Facts:

The case at hand is titled "Georgidi B. Aggabao vs. The Commission on Elections, The Provincial Board of Canvassers of Isabela, and Anthony Miranda," under G.R. No. 163756, decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on January 26, 2005. The petitioner, Georgidi B. Aggabao, and the private respondent, Anthony Miranda, were candidates competing for the congressional seat in the 4th District of Isabela during the elections held on May 10, 2004. During the canvassing process for the certificates of canvass of votes (COCV) for the municipalities of Cordon and San Agustin, Miranda raised issues regarding discrepancies in the COCV, claiming that one of the copies was tampered with, prepared under duress, and contained manifest errors. Aggabao opposed this motion, arguing that the grounds for exclusion raised by Miranda should be addressed in a pre-proclamation controversy, which is not permitted in elections for the House of Representatives. On May 22, 2004, the reconsti

...

Facts:

Parties and Election Context

• Georgidi B. Aggabao (petitioner) and Anthony Miranda (private respondent) were rival congressional candidates for the 4th District of Isabela in the May 10, 2004 elections.
• The controversy arose amid alleged irregularities in the canvassing of votes for certain municipalities.

Contestation over Certificates of Canvass

• During the canvassing of the Certificates of Canvass of Votes (COCV) for Cordon and San Agustin, Miranda moved to exclude the 1st copy of the COCV.
• The grounds for exclusion included claims that the document was tampered with, prepared under duress, differed from other copies, and contained manifest errors.
• Aggabao objected to these contentions, arguing that the issues raised by Miranda were proper only in a pre-proclamation phase.

Actions by the Board of Canvassers (PBC)

• On May 22, 2004, the reconstituted Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) excluded the contested COCVs.
• The board substituted the excluded copies with the 4th and 7th copies for the canvassing, which led to Miranda garnering the highest number of votes.

Proceedings before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC)

• Following the board’s determination, Miranda advanced a very urgent motion for proclamation on June 6, 2004.
• Aggabao opposed the motion, contending that a pending appeal with the COMELEC Second Division should have precluded Miranda’s proclamation.
• Commissioner Mehol K. Sadain, in a memorandum dated June 8, 2004, approved the proclamation of the remaining winning candidates for the province of Isabela.
• On June 9, 2004, the COMELEC En Banc issued Resolution No. 7233, directing the proclamation of these candidates.

Proclamation and Aftermath

• Anthony Miranda was duly proclaimed as Congressman for the 4th District of Isabela on June 14, 2004.
• Miranda proceeded to take his oath of office and assumed his duties as Congressman.
• Aggabao later filed a petition for certiorari, challenging Resolution No. 7233 by arguing that the COMELEC En Banc acted without jurisdiction due to the ongoing appeal and that any issues regarding the proclamation should be resolved by the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET).

Relevant Legal and Jurisdictional Framework

• Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution vests exclusive jurisdiction over electoral contests involving members of the House of Representatives to its Electoral Tribunal (HRET).
• Jurisprudence, including decisions in Pangilinan and Lazatin, reinforces that once a candidate is proclaimed, takes the oath, and assumes office, any controversy relating to the election is beyond the remedial purview of the COMELEC and should be addressed by the HRET.
• The petitioner’s available remedy, as per the constitutional and judicial framework, was to file an electoral protest before the HRET rather than pursuing a petition for certiorari.

Issue:

Jurisdictional Authority

• Whether the COMELEC En Banc acted with grave abuse of discretion and without or in excess of jurisdiction by ordering the proclamation of Anthony Miranda despite the existence of a pending appeal.
• Whether the exclusion of the contested COCVs by the Provincial Board of Canvassers was a proper exercise of its authority.

Adequacy of the Available Remedy

• Whether a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law for contesting the proclaimed results.
• Whether the petitioner’s recourse via a petition for certiorari was inappropriate given that an electoral protest before the HRET was the proper remedy.

Separation of Jurisdiction Between Constitutional Bodies

• How the conflict of jurisdiction between the COMELEC (responsible for pre-proclamation controversies) and the HRET (responsible for post-proclamation disputes) should be resolved in cases where a candidate has already assumed office.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)