Reyes V Comelec
Reyes V Comelec
DOCTRINE:
CASE Number (including date): GR No. 207264 (June 25, 2013, October 22,
2013)
CASE Name: Reyes vs COMELEC
Ponente: J. Perez
FACTS
Petitioner Regina Ongsiako Reyes filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for
temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction and/or status quo
ante order dateJd June 7, 2013, assailing the Resolutions dated March 27,
2013 and May 14, 2013. The resolutions ordered the cancellation of the
certificate of candidacy of petitioner for the position of Representative of
Marinduque.
Joseph Tan, a registered voter and resident of Marinduque, filed a petition in
COMELEC to cancel the COC of Reyes on the grounds that it contained
material misrepresentations:
o Marital status she said single when she is married to the
congressman of Batangas
o Residence she said she was a resident of Marinduque when she is a
resident of Batangas (her husbands residence) and Quezon City
o Date of Birth she said July 3, 1964 when other documents show July
8, 1959 or July 3, 1960
o Citizenship she said she is Filipino when she is an American citizen
Petitioners Answer
o No valid and binding marriage between her and Cong Mandanas
o Since she isnt married to Mandanas, his residence cant be attributed
to her
o Birth certificate says July 3, 1964
o Allegation that she is a citizen of USA is not supported by evidence
February 8, 2013 respondent filed a manifestation to admit newly
discovered evidence
o Copy of a blog article published on January 8, 2013 made by Eliseo J.
Obligacion
o Certification of travel records issued by Simeon Sanchez of the Bureau
of Immigration, which indicates that petitioner used a US passport in
her travels abroad
March 27, 2013 COMELEC First Division issued a resolution cancelling
petitioners COC
o Petitioner is not a citizen of the Philippines because she failed to
comply with the requirements of RA 9225 take an oat of allegiance
and make a personal and sworn renunciation of her American
citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath
o No one-year residency requirement
ISSUES/HOLDING
1. Whether or not COMELEC has jurisdiction over the case over that of
the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.
No. According to petitioner, pursuant to Sec 17, Art 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 HoR.
However, SC holds that COMELEC retains jurisdiction because:
- Unless a petition is filed with HRET, then it does not acquire jurisdiction.
- Jurisdiction of HRET begins only after the candidate is considered a Member
of the House of Representatives
When is a candidate considered a Member of the House of Representatives?
- Case law contends that a winning candidate is considered a Member of the
House of Representatives when he/she has been proclaimed, taken his oat
and assumed office.
In the case at bar, petitioner is not yet a Member of the House of Representatives
because she has not yet assumed office. Until such time, the COMELEC retains
jurisdiction.
RULING:
Wherefore instant petition is dismissed.
DISSENTING OPINION | J. Brion
Insisting that the COMELEC retains jurisdiction until a proclaimed representative has
not yet assumed office emasculates the HRET. By holding that COMELEC retained
jurisdication, the Court is allowing the filing of an election protest only after the
assumption of office of the candidate. The problem with this is that it will be
dismissed outright by the HRET because quo warranto proceedings are supposed to
be filed before fifteen days from a candidates proclamation.