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. 163756)

Key Dates

  • May 10, 2004: National and local elections
  • May 22, 2004: PBC excludes first copies of Certificates of Canvass (COCVs) for Cordon and San Agustin
  • June 6–9, 2004: Miranda’s motion for proclamation and COMELEC En Banc Resolution No. 7233 directing proclamation
  • June 14, 2004: Miranda proclaimed and assumes office
  • January 26, 2005: Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

  • 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 17 (establishing the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, HRET)
  • Rule on Special Civil Actions (Certiorari) under Rule 65, Rules of Court
  • Jurisprudence: Pangilinan v. COMELEC (228 SCRA 36), Guerrero v. COMELEC (391 Phil. 344), Lazatin v. COMELEC (157 SCRA 337)

Factual Background

  1. Aggabao and Miranda contested the 4th District seat. During canvass, Miranda alleged the 1st copy COCVs for Cordon and San Agustin had been tampered with, prepared under duress, and contained errors.
  2. The PBC excluded those first copies and relied on the 4th and 7th copies, which gave Miranda the plurality.
  3. Aggabao appealed to the COMELEC Second Division, arguing lack of PBC jurisdiction and regularity of the excluded COCVs.
  4. Miranda filed an urgent motion for proclamation; COMELEC in charge and later the En Banc, via Resolution No. 7233, directed proclamation.
  5. Aggabao sought to set aside the proclamation, but Miranda was proclaimed on June 14, 2004, took his oath, and assumed office.

Issues

  • Whether certiorari lies to annul COMELEC En Banc’s Resolution No. 7233 and the proclamation of Miranda.
  • Whether the COMELEC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
  • Whether there is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Analysis

  1. Certiorari under Rule 65 requires (a) lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion by the tribunal, and (b) absence of any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
  2. Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution vests the HRET as the sole judge of contests involving election, returns, and qualifications of House members, divesting COMELEC of jurisdiction over such matters once a candidate is proclaimed, sworn in, and has assumed office (Pangilinan v. COMELEC).
  3. Here, Miranda’s proclamation on June 14, 2004, followed by his assumption of office, transferred exclusive jurisdiction over any electoral contest to the HRET.
  4. Aggabao’s remedy was to file an electoral protest before the HRET, not certiorari before the Supreme Court. Any challenge to Miranda’s proclamation or the validity

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.