G.R. No. 219603 - Ty-Delgado vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

On 16 September 2008, the Supreme Court in Tulfo v. People of the Philippines (G.R. Nos. 161032 & 161176) convicted Philip A. Pichay of four counts of libel and imposed:

The decision became final and executory on 1 June 2009. Pichay paid the fines and moral damages on 17 February 2011.

On 9 October 2012, Pichay filed his certificate of candidacy (COC) for Member of the House of Representatives, First District of Surigao del Sur, for the May 2013 elections.
On 18 February 2013, Mary Elizabeth Ty-Delgado filed a petition for disqualification under Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), arguing that Pichay’s libel conviction involved moral turpitude and that the five-year bar had not yet lapsed. Pichay answered, contending the petition was actually one to cancel his COC under Sections 74 and 78 of the OEC and that libel did not necessarily involve moral turpitude.

On 16 May 2013, Pichay was proclaimed winner with 76,870 votes.
On 31 May 2013, Ty-Delgado filed an ad cautelam petition for quo warranto before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET), reasserting Pichay’s ineligibility due to moral turpitude and the unexpired five-year bar.
The Comelec First Division dismissed the disqualification petition for lack of jurisdiction on 4 June 2013. Parties agreed to waive evidence, focusing on legal issues.

On 18 March 2015, the HRET held it had jurisdiction but ruled that Pichay’s conviction did not involve moral turpitude, declaring him eligible to serve.
On 3 August 2015, the HRET denied Ty-Delgado’s motion for reconsideration.

Ty-Delgado filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the HRET’s Decision and Resolution before the Supreme Court.

Whether the HRET gravely abused its discretion in ruling that Pichay’s libel conviction did not involve moral turpitude.
Whether the HRET erred in failing to declare Pichay ineligible or disqualified under Section 12 of the OEC.
Whether Pichay made a false material representation of eligibility in his COC under Sections 74 and 78 of the OEC.
Whether Pichay’s COC was void ab initio, rendering him never a valid candidate.
Whether the “second placer” jurisprudence should apply if the first placer’s COC is cancelled.
Whether Ty-Delgado, as the next highest valid vote‐getter, must be declared the rightful winner.