Angara v.

Electoral Commission

Jose Angara v. Electoral Commission, Pedro Ynsua, Miguel Castillo, Dionisio Mayor

Doctrine: Electoral commission is an independent constitutional

creation with specific powers and functions to execute and perform,
closer for purposes of classification to the legislative than to any other
two departments of the government; not an inferior tribunal
Keywords: nature and power of HRET; electoral contests, sole judge
Nature: action for issuance of writ of prohibition (to restrain EC from
considering Ynsuas protest); denied
Date: July 15, 1936
Ponente: J. Laurel
Facts:
Angara, Ynsua, Castillo, and Mayor were candidates for the
position of member of the National Assembly for the 1st district
of Tayabas; Angara was proclaimed winner by the provincial
board of canvassers and he took his oath of office
National Assembly passed Resolution No. 8
o the minutes of the election of deputies who are not
against any properly filed protest before the adoption of
this resolution are, for the present, are approved and
confirmed
Ynsua, on Dec 8, filed a Motion of Protest before the Electoral
Commission, praying that he be declared elected member of
the National Assembly or that election of said position be
nullified
Electoral Commission adopted a resolution, one section stating
that the commission will disregard protests not submitted on or
before December 9, 1935
Angara filed a motion to dismiss protest but was denied by the
Electoral Commission

Angara: Resolution No. 8 of the National Assembly is

valid and should be obeyed and protest of Ynsua was
filed out of the prescribed period

Issues:
1. W/N SC has jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the
subject matter of the controversy
2. W/N the Electoral Commission acted without or in excess of its
jurisdiction in considering the protest filed re the election of the
petitioner despite the previous confirmation of such election by
the National Assembly
Held:
1. YES. Court has jurisdiction over the EC and present case.
2. NO. The Electoral Commissions action to consider the protest
is valid
Ratio:
Jurisdiction of SC over EC
Court has jurisdiction over Electoral Commission and the
present controversy to determine the character, scope and
extent of the constitutional grant to the EC as the sole judge of
all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of
the members of the National Assembly (JUDICIAL SUPREMACY
IS THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW)
Nature and power of the Electoral Commission
Sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of the members of the National Assembly
Purpose was to have an independent constitutional organ
devoid of partisan influence or consideration, to judge on
matters of election, returns and qualifications of members
Barred either House from interference in judgment

RSC Hermogenes 2014

Locsin v. HRET
Maria Lourdes Locsin v. HRET and Monique Yazmin Maria O. Lagdameo

Doctrine: HRET is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly
Keywords: HRET as sole judge; electoral contests
Nature: certiorari and prohibition to enjoin HRET from implementing
assailed Decision and Resolution; dismissed
Date: March 19, 2013
Ponente: J. Leonen
Facts:

Locsin and Lagdameo are candidates for Rep of 1st District

of Makati in the 2010 elections, Lagdameo was proclaimed
winner and Locsin came in 2nd
Locsin filed a protest before the HRET assailing the results in
all precincts
Locsin and Lagdameo designated precincts for their
respective protest and counter-protest
In the recounts, Lagdameos winning margin even increased
but HRET still continued revisions to prove her victory
HRET denied Locsins petition and motion for
reconsideration
Locsin filed present petition on the ground that HRET
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction when it dismissed protest, denied
motion for reconsideration, admitted ballots of Lagdameo
despite Locsins objection and denied the latters ballots
despite bona fide grounds for admission

Issue:
1. W/N the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion in
dismissing petitioners election protest

Held:

1. NO. There is no grave abuse of discretion on HRETs part

when it dismissed Locsins election protest.

Ratio:

On the jurisdiction of SC on this case (despite HRET being the

sole judge in election contests): SC has jurisdiction only when it
is shown that HRET acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
HRET took pains in reviewing the validity or invalidity of each
contested ballot (ballot enumeration). Results were explained
sufficiently. It applied meticulously the existing rules and rulings
on ballot appreciation for the objected and claimed ballots of
the parties. THERE IS NO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

RSC Hermogenes 2014

Vera v. Avelino
Jose O. Vera, et al. v. Jose A. Avelino, et al.

