, under
Rule 13 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure, a motion for
reconsideration of an en banc ruling, resolution, order or decision is
generally proscribed. In election offenses cases, however, such
motions are allowed.Due process demands that the Comelec
should have given the petitioner the opportunity to submit her
counter-affidavit. And if its resolution would be adverse, as was the
case, she should have been given time to file a motion for
reconsideration before the Comelec. True, under Rule 13 of the
Comelec Rules of Procedure, a motion for reconsideration of an en
banc ruling, resolution, order or decision is generally proscribed. In
election offenses cases, however, such motions are allowed.
23 July 2013
Election Law; Commission on Elections (COMELEC); Under the
present law, the Comelec and other prosecuting arms of the
government, such as the Department of Justice (DOJ), now exercise
concurrent jurisdiction in the investigation and prosecution of
election offenses.This is not the first time that the Court is
confronted with the issue of whether the Comelec has the exclusive
power to investigate and prosecute cases of violations of election
laws. In Barangay Association for National Advancement and
Transparency (BANAT) Party-List v. Commission on Elections, 595
SCRA 477 (2009), the constitutionality of Section 43 of RA 9369 had
already been raised by petitioners therein and addressed by the
Court. While recognizing the Comelecs exclusive power to
investigate and prosecute cases under Batas Pambansa Bilang 881
or the Omnibus Election Code, the Court pointed out that the
framers of the 1987 Constitution did not have such intention. This
exclusivity is thus a legislative enactment that can very well be
amended by Section 43 of RA 9369. Therefore, under the present
law, the Comelec and other prosecuting arms of the government,
such as the DOJ, now exercise concurrent jurisdiction in the
investigation and prosecution of election offenses.
Same; The Comelec Law Department and the Office of the Chief
State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice (DOJ) were tasked to
jointly supervise the investigatory and prosecutory functions of the
Comelec-DOJ Task Force.It is noteworthy that Comelec Resolution
No. 3467 was issued when Section 265 of the Omnibus Election
Code was still effective, while Joint Order No. 001-2011 as well as
Comelec Resolution Nos. 8733 and 9057 mentioned in the assailed
decision but missed out by GMA in her motion, were issued during
the effectivity of Section 43 of RA 9369, giving the Comelec and
other prosecuting arms of the government the concurrent
jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute election offenses. This
amendment paved the way for the discrepancy. In Comelec
Resolution No. 3467, the Comelec maintained the continuing
deputation of prosecutors and the Comelec Law Department was
tasked to supervise the investigatory and prosecutory functions of
the task force pursuant to the mandate of the Omnibus Election
Code. However, with the amendment, the Comelec likewise
that the Constitution and the law cannot allow, however practical
from the standpoint of efficiency it might be. To stress the obvious,
the joint or shared arrangement directly goes against the rationale
that justifies the grant of independence to the COMELEC to
insulate it, particularly its role in the countrys electoral exercise,
from political pressures and partisan politics.
Same; View that this concurrent jurisdiction between the COMELEC
and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the investigation and
prosecution of election offenses is circumscribed by the
Constitutional
provisions
guaranteeing
the
COMELECs
independence as a Constitutional Commission.I take exception to
the ponencias conclusion that the creation of the Joint DOJCOMELEC Committee is not repugnant to the concurrent jurisdiction
conferred to the COMELEC and other prosecutorial agencies of
government (such as the DOJ) under Section 42 of Republic Act No.
9369. I reiterate the view that this concurrent jurisdiction between
the COMELEC and the DOJ in the investigation and prosecution of
election offenses is circumscribed by the Constitutional provisions
guaranteeing the COMELECs independence as a Constitutional
Commission. To my mind, the only arrangement that can pass
constitutional muster is the practice of delegation of authority by
the COMELEC, otherwise known as deputation, which has long been
upheld by the Court.
Same; View that in order for the COMELECs action in the present
case to be constitutionally valid, it must still be shown that the
COMELECs determination of probable cause was free from any
attendant participation by the Executive.I also cannot accept the
ponencias strained reasoning that the creation of the Joint
Committee does not undermine the independence of the COMELEC
because the determination of probable cause ultimately pertains to
the COMELEC under Section 2 of Joint Order No. 001-2011. In my
view, the constitutionally objectionable arrangement of a shared
responsibility between the COMELEC and the DOJ is not saved by
the existence of Section 2 of Joint Order No. 001-2011. In order for
the COMELECs action in the present case to be constitutionally
valid, it must still be shown that the COMELECs determination of
probable cause was free from any attendant participation by the
Executive.
