Title
Velasco vs. Belmonte, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 211140
Decision Date
Jan 12, 2016
Velasco sought mandamus to assume Marinduque Representative seat after Reyes's COC was voided; SC ruled in his favor, applying second-placer rule.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 211140)

Petitioner

Lord Allan Jay Q. Velasco asserts that final and executory decisions by the COMELEC and the Supreme Court established him as the rightful winner of the May 13, 2013 elections for Marinduque’s Lone District. He seeks enforcement of those rulings through mandamus.

Respondents

• House Speaker Feliciano R. Belmonte, Jr. — alleged to have unlawfully refused to administer the oath to Velasco.
• Secretary General Marilyn B. Barua-Yap — alleged to have refused to register Velasco’s name and delete that of Reyes from the House Roll.
• Regina Ongsiako Reyes — alleged to continue usurping the office despite disqualification.

Key Dates

• March 27, 2013: COMELEC First Division cancels Reyes’s Certificate of Candidacy (CoC).
• May 14, 2013: COMELEC En Banc affirms cancellation; becomes final and executory on May 19, 2013.
• May 18, 2013: Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBOC) proclaims Reyes.
• June 7, 2013: Reyes takes her oath before House Speaker.
• July 9, 2013: COMELEC en banc nullifies Reyes’s proclamation and proclaims Velasco.
• July 16, 2013: Newly constituted PBOC proclaims Velasco.
• October 22, 2013: Supreme Court denies Reyes’s motion for reconsideration in G.R. No. 207264; entry of judgment.
• December 14, 2015: House Electoral Tribunal dismisses quo warranto petitions against Reyes for lack of jurisdiction.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article VI, Section 17 — vests the House Electoral Tribunal with sole jurisdiction over contests relating to election, returns, and qualifications of House members.
• Rules of Court, Rule 65, Section 3 — governs issuance of the writ of mandamus when a public officer unlawfully neglects a ministerial duty.
• BP 884 and COMELEC Rules — authorize cancellation of a CoC for material misrepresentations; such decisions become final and executory after five days unless restrained by the Supreme Court.

Petition’s Allegations

  1. Reyes materially misrepresented her citizenship and residency in her CoC.
  2. Final decisions of the COMELEC and Supreme Court canceled Reyes’s CoC and nullified her proclamation.
  3. Respondents Belmonte and Barua-Yap refused to administer the oath to Velasco and to enter his name in the Roll.
  4. Reyes continues exercising the office and drawing its emoluments, to Velasco’s prejudice.

Lower Tribunal Proceedings

• Socorro B. Tan filed SPA No. 13-053, leading to Reyes’s CoC cancellation.
• Reyes’s motion for reconsideration was denied en banc.
• Velasco’s SPC No. 13-010 before the COMELEC challenged Reyes’s proclamation; initially denied but reversed en banc, nullifying Reyes’s proclamation and proclaiming Velasco.
• COMELEC reconstituted the PBOC and directed the new board to proclaim Velasco.

Supreme Court Proceedings

• G.R. No. 207264 (Reyes v. COMELEC): Reyes’s certiorari petition dismissed on June 25, 2013; motion for reconsideration denied October 22, 2013.
• The Court confirmed that Reyes never had a valid CoC, proclamation, or assumption of office and thus could not be a member of the House.

Jurisdictional Issue

• The House Electoral Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of House members, effective upon valid proclamation, oath, and assumption of office.
• The Tribunal dismissed its quo warranto petitions against Reyes (Dec. 14, 2015), holding it had no jurisdiction because Reyes’s proclamation was nullified by final Supreme Court rulings.

Rights and Remedies

• A void or cancelled CoC is void ab initio; votes cast for an ineligible candidate are stray and disregarded.
• Under Aratea v. COMELEC, the next highest qualified candidate succeeds when the leading candidate’s CoC is void ab initio.
• Rule 65 mandates mandamus to compel performance of purely ministerial acts when no other remedy is available.

Ruling on Writ of Ma






...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