Doctrine: HRET is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly; an
election contest is one where [petitioner] wants to dismiss the
[respondent] or person proclaimed as winner in the elections and
replace him/her in office
Keywords: definition of election contest; Senate
Nature: order to annul Resolution deferring administration of oath to
petitioners and compel respondents to permit them to hold office;
dismissed because there is no election contest
Date: August 31, 1946
Ponente: J. Bengzon
Facts:

COMELEC submitted a report stating that because of acts of

terrorism in Bulacan, Pampanga, Tarlac, and Nueva Ecija, voting
in the region is not a legitimate expression of the voters choice
When the Senate convened, a resolution (Pendatum) was
approved ordering that the petitioners (among the 16
candidates with highest number of votes) shall not be sworn or
seated as members of the chamber.
Petitioners instituted this action asking for the cancellation of
the resolution and asking the respondents to let them be sworn
and seated as members of the chamber

Issues:
1. W/N the court has jurisdiction on the matter
2. W/N the prohibition is applicable
3. W/N the Senate has exceeded powers
4. W/N the respondents have the duty to permit the petitioners to
assume office and take part in sessions

Held:
1. NO. If a member has been expelled by the legislative body, courts
have no power, regardless if the expulsion was right or wrong, to issue a
mandate to compel his reinstatement (in the case of Alejandrino)
SUPPOSING THAT THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION
2. NO. It is beyond the scope. Prohibition only refers to proceedings of
any tribunal, corporation, board, or person exercising judicial or
ministerial functions. In this case, the respondents exercise legislative
function.
3. NO. The Senate, for self-preservation, has the power to defer the
administration of oath and the sitting of the petitioners pending the
determination of the contest.
4. NO. The decision recognizes the Congressional (legislative) power
and that that power is beyond the ken (cognizance) of judicial
determination.

RSC Hermogenes 2014

Ratio:

On the case not being an election contest

Case is not an election contest since petitioners are

not ousting anyone to be able to assume their
position

Before, power relating to protests are lodged in the Senate and

HOR
Discussion in the Constitutional Convention: what was
transferred to the Electoral Commission is not all the powers of
the Senate and HoR as sole judge but jurisdiction over all
contests relating to the elections
Delegates were opposed to the Electoral Commission because
it is inclusive in judging not only contests but also of elections,
returns, and qualifications so it was amended
o Delegate Labrador is for the retention of the legislative
of the power as sole judge of elections, returns, and
qualifications
The compromise plan was submitted, amended the provision.
o Difference is that the EC has no jurisdiction over
elections not protested EC is limited to cases
contesting the elections in which there has been a
protest against the returns
Delegate Labradors argument is defeated
o Approved: All cases contesting elections, returns, and
qualifications of the members of the National Assembly
shall be judged by an Electoral Commission
Final amendment: The Electoral Commission shall be the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of the Members of the National Assembly
Constitutional Convention did not intend to give EC all the
functions of the assembly on the subject of election and
qualification of its members
o Election contest: statutory contests in which the
contestant seeks not only to out the intruder but also to
have himself inducted to the office

RSC Hermogenes 2014

Roces v. HRET

Miles Andrew Mari Roces v. HRET and Maria Zenaida B. Nag Ping

Doctrine: A substitute candidate is a proper party to file an election

contest if: 1) the COC of the one s/he substitutes is not disqualified,
2) s/he is one of the candidates voted for in the elections
Keywords: standing to contest; substitution
Nature: certiorari assailing HRETs Resolutions; dismissed
Date: September 15, 2005
Ponente: J. Puno
Facts:
Roces and Harry Ang Ping filed COCs for Rep of the 3rd District
of Manila in the May 2004 elections
Cruz, a registered voter, questioned Harry Ang Pings candidacy
before the COMELEC in a petition to cancel his COC alleging
that the latter is not a natural-born citizen (thus disqualified)
Garcilliano issued an order (Apr 30) scheduling promulgation of
the resolution (canceling Harry Ang Pings COC) on May 5
May 3: Harry Ang Ping filed with COMELEC withdrawal of his
COC
May 4: General Counsel of Harry Ang Pings political party
(Nacionalist Peoples Coalition) sought that his wife,
Zenaida Ang Ping substitute for him
COMELEC 1st Division granted petition to cancel Harry Ang
Pings COC and ordered Board of Election Inspectors not to
count votes in his favor
Still with the COMELEC1st Division, COMELEC declared moot
Harry Ang Pings affidavit of withdrawal, canceling COC of
Zenaida Ang Ping, and ordered formers name to be removed
from official list of candidates; Harry Ang Ping had no
knowledge of this resolution (made resolution void, in RATIO)
On election day, votes for the Ang Pings were not canvassed
and Roces was proclaimed winner

