Case Summary (G.R. No. 260650)
Procedural history before Comelec and PBOC
On April 19, 2022, the Comelec Second Division declared Frederico a nuisance candidate and cancelled his CoC. Frederico sought reconsideration. Elections occurred May 9, 2022; canvass results as transmitted to the PBOC showed Roberto leading with 69,591 votes and Romeo with 69,109; Frederico had 5,424 votes. Romeo moved to suspend Roberto’s proclamation, asserting Frederico’s votes should be credited to him. The PBOC received an “advanced copy” by email of a Comelec En Banc Order directing suspension; despite irregularities in that advanced copy, the PBOC—after the Comelec Chairperson confirmed the Order by phone—resolved in the early hours of May 12, 2022, to suspend Roberto’s proclamation. Comelec En Banc also issued an Order suspending Roberto’s proclamation on May 12, 2022, by majority, over dissent that raised due process concerns and inapplicability of suspension rules in nuisance proceedings.
Supreme Court filings and interim actions
Roberto filed an extremely urgent petition with Comelec and later a certiorari petition before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 260650) to direct PBOC to proclaim him. Frederico filed a certiorari petition (G.R. No. 260952) challenging the Comelec En Banc Resolution of June 7, 2022, which denied his reconsideration (on timeliness grounds) and ordered his votes credited to Romeo under the Dela Cruz rule. The Comelec En Banc on June 15, 2022 issued a writ of execution to the PBOC to reconvene, credit Frederico’s votes to Romeo, and proclaim the winning candidate; PBOC proclaimed Romeo on June 23, 2022. The Supreme Court consolidated the petitions and issued a Status Quo Ante Order to preserve last uncontested conditions prior to the May 12 and June 7 Comelec actions.
Issue 1 — Supreme Court jurisdiction to review Comelec En Banc decisions
The Court reaffirmed its constitutional power to review Comelec decisions by certiorari under Article IX-A, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution, emphasizing that this review pertains to final orders, rulings, and decisions of the Comelec En Banc exercising adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. The Court rejected arguments that the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) had appellate jurisdiction over Comelec En Banc rulings; the HRET does not have authority to declare a nuisance candidate or cancel a CoC, and the proper remedy to challenge Comelec En Banc decisions is a timely petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Issue 2 — HRET jurisdiction and the prerequisites for its exclusivity
The Court explained HRET’s jurisdiction is limited to contests involving Members of the House, and that the HRET acquires jurisdiction only after three requisites concur: (1) valid proclamation, (2) proper oath, and (3) assumption of office by the proclaimed candidate. The Court distinguished prior precedent that sometimes divested Comelec jurisdiction after proclamation, noting those holdings applied where the proclaimed candidate had actually taken oath and assumed office. Because those requisites were absent or affected in this case (and because the Status Quo Ante Order prevented proclamation from taking legal effect), the HRET did not have exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the Comelec En Banc orders attacked here.
Analysis of the Comelec En Banc Order suspending proclamation (May 12, 2022)
The Court held that the May 12, 2022 suspension of Roberto’s proclamation was tainted by grave abuse of discretion and violated Roberto’s right to due process. Legal framework: RA No. 6646 Sections 6–7 and Comelec Rules permit suspension of proclamation in disqualification cases where evidence of guilt is strong, and Rule 23/24 provide rules for suspension in petitions to deny due course or cancel CoC. But those suspension mechanisms apply to proceedings under Section 78 of the OEC (material misrepresentation) and are not available, in the ordinary course, for Section 69 nuisance-candidate proceedings. Here, the suspension occurred in a Section 69 proceeding; the Comelec relied on an irregular “advanced copy” order lacking complete signatures and certifications; PBOC members acted on the Chairperson’s phone confirmation rather than on a duly issued, signed, and certified order; and the suspension was ordered without giving Roberto notice or opportunity to be heard even though he was the immediate party affected. The Court underscored the ministerial nature of the board of canvassers to proclaim the leading candidate without unnecessary delay and found it improper to suspend proclamation motu proprio on the basis of a pending nuisance petition.
Analysis of the Comelec En Banc Resolution affirming nuisance candidacy (June 7, 2022)
The Court found grave abuse of discretion in the June 7, 2022 Comelec En Banc Resolution that denied Frederico’s motion for reconsideration as late (filed by e‑mail at 6:23 p.m., beyond a 5:00 p.m. cutoff) and simultaneously affirmed the nuisance finding. The Court emphasized the need to balance procedural strictness with substantial justice, noting the motion arrived a little over an hour late and that the question of nuisance candidacy was determinative of the election outcome — circumstances that warranted a liberal application of procedural rules. On the merits, the Court held the Comelec Second Division’s factual findings were inadequate and speculative: the Division minimized Frederico’s party nomination by NUP, discounted his claimed support and campaign expenditures with only the phrase “does not appear,” and relied on alleged phonetic similarity of nicknames despite clear differences on the printed ballots and the protections afforded by the automated election system (AES). The Comelec failed to identify substantial evidence of lack of bona fide intention or of likely voter confusion sufficient to cancel Frederico’s CoC under Section 69; the cancellation therefore amounted to grave abuse of discretion.
