G.R. No. 166890 - Republic vs. Bautista, Jr.

Petitioner (Carmelo F. Lazatin) and private respondent were candidates for Representative of the First District of Pampanga in the May 11, 1987 congressional elections.
During the canvassing of votes, private respondent objected to the inclusion of certain election returns.
The Municipal Board of Canvassers did not rule on these objections, prompting private respondent to bring his case to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).

On May 19, 1987, COMELEC ordered the Provincial Board of Canvassers to suspend the proclamation of the winning candidate for the district.
On May 26, 1987, COMELEC reversed its earlier stand and ordered the Provincial Board of Canvassers to resume canvassing and to proclaim the winner.
Petitioner was subsequently proclaimed Congressman-elect on May 27, 1987.
Private respondent filed a petition in the COMELEC to declare petitioner’s proclamation void ab initio and later filed a petition to prohibit petitioner from assuming office.
Despite the petition against assuming office not being acted upon by COMELEC, petitioner assumed office on June 30, 1987.

On September 15, 1987, COMELEC declared petitioner’s proclamation void ab initio.
Petitioner challenged this COMELEC decision before the Supreme Court in case G.R. No. 80007, where the SC set aside COMELEC’s revocation on January 25, 1988.
On February 8, 1988, after the Supreme Court decision, private respondent filed an election protest with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) in Case No. 46.

Petitioner moved to dismiss the protest arguing that it was filed late based on Sec. 250 of the Omnibus Election Code.
The HRET, however, ruled that the election protest was filed on time in accordance with Sec. 9 of the HRET Rules.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the HRET was denied.
Consequently, petitioner brought the issue before the Supreme Court, challenging the jurisdiction of the HRET over the protest.

Private respondent also sought a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin petitioner from discharging his office during the pendency of the protest.
The HRET initially deferred action on this ancillary remedy, finding that the grounds were not indubitable, and later denied the motion for reconsideration.

Whether private respondent’s protest was filed on time under the procedural requirements.
Determination of the applicable filing period: Sec. 250 of the Omnibus Election Code versus Sec. 9 of the HRET Rules.

Whether the HRET has jurisdiction over the election protest raised by private respondent despite petitioner’s contention.
The interpretation of the constitutional and statutory provisions governing election contests in the context of the 1987 Constitution.

Whether the HRET should have granted the temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction to prevent petitioner from assuming or discharging office during the protest.
The appropriateness of judicial intervention in light of the HRET’s exclusive jurisdiction over election disputes.