REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES VS.
COMELEC AND JOSEPH SOCORRO TAN
FACTS
On October 31. 2012, Joseph Socorro Tan filed with the Comelec an
Amended Petition to Deny Due Course or to Cancel the Certificate of
Candidacy of Regina Ongsiako Reyes, the petitioner, on the ground that it
contained material representations. On March 27, 2013, the COMELEC
cancelled the certificate of candidacy of the petitioner. She filed a Motion for
Reconsideration on April 8, 2013. On May 14, 2013, COMELEC en banc
denied her MR.
COMELEC En Banc, on May 14, 2013, finally disposed of the issue of the
petitioner, Regina Ongsiako Reyes’ lack of Filipino citizenship and residency
The petitioner Regina Ongsiako Reyes then filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the En Banc Resolution that dismissed her instant petition
due to the fact that no grave abuse of discretion was found on the part of the
COMELEC.
In her Motion, she stated that she is not asking the SC to make a
determination as regards to her qualifications. But she is merely asking the
SC to affirm the jurisdiction of the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal
(HRET) to solely and exclusively pass upon such qualifications and to set
aside the COMELEC Resolutions for having denied her right to due process
and for unconstitutionally adding a qualification not otherwise required by the
Consti.
Petitioner holds that she is a duly proclaimed winner and having taken her
oath of office as a member of the HR, all questions now regarding her
qualifications are outside the jurisdiction of the COMELEC and are within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the HRET.
However, on May 18, 2013, she was proclaimed winner of the May 13, 2013
Elections. On June 5, 2013, COMELEC declared the May 14, 2013
Resolution final and Executory. On the same day, petitioner took her oath of
office before Feliciano Belmonte, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives. She has yet to assume office at that time, as her term
officially starts at noon of June 30, 2013. According to petitioner, the
COMELEC was ousted of its jurisdiction when she was duly
proclaimed because pursuant to Section 17, Article VI of the 1987
Constitution, the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) has
the exclusive jurisdiction to be the “sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns and qualifications” of the Members of the House of
Representatives.
RELEVANT LAWS
Article 6 (1987 Consti)
Section 6.
No person shall be a Member of
the House of Representatives
unless he is a natural-born citizen
of the Philippines and, on the day
of the election, is at least twenty-
five years of age, able to read and
write, and, except the party-list
representatives, a registered
voter in the district in which he
shall be elected, and a resident
thereof for a period of not less
than one year immediately
preceding the day of the election.
ISSUES and RULING
WoN petitioner could be proclaimed on May 18, 2013 [NO]
- No basis
WoN there was a basis for the petitioner’s proclamation on May 18,
2013 [NO]
The proclamation w/c the petitioner secured May 18, 2013 was WITHOUT BASIS
1. 4 days before the May 18 proclamation, or on May 14, the COMELEC
En Banc has already denied the petitioner’s motion to reconsider the
decision of the COMELEC that CANCELLED her certificate of
candidacy for lack of merit.
2. On May 18, there was already a standing and unquestioned
cancellation of petitioner’s certificate of candidacy, which cancellation
is a definite bar to her proclamation.
3. Under the COMELEC Rules, Rule 18, Section 13 (b) provides: in
Special Actions/cases a decision or resolution of the COMELEC En
Banc shall become final and executory after 5 days from its
promulgation unless restrained by the SC
4.
Within the 5 days petitioner had the opportunity to go to the SC for a restraining
order that will remove the immediate effect of the En Banc cancellation of her
certificate of candidacy. Which petitioner did not move to happen.
*petitioner took the law into her own hands by securing a proclamation in
complete disregard of the COMELEC’s decision
WoN COMELEC has jurisdiction over the petitioner who is
proclaimed as winner and who has already taken her oath of office
for the position of member of the House of Representative of
Marinduque. [YES]
Yes, COMELEC retains jurisdiction because the jurisdiction of the House of
Representative Electoral Tribunal (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. For one to be considered a Member of the
House of Representatives, there must be a concurrence of these requisites: (1)
valid proclamation; (2) proper oath, and (3) assumption of office.
Thus the petitioner cannot be considered a member of the HR yet as she has not
assumed office yet. Also, the 2nd requirement was not validly complied with as a
valid oath 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.
Furthermore, petition for certiorari will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is
alleged and proved to exist. For an act to be struck down as having been done
with grave abuse of discretion, the abuse of discretion must be patent and gross.
Here, this Court finds that petitioner failed to adequately and substantially show
that grave abuse of discretion exists.