Treatment of votes, ballots, and automated election system considerations
The Court explained that AES ballots include full names and political parties, and candidates may select how their names appear on ballots; in this case ballots showed “JALOSJOS, KUYA JAN (NUP)” and “JALOSJOS, ROMEO JR. (NP),” which the Court found sufficiently distinguishable. The majority rejected the Comelec’s reliance on idem sonans and analogies to manual-elections cases (e.g., Bautista) as inadequate under AES. The Court also stressed that cancellation of a CoC after the election — if not supported by strong evidence — would render votes worthless and unjustly disenfranchise voters; defects in certificates of candidacy should, where possible, be addressed before an election rather than invalidating votes after the fact.
Application of precedent and ultimate factual conclusions on nuisance candidacy
The majority reviewed authorities (Dela Cruz, Santos, Bautista, Zapanta, etc.) and concluded that none authorized cancelling a candidate’s CoC on the slender basis applied here. The Comelec Second Division’s finding that Frederico lacked political support and bona fide intent was speculative and contradicted evidence of his political party nomination and subsequent court findings on his voter registration status. Given the absence of substantial proof that Frederico’s candidacy was sham or intended to cause confusion, the Court held Frederico was a legitimate candidate and his votes were valid.
Holdings, relief ordered, and immediate effect
The Supreme Court granted the consolidated petitions. It set aside the Comelec En Banc Order of May 12, 2022 and the Comelec En Banc Resolution of June 7, 2022 on grounds of grave abuse of discretion, annulled Romeo’s proclamation that had arisen from execution of those assailed actions, and directed the Comelec to proclaim Roberto T. Uy, Jr. as the duly elected representative for Zamboanga del Norte’s 1st district. The Court lifted the Status Quo Ante Order and declared the Decision immediately executory.
Concurrences and vote
The majority opinion was delivered by Justice J. Lopez and was concurred in by Chief Justice Gesmundo and Justices Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Zalameda, Gaerlan, Dimaampao, Marquez, Kho, Jr., and Singh. Justices Caguioa (dissent), L
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 260650)
Case Background and Factual Antecedents
- Four candidates contested for Zamboanga del Norte First District Representative in the 2022 elections: Roberto "Pinpin" T. Uy, Jr. (Roberto); Romeo "Kuya Jonjon" M. Jalosjos, Jr. (Romeo); Frederico "Kuya Jan" P. Jalosjos (Frederico); and Richard Amazon.
- Romeo filed a Verified Petition (docketed SPA No. 21-224 (DC)) on November 16, 2021, seeking to declare Frederico a nuisance candidate and cancel his Certificate of Candidacy (CoC), alleging among other things:
- Frederico indicated "Jalosjos" as surname only in a late birth registration (April 26, 2021) and transferred voter registration on May 20, 2021.
- Frederico was not known as "Kuya Jan" and the nickname was confusingly similar to Romeo's "Kuya Jonjon."
- Frederico had no prior political experience and allegedly lacked bona fide intention to run.
- Frederico defended his candidacy by asserting bona fide intention demonstrated by government platforms, official nomination by the National Unity Party (NUP), campaign expenditures, and pandemic aid to constituents; he argued voter confusion was remote and the ballot entries were not identical.
- On April 19, 2022 the Comelec Second Division issued a Resolution declaring Frederico a nuisance candidate and cancelling his CoC, reasoning that similarity of nicknames would dilute/ confuse votes and that party membership did not automatically establish bona fide intent.
- Frederico filed a Motion for Reconsideration on April 25, 2022.
- Elections were held on May 9, 2022. By May 11, 2022 the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBOC) reported final election results showing:
- Roberto Uy — 69,591 votes (1st)
- Romeo Jalosjos, Jr. — 69,109 votes (2nd)
- Frederico Jalosjos — 5,424 votes (3rd)
- Richard Amazon — 288 votes (4th)
- Romeo filed an Urgent Motion (May 10–11, 2022) to suspend Roberto’s proclamation, asserting that Frederico’s votes should be credited to him and that such crediting would make Romeo the lead.
- The PBOC received by e-mail an "advanced copy" of a Comelec En Banc Order directing suspension of Roberto’s proclamation. The "advanced copy" lacked date, complete signatures, certification and a notice signed by the Comelec Clerk of Court.
- Initially most PBOC members found the "advanced copy" irregular and intended to proceed with proclamation, but the PBOC Chairperson dissented, the Comelec Chairperson confirmed authenticity by phone, and on May 12, 2022 the PBOC resolved to suspend Roberto’s proclamation. The Comelec En Banc likewise issued an Order dated May 12, 2022 suspending Roberto’s proclamation (not unanimous; dissents noted violation of due process and inapplicability of proclamation suspension rules in nuisance proceedings).