Same; Commission on Elections (COMELEC); View that the
COMELEC, not the Joint DOJ-COMELEC Committee, has the primary,
if not exclusive, authority to conduct preliminary investigation of
election cases, and the creation of the Joint DOJ-COMELEC
Committee constitutes an unconstitutional abdication by the
assumed office.
Same; Same; Commission on Elections (COMELEC); Jurisdiction;
The petitioner cannot be considered a Member of the House of
Representatives because, primarily, she has not yet assumed
office; The term of office of a Member of the House of
Representatives begins only at noon on the thirtieth day of June
next following their election. Thus, until such time, the
Commission on Elections retains jurisdiction.Here, the petitioner
cannot be considered a Member of the House of Representatives
because, primarily, she has not yet assumed office. To repeat what
has earlier been said, the term of office of a Member of the House
of Representatives begins only at noon on the thirtieth day of June
next following their election. Thus, until such time, the COMELEC
retains jurisdiction. In her attempt to comply with the second
requirement, petitioner attached a purported Oath Of Office taken
before Hon. Feliciano Belmonte Jr. on 5 June 2013. However, this is
not the oath of office which confers membership to the House of
Representatives. Section 6, Rule II (Membership) of the Rules of the
House of Representatives provides: Section 6. Oath or Affirmation
of Members.Members shall take their oath or affirmation either
collectively or individually before the Speaker in open session.
Consequently, before there is a valid or official taking of the oath it
must be made (1) before the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, and (2) in open session. Here, although she made
the oath before Speaker Belmonte, there is no indication that it was
made during plenary or in open session and, thus, it remains
unclear whether the required oath of office was indeed complied
with. More importantly, we cannot disregard a fact basic in this
controversy that before the proclamation of petitioner on 18 May
2013, the COMELEC En Banc had already finally disposed of the
issue of petitioners lack of Filipino citizenship and residency via its
Resolution dated 14 May 2013. After 14 May 2013, there was,
before the COMELEC, no longer any pending case on petitioners
qualifications to run for the position of Member of the House of
Representative. We will inexcusably disregard this fact if we accept
the argument of the petitioner that the COMELEC was ousted of
jurisdiction when she was proclaimed, which was four days after
the COMELEC En Banc decision. The Board of Canvasser which
proclaimed petitioner cannot by such act be allowed to render
nugatory a decision of the COMELEC En Banc which affirmed a
decision of the COMELEC First Division.
Same; COMELEC Rules of Procedure; Under Section 2 of Rule I, the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure shall be liberally construed in order
to achieve just, expeditious and inexpensive determination and
(2013).
Leonen, J., Dissenting Opinion:
Election Law; House of Representatives Electoral Tribunals;
Jurisdiction; Proclamation of Candidates; View that the Supreme
Court should maintain its consistent doctrine that proclamation is
the operative act that removes jurisdiction from the Supreme Court
or the Commission on Elections and vests it on the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET).In case of doubt, there
are fundamental reasons for this Court to be cautious in exercising
its jurisdiction to determine who the members are of the House of
Representatives. We should maintain our consistent doctrine that
proclamation is the operative act that removes jurisdiction from this
Court or the Commission on Elections and vests it on the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET).
Same; Electoral Tribunals; Proclamation of Candidates; View that
the earliest moment when there can be members of the House of
Representatives or the Senate is upon their proclamation as
winners of an election.The earliest moment when there can be
members of the House of Representatives or the Senate is upon
their proclamation as winners of an election. Necessarily, this
proclamation happens even before they can actually assume their
office as the elections happen in May, and their terms start at
noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election.
Contests of elected representatives or senators can happen as soon
as they are proclaimed. We should remain faithful to the intention
of the Constitution. It is at the time of their proclamation that we
should declare ourselves as without jurisdiction.
Same; Same; Same; View that the Supreme Court has been asked
to resolve the issue when jurisdiction over election contests vests
on electoral tribunals.Time and again, this Court has been asked
to resolve the issue when jurisdiction over election contests vests
on electoral tribunals. In all these cases, this Court has consistently
held that it is the proclamation of a candidate in the congressional
elections that vests jurisdiction on the electoral tribunals of any
election contest, even though the candidate has not yet assumed
his or her office or the protest was filed before June 30. Once the
winning candidate vying for a position in Congress is proclaimed,
election contests must be lodged with the electoral tribunals and
not with the Commission on Elections. To repeat, certification by
the proper x x x board of canvassers is sufficient to entitle a
member-elect to a seat in [Congress] and to render him eligible to
any office in the said body.