Title
Aggabao vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 163756
Decision Date
Jan 26, 2005
A congressional election dispute arose over contested COCVs, leading to Miranda's proclamation. Aggabao challenged via certiorari, but the Supreme Court ruled HRET had exclusive jurisdiction post-proclamation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 188456)

Petitioner's Claims and Procedural Posture before the Supreme Court

Aggabao’s principal contention was that the COMELEC En Banc acted with grave abuse of discretion and without jurisdiction in directing Miranda’s proclamation while the appeal he had pending before the COMELEC Second Division had not been resolved. He also argued that, even assuming PBC jurisdiction, excluding the contested COCVs was erroneous because those documents appeared regular and properly authenticated. Aggabao sought annulment of Resolution No. 7233 and the proclamation. Miranda moved to dismiss the petition, asserting that the appropriate forum for resolving electoral contests involving a Member of the House is the House Electoral Tribunal (HRET).

Legal Standard for Certiorari Applied by the Court

The Court reiterated the requisites for certiorari: (a) the tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction; and (b) there must be no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to annul or modify the proceeding. The Court emphasized that certiorari requires a showing of capricious, arbitrary, and whimsical exercise of power.

Constitutional Provision Governing Electoral Contests for Members of Congress

The Court relied on Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution, which vests the Senate and the House of Representatives with their respective Electoral Tribunals as the sole judges of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their Members. The constitutional scheme thereby assigns exclusive jurisdiction over post‑proclamation contests involving Members of the House to the HRET.

Controlling Precedents and Their Principles

The decision invoked Pangilinan v. COMELEC to underscore that, under the 1987 Constitution, the HRET is the exclusive forum for contesting the election, returns, and qualifications of House Members, and that COMELEC has been divested of jurisdiction over pre‑proclamation controversies involving Members of the House and Senate. Guerrero and Lazatin were cited for the principle that once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken the oath, and assumed office, COMELEC’s jurisdiction over related election contests ends and the HRET’s jurisdiction begins. Garcia was cited concerning the requisites for certiorari and the availability of adequate remedies.

Court’s Analysis of Jurisdiction and Adequacy of Remedies

The Court found it undisputed that Miranda had been proclaimed, had taken his oath, and had assumed office as Congressman. Given those facts, the Court reasoned that Aggabao’s remedy was to file an electoral protest with the HRET, not a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court attacking COMELEC’s proclamation. The Court underscored that even if the proclamation were alleged to be null and void ab initio, that allegation did not divest the HRET of jurisdiction; rather, the validity of a proclamation after a candidate has assumed office is properly raised and decided by the HRET. Allowing certiorari in such circumstances would produce duplicative proceedings and a clash of jurisdiction between constitutional bodies.

Application of Law to the Present Case and Holding

App

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.