Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ongsiako-Reyes V COMELEC - 207264 - Dissenting Brion PDF
Ongsiako-Reyes V COMELEC - 207264 - Dissenting Brion PDF
Promulgated: _~
OCTOBER 22, 2013 ~~
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x{
DISSENTING OPINION
BRION, J.:
1
( 1) the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner Regina
Ongsiako Reyes dated July 15, 2013;
2
(2) the Comment on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by
respondent Joseph Socorro B. Tan dated July 20, 2013; and
3
(3) the Manifestation and Notice of Withdrawal of the Petition
filed by Reyes dated July 22, 2013.
I. PROLOGUE
1) a valid proclamation[;]
2) a proper oath[;] and
3) assumption of office[;]" 4 and
4) that "before there is a valid or official taking of the oath
it must be made [a] before the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, and [b] in open session."
3. The petitioner was not denied due process because she was
given the opportunity to be heard. To quote its ruling, "in
administrative proceedings, procedural due process only requires that
the party be given the opportunity or right to be heard." 6
The Court's handling of the case was all the more "unusual" because
the son of a member (Mr. Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.) of this Court,
although not a direct party, directly stood to be benefited by the Court's
ruling - a fact that was reiterated both during the deliberations of the Court
and in the Dissenting Opinion filed.
As will be seen from the discussions below, the reason for the haste
was apparently the desire to avoid the House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal (HRE1) where Mr. Justice Velasco currently sits as Chairman and
whose participation and ruling could result (if Reyes .is unseated) in the
declaration of the vacancy of the Marinduque congressional seat, not the
seating of the second placer in the elections.
Aside from pointing out the undue haste that characterized the June
25, 2013 ruling, my previous Dissent argued that no outright dismissal
should have been made because of the intervening events and "in light of
'P'
Dissenting Opinion 3 G.R. No. 207264
the gravity of the issues raised and the potential effect on jurisprudence"
of the Court's ruling on the case.
Rollo, p. 68.
Id. at 40-41.
9
Id. at 40-51.
10
Id. at 140-157.
II
Id. at 52-60.
12
Section 3, Rule 37 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure states:
Section 3. Decisions Final After Five Days. -Decisions in pre-proclamation
cases and petitions to deny due course to or cancel certificates of candidacy, to declare a
candidate as nuisance candidate or to disqualify a candidate, and to p~stpone or suspend
elections shall become final and executory after the lapse of five (5) days from their
promulgation, unless restrained by the Supreme Court. [emphasis ours, italics
supplied]
Dissenting Opinion 4 G.R. No. 207264
On June 10, 2013, Reyes filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for
a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and/or status quo ante
order with the Court to annul the March 27, 2013 and the May 14, 2013
COMELEC resolutions cancelling her CoC for the position of
Representative in the lone district of Marinduque, and the June 5, 2013
Certificate of Finality declaring the May 14, 2013 COMELEC resolution
final and executory in SPA Case No. 13-053(DC). 18
On June 25, 2013, the Court hastily, and without reqmnng the
COMELEC and Tan to comment, dismissed Reyes' petition outright through
a Resolution finding that the COMELEC did not commit any grave abuse of
discretion in ruling on the case. The majority ruled as well that the
COMELEC retained jurisdiction over the cancellation case considering that
Reyes could not yet be considered a Member of the House of
Representatives; thus, she could not assume office before the start of the
congressional term at noon on June 30,2013. 19
On June 28, 2013, Reyes filed a Manifestation with the Court that on
June 19, 2013, the COMELEC First Division denied former Cong.
13
Rollo, p. 161.
14
Id at 374.
15
!d. at 375.
16
Id. at 163-165.
17
Id. at 162.
18
Id. at 3-39.
19
Id. at 172-188.
Dissenting Opinion 5 G.R. No. 207264
In the interim, on July 15, 2013, Reyes filed her Motion for
Reconsideration with Motion for Inhibition of Justice Jose P. Perez from
the Court's June 25, 2013 Resolution? 6
(a) She was the duly and validly proclaimed winner for the
position of Representative of the lone district of Marinduque.
Also there is nothing in the records showing that her proclamation
on May 18, 2013 has been annulled by the COMELEC prior to her
assumption to office at noon on June 30, 2013. In fact, it was only
on July 9, 2013 that the COMELEC annulled her proclamation and
declared second placer former Cong. Velasco the winner.
(b) She validly took her oath of office. She took her oath of
office before Speaker Belmonte on June 5, 2013 and also before
President Benigno Simeon Aquino III on June 27, 2013.
(c) She has assumed the duties of her office. The Court can
take judicial notice that June 30, 2013 has come to pass. She
legally assumed the duties of her office at noon on June 30, 2013
and in fact, she has already filed a bill and a resolution in
Congress.
(3) The Court's June 25, 2013 Resolution violates the doctrine of
stare decisis and is contrary to the HRET rules.
(1) The Court cannot pass upon the validity of Reyes' proclamation
as it was never raised as an issue in the present case.
In the same motion, Reyes also alleges that there are now two (2)
pending cases filed against her in the HRET: ( 1) Election Protest Ad
Cautelam filed on May 31, 2013, entitled Lord Allan Velasco v. Regina
Ongsiako Reyes, docketed as Case No. 13-028;31 and (2) Petition for Quo
Warranto Ad Cautelam filed on May 31, 2013, entitled Christopher P.
Matienzo v. Regina Ongsiako Reyes, docketed as Case No. 13-027. 32
27
G.R. No. 167594, March 10,2006,484 SCRA 529.
