Title
Tanada, Jr. vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
Case
G.R. No. 217012
Decision Date
Mar 1, 2016
A 2013 election dispute over a Quezon Province congressional seat, involving allegations of a nuisance candidate, procedural errors, and jurisdictional limits between COMELEC and HRET, ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 217012)

Factual Background and Preliminary Proceedings

Wigberto TaAada Jr., candidate for Representative of the Fourth District of Quezon under the Liberal Party, filed petitions before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) seeking cancellation of Alvin John S. TaAada’s certificate of candidacy (CoC) on grounds that Alvin John was a nuisance candidate and made false material representations regarding residency. Alvin John ran under the Lapiang Manggagawa party, while Angelina Tan ran under the Nationalist People’s Coalition.

The COMELEC First Division initially dismissed the petitions for lack of merit. Upon reconsideration, the COMELEC En Banc partially granted the motion, canceling Alvin John’s CoC due to false material representation under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, but denied the motion to declare Alvin John a nuisance candidate under Section 69. Despite the cancellation, Alvin John’s name remained on the ballot during the May 2013 elections.

The election results proclaimed Angelina Tan as the winner, with Wigberto trailing and Alvin John receiving 7,038 votes. Wigberto filed motions to have Alvin John declared a nuisance candidate and to have his votes credited to Wigberto, arguing that Alvin John’s candidacy was meant to confuse voters and sabotage his campaign. The Quezon Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBOC) rejected Wigberto’s request to credit Alvin John’s votes, holding that cancellation based on false representations did not equate to nuisance candidacy.

Subsequent Legal Actions and Supreme Court Involvement

Wigberto filed an ad cautelam petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to have Alvin John declared a nuisance candidate and have his votes credited to Wigberto. The COMELEC Second Division annulled Tan’s proclamation and ordered crediting Alvin John’s votes to Wigberto. However, the COMELEC En Banc affirmed the annulment but by that time Tan had already taken her oath and assumed office, rendering the annulment moot.

On October 22, 2013, the Supreme Court dismissed Wigberto’s petition on the ground that once a candidate has been proclaimed, assumed office, and taken oath, the jurisdiction over election contests transfers exclusively to the HRET as provided under Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. The Court emphasized that questions involving election conduct, returns, and qualifications fall within the HRET’s exclusive jurisdiction.

Proceedings Before the HRET

Wigberto subsequently filed an election protest ad cautelam with the HRET, asserting that Alvin John was a nuisance candidate whose votes should be credited to him, and alleging fraud and miscount of votes. The HRET required Tan to file an answer, after which oral arguments were conducted.

On September 25, 2014, the HRET dismissed Wigberto’s election protest on three main grounds:

  1. Insufficiency in form and substance of the election protest, as Wigberto failed to allege facts substantiating a valid election protest under Rule 16 of the HRET Rules; his pleading was more suited to a petition to annul the proclamation rather than a protest contesting the election returns.
  2. Lack of jurisdiction to declare Alvin John a nuisance candidate, since the HRET’s jurisdiction is confined to election contests involving Members of the House of Representatives, and Alvin John was not a Member.
  3. No finding of forum-shopping as Wigberto pursued his remedies in good faith believing HRET had jurisdiction after the Supreme Court’s directive.

A concurring and dissenting opinion by Representative Luzviminda C. Ilagan argued that Wigberto’s protest was sufficient and that the HRET has jurisdiction to investigate fraud involving nuisance candidacies, emphasizing the liberal interpretation of HRET procedural rules to uphold the will of the electorate.

Final Motion and HRET Resolution

Wigberto filed a motion for reconsideration raising that (1) HRET’s jurisdiction cannot be limited arbitrarily, (2) opening of ballots is not necessary in all election protests, and (3) the tribunal should have jurisdiction over the issue of fraudulent nuisance candidates. The HRET denied this motion on January 22, 2015.

Issues on Petition for Certiorari Before the Supreme Court

Wigberto petitioned to assail the HRET Resolutions arguing that:

  • HRET unlawfully limited its jurisdiction regarding election protests.
  • HRET incorrectly restricted election protests to opening ballots and revising returns.
  • HRET erred in refusing to look into the alleged fraudulent fielding of Alvin John as a nuisance candidate.

Supreme Court’s Ruling and Legal Analysis

The Supreme Court affirmed the HRET Resolutions and dismissed Wigberto’s petition, reasoning as follows:

Procedural Errors of Petitioner:

  • Wigberto filed a prohibited motion for reconsideration of a COMELEC En Banc resolution; such motions are not allowed except for election offenses. Consequently, that COMELEC ruling became final and executory, barring him from reopening the nuisance candidate issue in any other forum including HRET.
  • Wigberto’s petition to the Supreme Court challenging the COMELEC resolution was filed beyond the prescribed five-day period under Rule 37, Section 3 of COMELEC Rules of Procedure, leading to loss of opportunity to obtain relief from the COMELEC’s final ruling.

Jurisdiction of the HRET:

  • The HRET’s jurisdiction is limited to election contests involving Members of the House of Representatives after proclamation, oath-taking, and assumption of office as mandated by Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
  • Alvin John was not a proclaimed or sitting Member of the House and thus not subject to HRET jurisdiction.
  • The issue of nuisance candidacy must be resolved by the COMELEC and, if necessary, by the Supreme Court through appropriate remedy within the prescribed period.
  • The Supreme Court clarified it did not instruct Wigberto to question Alvin John’s nuisance candidacy before the HRET but rather to bring issues concerning conduct of canvass and proclamation arising after proclamation.

Vote Creditability and Election Protest Scope:

  • C

...continue reading

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

About Privacy Terms