G.R. No. 207264 - Reyes vs. Commission on Elections

Case Summary (G.R. No. 207264)

Factual Background

The controversy arose from an action filed by Joseph Socorro B. Tan before the COMELEC seeking to deny due course to or cancel petitioner’s Certificate of Candidacy alleging false material representations concerning her citizenship and residency. The COMELEC First Division granted the petition and cancelled the Certificate of Candidacy on 27 March 2013. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the COMELEC En Banc denied on 14 May 2013. Despite that denial, petitioner was proclaimed by the Marinduque Provincial Board of Canvassers on 18 May 2013. The parties thereafter advanced competing claims over whether the COMELEC or the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) had jurisdiction to resolve challenges to petitioner’s qualifications.

Procedural History in COMELEC

The COMELEC First Division heard the cancellation petition in summary proceedings. Private respondent submitted, among other items, a printed internet article and a Bureau of Immigration certification showing petitioner’s use of a United States passport and entries consistent with foreign citizenship. The First Division found that petitioner had not established that she had reacquired Filipino citizenship pursuant to R.A. No. 9225, and cancelled her Certificate of Candidacy. The COMELEC En Banc denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on 14 May 2013. Under COMELEC rules, that En Banc resolution was to become final and executory five days after promulgation unless restrained by the Supreme Court.

Petition Filed in the Supreme Court

On 10 June 2013 petitioner filed an original special civil action for a writ of certiorari under Rule 65, Rules of Court, seeking annulment of the COMELEC First Division resolution of 27 March 2013 and the COMELEC En Banc resolution of 14 May 2013. Petitioner argued that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion, principally by admitting newly discovered evidence without affording her the opportunity to confront or controvert it, by relying on hearsay and uncertified photocopies, and by applying R.A. No. 9225 in a manner that imposed an additional constitutional qualification.

The Supreme Court’s June 25, 2013 Resolution — Disposition

The Court, in a majority Resolution dated 25 June 2013, dismissed the petition for certiorari. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC in admitting the documentary evidence in the summary proceedings. The Court upheld the COMELEC First Division and En Banc resolutions cancelling petitioner’s Certificate of Candidacy. The Resolution emphasized that petitioner failed to avail herself of available remedies to suspend the En Banc resolution during the five-day period provided by COMELEC Rule 37 or to secure a restraining order from the Supreme Court, and that her proclamation on 18 May 2013 was thus without any basis.

Reasoning of the En Banc Majority on Jurisdiction and Proclamation

The majority reasoned that the COMELEC En Banc’s denial of reconsideration on 14 May 2013 finally disposed of the cancellation petition and, by operation of Section 3, Rule 37, the decision became final and executory after five days. The Court held that, because a final COMELEC ruling cancelling a Certificate of Candidacy barred proclamation, petitioner’s proclamation of 18 May 2013 was baseless. The majority stressed that petitioner could have sought a restraining order from the Supreme Court within the five-day interval to preserve the possibility of proclamation, but she did not do so. The majority further held that petitioner was not a Member of the House of Representatives at the time she sought to invoke the HRET’s exclusive jurisdiction because the COMELEC had not ordered her proclamation. Thus the HRET’s exclusive original jurisdiction over contests involving members did not apply to her at that time.

Majority’s Analysis of Evidence and Due Process

The majority explained that COMELEC summary proceedings are governed by liberal rules of procedure. The COMELEC is not strictly bound by technical rules of evidence in such summary cases. The Court found that petitioner had been afforded opportunity to be heard in the administrative process, that she received copies of the manifestations and evidence, and that she failed to object in a timely manner. The Court concluded that receipt, consideration and reliance on the documentary materials did not constitute grave abuse of discretion and that the COMELEC’s factual findings on citizenship and residency were supported by the record before it.

Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration and the En Banc Decision

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s June 25 resolution. The Supreme Court En Banc denied the motion in the Resolution promulgated 22 October 2013. The Court reiterated that petitioner’s proclamation of 18 May 2013 was “without any basis” because the COMELEC En Banc had already finally disposed of the cancellation issue on 14 May 2013 and that petitioner had failed to obtain a restraining order within the five-day period to restrain the COMELEC decision. The Court ordered entry of judgment and affirmed dismissal.

Concurring and Separate Opinions — Points of Agreement

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno filed a separate concurring opinion that reiterated the settled principle that the HRET ordinarily has original and exclusive jurisdiction over contests relating to members, including matters arising before proclamation, but concluded that the principle did not aid petitioner because she never challenged COMELEC’s jurisdiction below and did not demonstrate grave abuse of discretion. Justice Roberto A. Abad filed a concurring opinion explaining why he voted to deny the motion for reconsideration. He emphasized the COMELEC’s constitutional and statutory authority to adjudicate petitions under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, found the COMELEC decision to have become final and executory, and criticized the Provincial Board of Canvassers’ refusal to accept service of the COMELEC En Banc resolution as evidence of bad faith.

