No.

245

En Banc
G.R. No. 207264. June 25, 2013.]
REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and
JOSEPH SOCORRO B. TAN, respondents
Perez, J

Topic: Electoral Tribunal, Secs. 17 and 19, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution
Doctrine: HRET is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of the Members of the House of Representatives is a written constitutional
provision. [It is, however unavailable to petitioner because she is NOT a Member of the
House at present.]

Facts:

 Petitioner filed her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for the position of

Representative of the lone district of Marinduque. Private Respondent, a
registered voter and resident of the Municipality of Torrijos, Marinduque, filed
before the COMELEC a petition for the cancellation of petitioner’s COC.
 On October 31, 2012, the respondent filed the amended petition on the ground
that the petitioner’s COC contained material misrepresentations regarding the
petitioner’s marital status, residency, date of birth and citizenship. Respondent
alleged that the petitioner is an American citizen and filed in February 8, 2013 a
manifestation with motion to admit newly discovered evidence and amended last
exhibit.
 On March 27, 2013, the COMELEC First Division issued a Resolution cancelling
the petitioner’s COC on the basis that petitioner is not a citizen of the Philippines
because of her failure to comply with the requirements of Republic Act (RA) No.
9225.
 On May 18, 2013, petitioner was proclaimed winner of the May 13, 2013
elections and on June 5, 2013 took her oath of office before the Speaker of
House of Representatives. She has yet to assume office at noon of June 30,
2013.
 On June 5, 2013, the COMELEC en banc issued a Certificate of Finality
declaring the May 14, 2013 Resolution of the COMELEC en banc final and
executory.

Issues:

Whether the COMELEC has the jurisdiction over the petitioner who is a duly proclaimed
winner and who has already taken her oath of office for the position of member of the
House of Representative.

Ruling:

Yes. Contrary to petitioner's claim the COMELEC retains jurisdiction for the

following reasons:
 No. 245

First, the HRET does not acquire jurisdiction over the issue of petitioner's
qualifications, as well as over the assailed COMELEC Resolutions, unless a petition is
duly filed with said tribunal. Petitioner has not averred that she has filed such action. 
Second, the jurisdiction of the HRET begins only after the candidate is
considered a Member of the House of Representatives, as stated in Section 17, Article
VI of the 1987 Constitution:
Section 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall
each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their
respective Members. . . .
As held in Marcos v. COMELEC, 21 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 Tribunal's supposed
assumption of jurisdiction over the issue of petitioner's qualifications
after the May 8, 1995elections, 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 beginsonly 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. (Emphasis supplied.)
The next inquiry, then, is when is a candidate considered a Member of the House
of Representatives?
In VinzonsChato v. COMELEC, 22 citing Aggabao v. COMELEC 23 and Guerr
ero v. COMELEC, 24 the Court ruled that:

The Court has invariably held that once a winning candidate has
been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a Member of the House of
Representatives, the COMELEC's jurisdiction over election contests relating to his
election, returns, and qualifications ends, and the HRET's own jurisdiction begins.

The instant petition was DISMISSED, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the COMELEC.