Case Summary (G.R. No. 84297)
Key Dates
May 11, 1987 — Election day.
May 19, 1987 — COMELEC ordered suspension of proclamation.
May 26–27, 1987 — COMELEC ordered canvass to proceed; petitioner proclaimed May 27, 1987.
June 30, 1987 — Petitioner assumed office.
September 15, 1987 — COMELEC declared petitioner’s proclamation void ab initio.
January 25, 1988 — Supreme Court in G.R. No. 80007 set aside COMELEC’s revocation of the proclamation (petition challenging COMELEC).
January 28, 1988 — Petitioner served with copy of Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. 80007.
February 8, 1988 — Private respondent filed his election protest with the HRET (Case No. 46).
May 2, 1988 and July 29, 1988 — HRET resolutions holding protest timely and denying reconsideration, respectively.
December 8, 1988 — Decision of the Supreme Court in the present petition (G.R. No. 84297).
Applicable Law and Rules
- 1987 Constitution: Art. VI, Sec. 17 (each House shall have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of contests regarding election, returns, and qualifications of their Members); Art. IX-C, Sec. 2(2) (COMELEC’s exclusive original jurisdiction limited to regional, provincial and city offices).
- Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881): Sec. 249 (COMELEC as sole judge for certain contests under prior framework) and Sec. 250 (ten-day period to file election contests for members of Batasang Pambansa and certain officials).
- HRET Rules: Sec. 9 — prescribes filing periods for election contests arising from the 1987 Congressional elections (fifteen days from effectivity of Rules, Nov. 22, 1987, where proclamation made prior thereto; otherwise within 15 days from proclamation).
- Executive Orders specifically applicable to the May 11, 1987 congressional elections: E.O. No. 134 and E.O. No. 144 (among other executive orders referenced).
Factual and Procedural Background
During canvassing, private respondent objected to certain returns; municipal canvassers did not rule, so private respondent went to COMELEC. COMELEC initially suspended proclamation, then later ordered canvassing and proclamation; petitioner was proclaimed May 27, 1987 and later assumed office. Private respondent filed actions with COMELEC to annul the proclamation and to prohibit assumption of office; COMELEC initially revoked the proclamation but the Supreme Court, in an earlier case (G.R. No. 80007), set aside that revocation on January 25, 1988 (service of decision on January 28, 1988). Private respondent filed an election protest with the HRET on February 8, 1988. Petitioner moved to dismiss for being filed late under Sec. 250, Omnibus Election Code; HRET denied the motion, ruling the protest timely under Sec. 9 of the HRET Rules. Petitioner sought extraordinary relief in the Supreme Court, challenging HRET’s jurisdiction.
Primary Legal Issue
Whether Sec. 250 of the Omnibus Election Code (ten-day filing rule) governs the filing period for election protests in the HRET — thereby rendering private respondent’s protest late — or whether Sec. 9 of the HRET Rules controls, making the protest timely and conferring jurisdiction on the HRET.
Court’s Analysis on Applicable Filing Period and Jurisdiction
- Interpretation of Sec. 250: The Court observed Sec. 250’s plain language confines it to petitions filed before COMELEC contesting elections of Members of the Batasang Pambansa and certain local officials; thus it presupposes the institutional framework of jurisdiction under the 1973 Constitution.
- Constitutional shift and its implications: The 1987 Constitution reallocated exclusive jurisdiction over contests involving Members of the Senate and the House to their respective Electoral Tribunals (Art. VI, Sec. 17). The Batasang Pambansa was abolished; the COMELEC’s jurisdiction was narrowed to regional, provincial and city offices and appellate jurisdiction over municipal and barangay contests (Art. IX-C, Sec. 2(2)). Because of this constitutional reallocation, Sec. 250 cannot be read as governing contests properly within the original jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunals under the 1987 Constitution.
- Rule-making power of the HRET: The Court held that the HRET, as the constitutionally-created and sole judge of contests regarding members of the House, necessarily possesses the power to promulgate rules governing procedures before it, including the period for filing protests. The Court relied on the doctrine that a general constitutional power to judge such contests carries with it the incidental power to prescribe procedural rules (citing the reasoning in Angara v. Electoral Commission).
- Application to the present case: Given the HRET’s rule (Sec. 9) establishing a fifteen-day filing period tied to the Rules’ effectivity or to the proclamation date, the Tribunal properly applied Sec. 9. The HRET also correctly treated the COMELEC’s September 15, 1987 resolution declaring the proclamation void ab initio as having nullified the proclamation until the Supreme Court reinstated it by decision served January 28, 1988; therefore HRET calculated the 15-day filing period from the effective reinstatement of the proclamation and found private respondent’s filing of February 8, 1988 within that period.
