Vinzons-Chato vs. Commission on Elections

Facts:

Liwayway Vinzons-Chato v. Commission on Elections and Renato J. Unico, G.R. No. 172131, April 02, 2007, the Supreme Court En Banc, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court. The petition is a certiorari action by petitioner Liwayway Vinzons‑Chato (petitioner Chato) seeking to set aside the COMELEC en banc Resolution of March 17, 2006 that affirmed the COMELEC First Division’s April 13, 2005 Resolution dismissing her petition to correct/nullify election returns, declare the proclamation of Renato J. Unico (respondent Unico) void, and proclaim her as the duly elected representative for the lone district of Camarines Norte.

In the May 10, 2004 elections, petitioner Chato and respondent Unico were candidates for the lone congressional district of Camarines Norte. During the canvass by the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Labo (MBC Labo) on May 10–12, 2004, Chato’s counsel orally objected to various election returns and was given twenty‑four hours under Section 20, R.A. No. 7166 to file supporting evidence. The MBC allegedly completed its canvass before the 24‑hour period expired and forwarded its results to the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC), preventing Chato from delivering her written objections; the PBC refused to remand the matter to the MBC and, on May 14, 2004, proclaimed Unico as representative‑elect.

Chato filed a petition with the COMELEC alleging multiple manifest errors, discrepancies and tampering in specified election returns from many barangays of Labo — claims that, she asserted, rendered Unico’s proclamation void. The COMELEC First Division initially ordered a suspension of the effects of the proclamation on July 2, 2004, but lifted that suspension on July 23, 2004 on the ground that Unico’s proclamation and oath divested the Commission of jurisdiction and conferred jurisdiction upon the appropriate electoral tribunal. On April 13, 2005 the COMELEC First Division dismissed Chato’s petition for lack of merit, holding inter alia that (a) pre‑proclamation controversies are generally not allowed for elections to the House of Representatives (per COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Resolution No. 6669, Sec. 31), (b) Chato’s objections were too general and amounted to a fishing expedition rather than particularized manifest errors, and (c) the relief sought (recount/opening of ballots) fell within the province of an election protest rather than a summary pre‑proclamation inquiry. The First Division also held that MBCs and the PBC perform largely ministerial canvassing functions and may not refuse to proclaim absent a COMELEC order.

Chato moved for reconsideration to the COMELEC en banc. On March 17, 2006 the COMELEC en banc denied the motion, affirming that once a proclaimed candidate has taken the oath and assumed office the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) is the “sole judge” of contests regarding election, returns and qualifications — a principle drawn from the Constitution...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction in promulgating the Resolution dated March 17, 2006?
• Did the COMELEC retain jurisdiction to annul respondent Unico’s proclamation or to correct manifest errors in the election returns after his proclamation, oath, a...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)