Regina Onsiako Reyes Vs Comelec Digest
Regina Onsiako Reyes Vs Comelec Digest
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
AND
JOSEPH
SOCORRO
B.
TAN, Respondents.
G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013
Facts:
The petitioners assail through a Petition for Certiorari with prayer for Temporary
Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction resolution of the Commission on
Election ordering the cancellation of the Certificate of Candidacy of petitioner for the
position of the Representative of the lone district of Marinduque.
On October 31. 2012, Joseph Socorro Tan filed with the Comelec an Amended Petition to
Deny Due Course or to Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy of Regina Ongsiako Reyes,
the petitioner, on the ground that it contained material representations.On March 27,
2013, the COMELEC cancelled the certificate of candidacy of the petitioner. She filed an
MR on April 8, 2013. On May 14, 2013, COMELEC en banc denied her MR.
However, on May 18, 2013, she was proclaimed winner of the May 13, 2013 Elections.
On June 5, 2013, COMELEC declared the May 14, 2013 Resolution final and Executory.
On the same day, petitioner took her oath of office before Feliciano Belmonte, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives. She has yet to assume office at that time, as her
term officially starts at noon of June 30, 2013.According to petitioner, the COMELEC
was ousted of its jurisdiction when she was duly proclaimed 20 because pursuant to
Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, the HRET has the exclusive jurisdiction
to be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of
the
Members
of
the
House
of
Representatives.
Issue:
Whether or not COMELEC has jurisdiction over the petitioner who is proclaimed as
winner and who has already taken her oath of office for the position of member of the
House of Representative of Marinduque.
Held:
Yes, COMELEC retains jurisdiction because the jurisdiction of the HRET begins only
after the candidate is considered a Member of the House of Representatives, as stated in
Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. For one to be considered a Member of
the House of Representatives, there must be a concurrence of these requisites: (1) valid
proclamation; (2) proper oath, and (3) assumption of office.
Thus the petitioner cannot be considered a member of the HR yet as she has not assumed
office yet. Also, the 2nd requirement was not validly complied with as a valid oath must
be made (1) before the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and (2) in open session.
Here, although she made the oath before Speaker Belmonte, there is no indication that it
was made during plenary or in open session and, thus, it remains unclear whether the
required oath of office was indeed complied.
Furthermore, petition for certiorari will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is
alleged and proved to exist. For an act to be struck down as having been done with
grave abuse of discretion, the abuse of discretion must be patent and gross.
Here, this Court finds that petitioner failed to adequately and substantially show that
grave abuse of discretion exists.
HERMILINA N. ABAINZA,
Petitioner, - versus -