TEODORO Q. PEÑA v.

HRET

Facts:
The petitioner Teodoro Q. Peña and the respondent are both candidates for Alfredo E Abueg in the confressional office for
the 2nd district of Palawan. The result of the election proclaimed Abueg as the winner against Pena.

Few days later the petitioner filed a petition with HRET where the petitioner averred that the election was tainted with massive
fraud, widespread vote buying, intimidation and terrorism and serious irregularities committed before, during and after
election.He claimed that if the events mentioned in the preceeding sentence did not occur, the result would have been different,
this time in favor of the petitioner.

ISSUE:

Ruling:
INSUFFICIENCY IN FORM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE PETITION CONSTITUTE A GROUND FOR IMMEDIATE DISMISSAL
The Protestant failed to specify which are the 700 precincts, out of the said 743 precincts, that are included in his protest; he
even failed to allege the municipalities where the protested precincts are located. Worse, the body of the Petition does not
even mention the 700 precincts. Reference to them is made only in the Prayer. These omissions prevent Protestee from being
apprised of the issues which he has to meet and make it virtually impossible for the Tribunal to determine which ballot boxes
have to be collected.chanrobles virtual| a

‘[w]hile the election law does not say so directly, it is clearly inferred from its relevant provisions that where the grounds of
contest are that legal votes were rejected and illegal votes received, the motion of protest should state in what precincts such
irregularities occurred.

The tribunal held that this scattershot allegation is not allowed in election contests and that "it is necessary to make a precise
indication of the precincts protested and a specification of the claimed offenses to have been committed by the parties."

Abayon Palparan V HRET (Refer to image)

Aquino v. Comelec

Facts:
 Aquino v. COMELEC
 AGAPITO AQUINO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTION (D)
G.R. No. 120265 September 18, 1995

FACTS:
 Petitioner Agapito A. Aquino filed his Certificate of Candidacy(CoC) for the position of
Representative for the new 2nd Legislative District of Makati City providing the following
information; Residence in Constituency: ___ years & 10 months.
 Move Makati, a duly registered political party, and Mateo Bedon, Chairman of the LAKAS-
NUCD-UMDP of Barangay Cembo, Makati City, filed a petition to disqualify Agapito A.
Aquino on the ground that the latter lacked the residence qualification as a candidate for
congressman which should be for a period not less than one (1) year immediately
preceding the elections
 Petitioner filed another CoC amending the certificate. Petitioner stated in Item 8 of his
certificate that he had resided in the constituency for l year and 13 days.
 Petitioner filed his Answer praying for the dismissal of the disqualification case. On the
same day, a hearing was conducted by the COMELEC wherein petitioner presented in
evidence, his Affidavit, lease contract between petitioner and Leonor Feliciano.
 2nd Division of COMELEC promulgated a Resolution which DISMISS the: petition for
Disqualification against respondent Agapito Aquino and declares him ELIGIBLE to run for
the Office of Representative in the 2nd District of Makati City.
 Elections were held. In Makati City where 3 candidates vied for the congressional seat in
the 2nd District, petitioner 38,547 votes as against another candidate, Agusto Syjuco, who
obtained 35,910 votes.
 Private respondents Move Makati and Bedon filed an Urgent Motion to Suspend
Proclamation of petitioner. Thereafter, they filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration
of the COMELEC's 2nd Division resolution dated May 6, 1995 and a 2nd Urgent Motion
to Suspend Proclamation of petitioner.
 COMELEC issued an Order suspending petitioner's proclamation.
 Petitioner filed a "Motion to File Supplemental Memorandum and Motion to Resolve
Urgent Motion to Resolve Motion to Lift Suspension of Proclamation" wherein he
manifested his intention to raise, among others, the issue of whether or not the
 determination of the qualifications of petitioner after the elections is lodged exclusively in
the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal pursuant to Sec 17, Art VI of the 1987
Constitution.
 COMELEC issued a Resolution reversing the resolution of the 2nd Division dated May 6,
1995. Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of the 2nd Division,
promulgated on May 6, 1995, is GRANTED. Respondent Agapito A. Aquino is declared
ineligible and thus disqualified as a candidate for the Office of Representative of the 2nd
District of Makati City in the elections, for lack of the constitutional qualification of
residence.

Issue; Whether or not the COMELEC has jurisdiction TO DETERMINE AND ADJUDGE THE DISQUALIFICATION ISSUE
INVOLVING CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES AFTER THE MAY 8, 1995 ELECTIONS

Ruling:

No. Petitioner conveniently confuses the distinction between an unproclaimed candidate to the House of Representatives and
a member of the same. Obtaining the highest number of votes in an election does not automatically vest the position in the
winning candidate. Section 17 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution reads:

The Senate and the House of Representatives shall have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns and qualifications of their respective Members.

