TEACHER – Constitutional Law

REP. VIRGILIO P. ROBLES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
AND ROMEO L. SANTOS, RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 86647. February 05, 1990

PONENTE: MEDIALDEA, J.

TOPIC: Pre-proclamation controversy

FACTS
Virgilio Robles (Petitioner) and Romeo Santos (Respondent) were candidates for
congressman in the district of Caloocan in which Santos won.
Robles filed an election protest with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
regarding the election results claiming there were various irregularities during the day of
election and prayed for a recount of the ballots.
On June 14, Petitioner filed his answer to the protest allegedly questioning Respondents
LACK of residency and late filing of his protest.
HRET ordered in favor of Santos and commenced revision of ballots. Later, Santos filed a
Motion to Withdraw Protest which HRET has not acted upon when he filed again a motion to
recall and disregard it.
Robles opposed it; however, HRET granted Santos’ motion to disregard withdrawal and
resolved to continue with revision of the ballots. Robles instituted this present petition for
certiorari praying to restrain HRET. He contends that HRET lost its jurisdiction over the case
when Protestant filed his Motion to Withdraw Protest, hence HRET acted without jurisdiction
when it ordered resumption of revision of ballots.
ISSUE/S
Does HRET retain the jurisdiction to grant or deny Santos’ Motion to Disregard
Withdrawal Protest after Santos already filed a Motion to Withdraw Protest beforehand?
RULING
Yes. The mere filing of the Motion to Withdraw Protest on the remaining uncontested
precincts, without any action on the part of HRET did not divest the latter of jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost upon instance of the parties, and continues until
the case is terminated (Jimenez v. Nazareno, 1988). To hold otherwise would permit a party to
deprive the Tribunal of jurisdiction already acquired. Where the Court has jurisdiction over the
subject matter, its orders upon all questions pertaining to the cause are orders within its
jurisdiction however erroneous they may be; they cannot be corrected by certiorari. This rule
more appropriately applies to HRET whose independence as a constitutional body [found in Art
VI, sec 17] has time and again been upheld in many cases.
DOCTRINE
Art VI, sec 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. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine
Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief
Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives,
as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the
political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system
represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.