- Roberto filed an Extremely Urgent Petition with Comelec, later voluntarily withdrew that petition and a Special Entry of Appearance/Motion for Reconsideration in SPA No. 21-224 (DC), and then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus (G.R. No. 260650) before the Supreme Court on May 31, 2022 questioning the suspension of his proclamation and alleging denial of ministerial duty by the PBOC.
- Comelec En Banc, in a Resolution dated June 7, 2022, denied Frederico’s Motion for Reconsideration as filed late and affirmed the nuisance finding; it ordered that Frederico’s votes be credited to Romeo pursuant to Dela Cruz v. Comelec and directed proclamation accordingly.
- Frederico filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 260952) assailing the Comelec En Banc Resolution of June 7, 2022 and contesting the crediting of his votes.
- The Comelec En Banc issued a Writ of Execution in SPA No. 21-224 (DC) dated June 15, 2022 directing PBOC to reconvene, credit Frederico’s votes to Romeo, and proclaim. The PBOC reconvened and proclaimed Romeo on June 23, 2022.
- The Supreme Court consolidated the petitions (G.R. Nos. 260650 & 260952) and issued a Status Quo Ante Order directing parties to observe prevailing conditions before issuance of the Comelec En Banc Order dated May 12, 2022 and Resolution dated June 7, 2022.
- The Office of the Solicitor General and Romeo commented, asserting that the HRET has exclusive jurisdiction over election contests involving proclaimed winners and that Comelec acted properly (including denial of Frederico’s recon as late and nuisance-finding).
Issues Presented / Core Questions
- Whether the Comelec En Banc had authority and acted properly in suspending the proclamation of the leading candidate (Roberto) based on a pending nuisance-candidacy proceeding under Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC).
- Whether the Comelec Second Division and Comelec En Banc correctly declared Frederico a nuisance candidate and lawfully cancelled his CoC.
- Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review the Comelec En Banc Order (May 12, 2022) and Resolution (June 7, 2022), or whether jurisdiction lay exclusively with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET).
- Proper legal treatment of votes cast for a candidate whose CoC was cancelled — whether they are to be credited to another candidate sharing the same surname or declared stray — and the legal basis for crediting votes.
- Whether Roberto and other persons affected by the suspension of proclamation were afforded due process prior to the suspension.
Relevant Statutes, Rules, and Authorities Cited
- 1987 Constitution: Article IX-A, Section 7 (power of Supreme Court to review decisions, orders, rulings of commissions by certiorari); Article VI, Section 17 (HRET as sole judge of contests relating to election, returns, and qualifications of its Members); Article VI, Section 7 (term commencement for Members).
- Republic Act No. 6646 (Electoral Reforms Law of 1987), Sections 6 and 7 — authority and circumstances for suspension of proclamation when evidence is strong (context and limits).
- Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881): Section 69 (nuisance candidates); Section 74 and Section 78 (petition to deny due course or cancel CoC on grounds of false material representations).
- Comelec Rules of Procedure (1993) — Rules 23 and 24 (applicability of suspension rules and proceedings against nuisance candidates), and COMELEC Resolution No. 9523 amending those rules.
- Comelec Resolution No. 10731 — General Instructions for Board of Canvassers (use of fastest means available to communicate Comelec actions).
- House Rules (Rule II) — Sections 4 and 6 (proclamation, oath of office before Speaker in open session, and commencement of membership).
- Supreme Court jurisprudence cited: Dela Cruz v. Comelec; Bautista v. Comelec; Santos v. Comelec; Limkaichong v. Comelec; Codilla, Sr. v. De Venecia; Pacis v. Comelec; and others as relied upon in the ponencia.
Court’s Holding on Jurisdiction (Majority)
- The Supreme Court has constitutional power to review final orders, rulings, and decisions of the Comelec En Banc by petition for certiorari; the Court therefore has jurisdiction over the Comelec En Banc Order (May 12, 2022) that suspended Roberto’s proclamation and the Comelec En Banc Resolution (June 7, 2022) affirming Frederico’s nuisance candidacy.
- The HRET does not have appellate jurisdiction over Comelec En Banc rulings; it cannot substitute for timely petitions for certiorari to the Supreme Court.
- The doctrine that HRET’s jurisdiction attaches upon proclamation must be applied in context; where the validity of proclamation depends on Comelec resolutions, the Supreme Court must be able to review Comelec to avoid depriving aggrieved parties of remedies.
- The HRET’s jurisdiction is not absolute at all times; it arises in fact when a candidate has become a Member of the House by concurrence of valid proclamation, proper oath, and assumption of office; in the majority’s view here, Romeo had not satisfied all requisites (notably, oath before Speaker in open session and formal assumption) so HRET jurisdicti