Zenaida Ang Ping filed a protest in HRET, and Roces filed a

motion to dismiss said protest which was denied by HRET
o Roces: Is Zenaida Ang Ping the proper party to file the
protest?
o HRET: YES. No final resoln canceling Harrys COC and
substitution is valid under Omnibus Election Code

Issues:
1. W/N HRET committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction when it ruled that Zenaida is a
proper party to file protest despite the cancellation of her COC
2. W/N HRET has jurisdiction to review a resolution/order of
COMELEC and declare it void
Held:
1. NO. It did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
2. YES. HRET can review COMELEC resolutions.
Ratio:
On grave abuse
HRET is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of the members of the HoR;
HRET exercised its exclusive jurisdiction in ruling Zenaida Ang
Ping as a proper party
There was no final COMELEC resoln disqualifying COC of
Harry Ang Ping; thus, substitution for Harry is valid under
Omnibus Election Code
One of candidates voted for in the elections
COMELEC Resoln is of questionable validity; Garcillano did
not promulgate it as scheduled
On jurisdiction to review COMELEC resolutions
BECAUSE PETITIONER HIMSELF SUBMITTED THOSE
RESOLUTIONS as proof that Zenaida Ang Ping is not a proper
party; in the first place, COMELECs resolutions are void ab
initio for violating her right to due process

RSC Hermogenes 2014

Seeres v. COMELEC

Dr. Hans Christian M. Seeres v. COMELEC and Melquiades Robles

Doctrine: HRETs jurisdiction begins only after a candidate has become

a member of the HoR. Once a candidate has been proclaimed, taken his
oath, and assumed office, COMELECs jurisdiction ends and HRETs
begins.
Keywords: when HRET jurisdiction begins
Nature: certiorari and TRO/injunction to nullify COMELEC Resoln
which declared Robles as President of BUHAY party-list; dismissed
Date: April 16, 2009
Ponente: J. Velasco, Jr.
Facts:

BUHAYs (Buhay Hayaan Yumabong party-lists) constitution

provides for a three-year term for its officers, without re-election
1999: Robles was elected president and chairperson of BUHAY
2001 and 2004: BUHAY participated in the elections, Robles as
president; Manifestations of Desire to Participate and
Certificates of Nomination of reps (documents) with his
signature as president
2007: BUHAY wanted to participate in elections, Manifestation
bore the signature of Robles as president.
o He also filed a Certificate of Nominees, but prior to this,
one was also filed by Seeres (holds self as acting
president and secretary-general)
Seeres included self as one of the petitioners
Seeres filed petition to cancel Certificates of Nomination,
alleging that he is the acting president of BUHAY when Robles
vacated the position; he says that CoNs were void because
Robles had no authority in making it since latters term had
already expired

BUHAYs National Council expelled Seeres as member for

filing CoNs without authority from the council and including
there people who are not members of the party-list
COMELEC proclaimed BUHAY as winning party-list, entitled to
three (3) House seats and held Robles as president because no
party election was held to replace Robles as party president so
he was holding position in a hold-over capacity

Issue:
1. W/N certiorari filed by Seeres is the proper remedy
Held:
1. NO. In this case, petition for certiorari is not the proper
remedy.
Ratio:
Certiorari may be availed when the tribunal/board/person with
judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction and there is no appeal or plain, speedy, adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law for annulling proceeding;
for it to prosper, COMELEC should have acted with grave abuse
of discretion and no other remedy in ordinary course of law
o A plain, speedy, and adequate remedy was available to
Seeres. Officers already assumed office so he should
have filed petition before HRET and not before the
Court
o HRET is the sole judge of all contests relating to
elections, returns, and qualifications of the House of
Representatives

RSC Hermogenes 2014