Under the above-stated provision, the electoral tribunal clearly assumes jurisdiction over all contests relative to the election,
returns and qualifications of candidates for either the Senate or the House only when the latter become members of either the
Senate or the House of Representatives. A candidate who has not been proclaimed 16 and who has not taken his oath of
office cannot be said to be a member of the House of Representatives subject to Section. 17 of the Constitution Thus,
petitioner's contention that "after the conduct of the election and (petitioner) has been established the winner of the electoral
exercise from the moment of election, the COMELEC is automatically divested of authority to pass upon the question of
qualification" finds no basis, because even after the elections the COMELEC is empowered by Section 6 (in relation to Section
7) of R.A. 6646 to continue to hear and decide questions relating to qualifications of candidates

o HRET has exclusive jurisdiction over election contests and qualifications of members of
Congress
o Remedies against a disqualified House of Representative candidate: (1) cancellation of
certificate of candidacy filed with COMELEC before election; (2) quo warranto case filed
with HRET after proclamation

FACTS:

Petitioners filed a petition seeking to disqualify Daza, then incumbent congressman of

their congressional district in Makati, from continuing to exercise the functions of his office
on the ground that the latter is a greencard holder and a lawful permanent resident of the
United States. They also alleged that Mr. Daza has not by any act or declaration
renounced his status as permanent resident thereby violating the Omnibus Election Code
(Section 68) and the 1987 Constitution (section 18, Article III).

Respondent Congressman filed his Comment denying the fact that he is a permanent
resident of the United States as evidenced by a letter order of the US Immigration and
Naturalization Service, Los Angeles, U.S.A, he had long waived his status when he
returned to the Philippines on August 12, 1985.

ISSUE:

o Whether or not respondent Daza should be disqualified as a member of the House

of Representatives for violation of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code

RULING:
The Supreme Court vote to dismiss the instant case, first, the case is moot and academic
for it is evident from the manifestation filed by petitioners dated April 6, 1992, that they
seek to unseat the respondent from his position as Congressman for the duration of his
term of office commencing June 30, 1987 and ending June 30, 1992. Secondly,
jurisdiction of this case rightfully pertains to the House Electoral Tribunal. Under Section
17 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, it is the House Electoral Tribunal which shall be
the sole judge of all contests relating to the election returns and qualification of its
members.

The petitioner’s appropriate remedy should have been to file a petition to cancel
respondent Daza’s certificate of candidacy before the election or a quo warranto case
with the House of Electoral Tribunal within ten days after Daza’s proclamation.

Caruncho vs Comelec

Facts:

Emiliano R. Caruncho III was the candidate of the Liberal Party for the congressional seat in the lone district of Pasig City at
the May 11, 1998 synchronized elections Emiliano R. Caruncho III was the candidate of the Liberal Party for the congressional
seat in the lone district of Pasig City at the May 11, 1998 synchronized elections.

General Acedera and his supporters stormed the Caruncho Stadium in San Nicolas, Pasig City, where the canvassing of
election returns was being conducted. They allegedly forced themselves into the canvassing area, breaking a glass door in
the process. As pandemonium broke loose, the police fired warning shots causing those present in the canvassing venue,
including the members of the Board and canvassing units, to scamper for safety. The canvassing personnel exited through
the backdoors bringing with them the Election Returns they were canvassing and tallying as well as the Statement of Votes
that they were accomplishing.

The following day, May 15, 1998, the sub-canvassing units recovered the twenty-two (22) Election Returns and the Statement
of Votes from the Treasurers Office and the PESO. However, page 2 of each of the 22 election returns, which contained the
names of candidates for congressmen, had been detached and could not be found.

At 2:40 a.m. of May 17, 1998, the Board, satisfied that it had finished canvassing the 1,491 election returns from as many
clustered precincts, proclaimed Henry P. Lanot as the winner in the congressional race for the lone district of Pasig. With the
petitioner coming in next.

aruncho filed a Motion to Nullify Proclamation on the Basis of Incomplete Returns3 with the COMELEC. He alleged that the
Board had proceeded with the proclamation of Henry Lanot as the winning congressional candidate even though one hundred
forty-seven (147) election returns involving about 30,000 votes, were still not canvassed.

QUESTION:

1. Which body has the jurisdiction over such petition involving proclamation controversy?
2. Does the COMLEC, by making a proclamation despite not all election returns have been received,
committed an abuse its discretion

Ruling:

1. HRET. The 1987 Constitution cannot be more explicit in this regard. Article VI thereof states:

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
In Javier v. Comelec (144 SCRA 194), this Court interpreted the phrase election, returns and qualifications as follows:

The phrase election, returns and qualifications should be interpreted in its totality as referring to all matters affecting
the validity of the contestees title. But if it is necessary to specify, we can say that election referred to the conduct of
the polls, including the listing of voters, the holding of the electoral campaign, and the casting and counting of the
votes; returns to the canvass of the returns and the proclamation of the winners, including questions concerning the
composition of the board of canvassers and the authenticity of the election returns; and qualifications to matters that
could be raised in a quo warranto proceeding against the proclaimed winner, such as his disloyalty or ineligibility or
the inadequacy of his certificate of candidacy.
 2. No.