Dissenting Opinions — Core Objections

Justice Antonio T. Carpio dissented. He asserted that prevailing jurisprudence vests jurisdiction in the HRET upon proclamation alone and that the HRET, not the COMELEC or the Supreme Court, is the proper forum to resolve challenges to the validity of a proclamation. He argued that proclamation on 18 May 2013 vested HRET jurisdiction and that this Court should have dismissed petitioner’s certiorari for lack of jurisdiction rather than entertain the petition. Justice Arturo D. Brion dissented on the ground that the COMELEC proceedings violated petitioner’s right to due process at the deliberative stage. He criticized the COMELEC’s reliance on hearsay and uncertified photocopies, observed that the certification before the COMELEC was a machine copy, and concluded that the COMELEC’s cancellation was void for lack of jurisdiction resulting from the due process deprivation; under that view the PBOC proclamation was valid. Justice Marvic M. F. Leonen joined the dissents and u

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 207264)

Parties and Posture

Regina Ongsiako Reyes was the petitioner who sought annullment of COMELEC resolutions cancelling her certificate of candidacy and challenged the COMELEC action by an original special civil action for a writ of certiorari under Rule 64, Rules of Court.
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) was the primary respondent whose First Division cancelled petitioner’s certificate of candidacy and whose En Banc affirmed that cancellation.
Joseph Socorro B. Tan was the private respondent who filed the petition to deny due course or cancel the petitioner’s certificate of candidacy and who opposed the petition for certiorari.
The Supreme Court En Banc, through the ponencia of Perez, J., denied the Motion for Reconsideration and affirmed the prior resolution dismissing Reyes’s petition for certiorari for lack of grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC.
The final disposition ordered was denial of the Motion for Reconsideration, affirmation of dismissal, and entry of judgment as reflected in the En Banc Resolution.

Key Facts

The COMELEC First Division rendered a resolution cancelling petitioner’s certificate of candidacy on March 27, 2013, which was later affirmed by the COMELEC En Banc on May 14, 2013.
The COMELEC En Banc resolution of May 14, 2013 became final and executory by operation of Sec. 3, Rule 37 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure unless restrained by the Supreme Court within five days.
Petitioner received a copy of the COMELEC En Banc resolution on May 16, 2013 and was proclaimed by the Marinduque Provincial Board of Canvassers on May 18, 2013.
No restraining order from the Supreme Court was sought or obtained by petitioner within the five-day period after promulgation of the En Banc resolution.
Petitioner took oaths of office on dates that included June 5 and June 27, 2013, and the term of the new Congress began at noon on June 30, 2013.
Subsequent to the proclamation and oaths, the COMELEC issued a Certificate of Finality and later an En Banc resolution of July 9, 2013 annulled petitioner’s proclamation and proclaimed the second-placer.

Procedural History

The COMELEC First Division cancelled the certificate of candidacy on March 27, 2013 and the En Banc denied reconsideration on May 14, 2013.
Petitioner was proclaimed May 18, 2013, filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court on June 10, 2013, and the Court dismissed the petition by Resolution dated June 25, 2013.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated July 15, 2013 which the Court denied in the present Resolution.
Petitioner filed a subsequent Manifestation and Notice of Withdrawal of Petition after the Court had acted, which the Court noted but did not permit to erase its prior exercise of jurisdiction.

Issues Presented

Whether the COMELEC was without jurisdiction to cancel petitioner’s certificate of candidacy given petitioner’s proclamation and subsequent oath-taking.
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting and relying on newly discovered evidence and in denying petitioner due process.
Whether the proclamation of petitioner on May 18, 2013 was valid in view of the COMELEC En Banc resolution of May 14, 2013.
Whether questions of petitioner’s qualifications were exclusively within the jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET).

Petitioner Contentions

Petitioner contended that her proclamation rendered the COMELEC without jurisdiction over her qualifications and that jurisdiction had vested exclusively in the HRET.
Petitioner asserted denial of due process because the COMELEC admitted evidence without affording her the opportunity to present controverting testimony or cross-examine affiants.
Petitioner argued that the COMELEC unconstitutionally imposed additional qualifications by applying R.A. No. 9225 requirements to her case.
Petitioner later sought to withdraw the certiorari petition on the ground that HRET proceedings were the appropriate forum after proclamation and assumption of office.

Respondents Contentions

COMELEC and Tan maintained that the COMELEC acted within its constitutional and statutory powers to decide a petition under Sec. 78, Omnibus Election Code and COMELEC Rules, and that its En Banc resolution became final and executory absent a Supreme Court restraining order.
Respondents asserted that pe