Court’s Conclusion on Main Petition
The Supreme Court concluded that the HRET acted within its jurisdiction in finding the protest timely under Sec. 9 of its Rules. Sec. 250 of the Omnibus Election Code was inapplicable to the HRET’s exercise of its constitutional authority. Because the HRET had jurisdiction to hear the protest, petitioner’s certiorari and prohibition petition was dis
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 84297)
Facts
- Petitioner Carmelo F. Lazatin and private respondent Lorenzo G. Timbol were candidates for Representative of the First District of Pampanga in the May 11, 1987 elections.
- During the canvassing of votes, private respondent objected to the inclusion of certain election returns; the Municipal Board of Canvassers did not rule on those objections.
- Private respondent carried his objections to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).
- On May 19, 1987, the COMELEC ordered the Provincial Board of Canvassers to suspend the proclamation of the winning candidate for the First District of Pampanga.
- On May 26, 1987, the COMELEC ordered the Provincial Board of Canvassers to proceed with canvassing and to proclaim the winner.
- On May 27, 1987, petitioner was proclaimed as Congressman-elect.
- Private respondent filed in the COMELEC a petition to declare petitioner’s proclamation void ab initio, and later filed a petition to prohibit petitioner from assuming office; the COMELEC failed to act on the second petition, and petitioner assumed office on June 30, 1987.
- On September 15, 1987, the COMELEC declared petitioner’s proclamation void ab initio.
- Petitioner challenged the COMELEC resolution in this Court in G.R. No. 80007; in a decision promulgated January 25, 1988, the Court set aside the COMELEC’s revocation of petitioner’s proclamation.
- On February 8, 1988, private respondent filed with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) an election protest, docketed as Case No. 46.
- Petitioner moved to dismiss the HRET protest as time-barred under Section 250 of the Omnibus Election Code; the HRET ruled the protest had been filed on time under Section 9 of the HRET Rules and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
- Petitioner brought a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition to annul the HRET’s May 2, 1988 resolution (holding the protest filed on time) and its July 29, 1988 resolution (denying reconsideration).
Procedural History
- May 11, 1987: Congressional elections held.
- May 19, 1987: COMELEC ordered suspension of proclamation by Provincial Board of Canvassers.
- May 26–27, 1987: COMELEC directed canvass to proceed; petitioner proclaimed May 27, 1987.
- June 30, 1987: Petitioner assumed office as Representative.
- September 15, 1987: COMELEC declared petitioner’s proclamation void ab initio.
- January 25, 1988: Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. 80007 set aside COMELEC’s revocation of petitioner’s proclamation.
- January 28, 1988: Private respondent was served with a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision in G.R. No. 80007.
- February 8, 1988: Private respondent filed election protest with HRET (Case No. 46).
- May 2, 1988: HRET resolution holding the protest filed on time.
- May 30, 1988: HRET denial of private respondent’s motion for reconsideration of the deferral of provisional relief.
- July 29, 1988: HRET resolution denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (challenged in this petition).
- December 8, 1988: Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. 84297 (this case).
Issue Presented
- Whether the HRET acquired jurisdiction over private respondent’s election protest by reason of its finding that the protest was filed within the period prescribed by the HRET Rules (Section 9), or whether Section 250 of the Omnibus Election Code governed the period for filing and rendered the protest belated, depriving HRET of jurisdiction.
Relevant Statutory and Constitutional Provisions
- Section 250, Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881): "A sworn petition contesting the election of any Member of the Batasang Pambansa or any regional, provincial or city official shall be filed with the Commission ... within ten days after the proclamation of the results of the election."
- Petitioner relies on this provision to argue the protest was filed out of time.
- Section 9, HRET Rules (as quoted): prescribes filing of election contests arising from the 1987 Congressional elections:
- Filed with the Office of the Secretary of the Tribunal or mailed as registered matter;
- Requires twelve legible copies plus one copy for each protestee;
- Within fifteen days from effectivity of these Rules on November 22, 1987 where proclamation made prior to effectivity; otherwise within fifteen days from proclamation;
- Contests filed with the Secretary of the House and transmitted to the Chairman deemed filed as of date of effectivity of the Rules, subject to payment of fees.
- 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 17: "The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members..."
- Establishes exclusive jurisdiction of Electoral Tribunals over contests involving members of the Senate and House.
- 1987 Constitution, Article IX-C, Section 2(2): limits COMELEC jurisdiction to elective regional, provincial and city offices and appellate jurisdiction for municipal and barangay contests.
- Precedents cited:
- Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936): power to limit filing periods is intrinsic to an electoral body created to judge contests.
- Suanes v. Chief Accountant of the Senate, Veloso v. Board of Canvassers, Lachica v. Yap, Morrero v. Bocar, and other cases tracing historical allocation of jurisdiction over legislative election contests.
Parties’ Contentions
- Petitioner’s contentions:
- Section 250 of the Omnibus Election Code governs the period for filing protests and requires filing within ten days after proclamation; petitioner was proclaimed May 27, 1987 so deadline was June 6, 1987.
- Even if the filing