Title
Lazatin vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 80007
Decision Date
Jan 25, 1988
Petitioner Lazatin challenged COMELEC's jurisdiction to annul his proclamation as Congressman, arguing the House Electoral Tribunal has sole authority over election contests. Supreme Court ruled in his favor, upholding his proclamation and affirming the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 224900)

Factual Background

After winning the Congressional elections, Lazatin took his oath of office and assumed his responsibilities. However, Buan, Jr. and Timbal contended that the COMELEC acted prematurely in proclaiming Lazatin without resolving their protests against the election returns. They claimed the situation rendered Lazatin's petition moot and academic, given the finality of the COMELEC resolution.

Jurisdictional Issues

The petitioner argued that only the House Electoral Tribunal possesses jurisdiction over election contests as per Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The rival candidates and the Office of the Solicitor General contended various points regarding the validity of the proclamation. They argued that the proclamation lacked the requisite resolution regarding the contested election returns, claiming that the actions taken by the COMELEC were inappropriate.

Legal Arguments

The Solicitor General emphasized the validity of the proclamation, asserting that the COMELEC's Telex Order granted authority to the canvassing board to declare the winner per Section 245 of the Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC, conversely, asserted that Lazatin's proclamation was illegal and void due to unresolved protests. The petitioner’s Consolidated Reply reiterated earlier arguments emphasizing the legitimacy of his proclamation and the necessity for the Electoral Tribunal to handle the competing election contests.

Supreme Court Resolutions

The Supreme Court, in a resolution dated November 17, 1987, determined that it would give due course to Lazatin's petition. The Court concluded that the petitioner’s proclamation, alongside his subsequent oath-taking and assumption of duties, warranted respect for the House Electoral Tribunal’s authority. The Court explicitly rejected the notion that it possessed the jurisdiction to intervene in what was deemed a matter of electoral protest, which was within the purview of th

...continue reading

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