An incomplete canvass of votes is illegal and cannot be the basis of a subsequent proclamation.29 A canvass cannot be
reflective of the true vote of the electorate unless all returns are considered and none is omitted.30 However, this is true only
where the election returns missing or not counted will affect the results of the election. It bears stressing that in the cas e at
bar, the COMELEC has categorically found that the election returns which were not counted by respondent canvassers
represented only 4,400 votes.

Granting that the proclamation was made without taking into account the twenty-two (22) election returns, still, the COMELEC
did not abuse its discretion. The election returns represented only 4,400 votes. That number cannot affect the result of the
election because Henry Lanots lead over his closest rival, herein petitioner, was 17,971 votes

Guinona v Gonzales

FACTS:

As a result of the national elections held last May 11, 1992, the Senate is composed of the following members or Senators
representing the respective political affiliations:

LDP –– 15 senators
NPC –– 5 senators
LAKAS-NUCD –– 3 senators
LP-PDP-LABAN –– 1 senator

Applying the mathematical formula agreed to by the parties as follow as:

No. of senators of a political party x 12 seats

––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Total no. of senators elected

the resulting composition of the senate based on the rule of proportional representation of each political party with elected
representatives in the Senate, is as follows:

Political Party/ Proportional

Political Coalition Membership Representatives

LDP 15 7.5 members

NPC 5 2.5 members
LAKAS-NUCD 3 1.5 members
LP-PDP-LABAN 1 .5 members

Senator Romulo in his capacity as Majority Floor Leader nominated, for and in his behalf of the LDP, eight (8) senators for
membership in the Commission on Appointments, namely Senators Angara, Herrera, Alvarez, Aquino, Mercado, Ople, Sotto
and Romulo. It was challenge by guingona,but later Sen. Tolentino suggested ta compromise to elect 12 member of Com on
Appointment.

ISSUE: Was the proposed compromise to violative of the rule of proportional representation, and that it is the right of the
minority political parties in the Senate, consistent with the Constitution, 4 to combine their fractional representation in the
Commission on Appointments to complete one seat therein, and to decide who, among the senators in their ranks, shall be
additionally nominated and elected thereto.?

RULING. The supreme court find the respondents' claim to membership in the Commission on Appointments by nomination
and election of the LDP majority in the Senate as not in accordance with Section 18 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
and therefore violative of the same because it is not in compliance with the requirements that twelve senators shall
be elected on the basis of proportional representation of the resulting fractional membership of the political parties
represented therein.

The provision of Section 18 on proportional representation is mandatory in character and does not leave any discretion
to the majority party in the Senate to disobey or disregard the rule on proportional representation; otherwise, the party
with a majority representation in the Senate or the House of Representatives can by sheer force of number impose its will on
the hapless minority. By requiring a proportional representation in the Commission on Appointments, Section 18 in
effect works as a check on the majority party in the Senate and helps to maintain the balance of power. No party can
claim more than what it is entitled to under such rule. To allow it to elect more than its proportional share of members is
to confer upon such a party a greater share in the membership in the Commission on Appointments and more power to impose
its will on the minority, who by the same token, suffers a diminution of its rightful membership in the Commission.

We lay down the following guidelines accordingly:

1) In the Senate, political party or coalition must have at least two duly elected senators for every seat in the Commission on
Appointments.
2) Where there are more than two political parties represented in the Senate, a political party/coalition with a single senator in
the Senate cannot constitutionally claims seat in the Commission.
The election of senator Romulo and Senator Tañada as members of the Commission on Appointments by the LDP majority
in the Senate was clearly a violation of Section 18 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. Their nomination and election by the
LDP majority by sheer force of superiority in numbers during the Senate organization meeting of August 27, 1992 was done
in grave abuse of discretion. Where power is exercised in a manner inconsistent with the command of the Constitution, and
by reason of numerical strength, knowingly and not merely inadvertently, said exercise amounts to abuse of authority granted
by law and grave abuse of discretion is properly found to exist.

We declare the election of Senator Alberto Romulo and Senator Wigberto Tañada as members of the Commission on
Appointments as null and void for being in violation of the rule on proportional representation under Section 18 of Article VI of
the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. Accordingly, a writ of prohibition is hereby issued ordering the said respondents
Senator Romulo and Senator Tañada to desist from assuming, occupying and discharging the functions of members of the
Commission on Appointments; and ordering the respondents Senate President Neptali Gonzales, in his capacity as ex-officio
Chairman of the Commission on Appointments, to desist from recognizing the membership of the respondent Senators and
from allowing and permitting them from sitting and participating as members of said Commission.