28
G.R. Nos. 178831-32, 179120, 179132-33, 179240-41, April1, 2009,.583 SCRA I.
29
G.R. No. 192856, March 8, 2011,644 SCRA 761.
30
241 Phil. 343 (1988).
31
Supra note 14.
32
Supra note 15.
Dissenting Opinion 8 G.R. No. 207264
D. The Comment
On July 22, 2013, Tan filed his Comment on Reyes' Motion for
Reconsideration praying for the dismissal of her petition with finality. 33 Tan
submitted the following arguments:
(3) Reyes failed to comply with the requirements stated in the June
25, 2013 Resolution in order to become a Member of the House of
Representatives. First, as has been held by the COMELEC, Reyes'
proclamation was null and void considering that the May 14, 2013
Resolution of the COMELEC en bane cancelling her CoC became
final and executory on May 19, 2013. _Second, Reyes' oath was
improper because it was not done before the Speaker in open session
on July 22, 2013. Third, Reyes' assumption to office was invalid as
she is an ineligible candidate and cannot, by law, be a Member of the
House ofRepresentatives;
33
Supra note 2.
Dissenting Opinion 9 G.R. No. 207264
34
Supra note 3.
35
Aruego, Jr. v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 112193, March 13, 1996,254 SCRA 711, 719-720.
Dissenting Opinion 10 G.R. No. 207264
In the present case, the Court had acquired jurisdiction and has in fact
ruled on Reyes' petition; thus the Court's jurisdiction should continue until
it finally disposes of the case. Reyes cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this
Court and thereafter simply withdraw her petition, especially after the Court
has ruled and after its ruling has generated a lot of public attention and
interest, some of them adverse to the reputation of the Court.
clear the air as, constitutionally, the election, returns and qualifications of a
member of the House of Representatives are already involved - a matter that
on its face appropriately lies within the competence and jurisdiction of the
HRET.
Reyes' unilateral withdrawal of her petition after the Court had acted
on the petition, in my view, was not done in the exercise of any right of
withdrawal that Reyes can demand from this Court. While no express rule
exists under the Rules of Court on the withdrawal of an original petition
before the Supreme Court, this is the only conclusion that can be made,
consistent with the spirit that pervades the Rules of Court. Rule 17 of the
Rules of Court on the dismissal of actions at the instance of the plaintiff
embodies this spirit and can be applied by analogy.
Under this Rule, dismissal by notice of the plaintiff can only be before
service of the defendant's answer or before service of a motion for summary
judgment. On the other hand, dismissal of a complaint by motion of the
plaintiff can only be upon approval by the court and upon such terms and
conditions that the court shall deem to be proper.
The points comparable to the markers laid down by Rule 17 have all
been reached and left behind in the present case so that Reyes can no longer
be said to have full and sole control over her petition: the Court has ruled on
the petition and a Dissent has in fact been filed against the ruling; the
petitioner has filed a motion for reconsideration and the respondent has filed
its Comment on the Motion. External developments have also taken place,
among them, the proclamation of Reyes as winner; the administration of her
oath of office no less than by the Speaker of the House and by the President
of the Philippines; and the convening of the House of Representatives where
Reyes fully participated. All these developments cannot simply be
disregarded in one sweep by the simple act of withdrawal that Reyes wishes
the Court to approve.
To proceed now to the crux and the overriding issue of the petition
and one that the intervening developments have not overtaken under the
circumstances of this case - did the COMELEC sufficiently accord Reyes
due process, or did a violation of her right to due process occur?
(2) Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his
case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he
asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented.
(3) While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to
decide right, it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded,
namely, that of having something to support its decision. A decision
with absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity[.]
38
G.R. No. 188308, October 15, 2009, 603 SCRA 692.
Dissenting Opinion 13 G.R. No. 207264
The second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth aspects of the Ang
Tibay requirements are reinforcements of the right to a hearing and are the
inviolable rights applicable at the deliberative stage, as the decision-maker
decides on the evidence presented during the hearing. These standards set
forth the guiding considerations in deliberating on the case and are the
material and substantial components of decision-making. Briefly, the
tribunal must consider the totality of the evidence presented which must
all be found in the records of the case (i.e., those presented or submitted
by the parties); the conclusion, reached by the decision-maker himself and
not by a subordinate, must be based on substantial evidence.
criticism, and to ensure that the decision will be thought through by the
39
decision-maker. (citations omitted, italics supplied, emphasis ours)
Reyes invokes both the due process component rights at the hearing
and deliberative stages and alleges that these component rights have all been
violated. These allegations are discussed below.
In her petition, Reyes argues that the COMELEC violated her right to
due process when it took cognizance of the documents submitted by Tan that
were not testified to and which were offered and admitted in evidence
without giving her the opportunity to question the authenticity of these
documents and to present controverting evidence.
Based on the pleadings filed in the present case, no factual and legal
basis is evident for Reyes to complain of the denial of her hearing stage
rights.
In the first place, she does not dispute that she fully participated in the
proceedings of the cancellation of her CoC until the case was deemed
submitted for resolution; she had representation during the proceedings
before the COMELEC First Division where she duly presented her evidence
and summed up her case through a memorandum.
b. Violation of Reyes'
deliberation stage rights.
Workers Union v. Han. Calleja, 41 the Court, citing Ang Tibay, categorically
ruled:
The travel records submitted by Petitioner are also without bearing. The
printed internet article from the blog of a certain Eli Obligacion showing that
Respondent used a US Passport on June 30, 2012 is hearsay while the
purported copy of the Bureau of Immigration Certification is merely a
41
264 Phil. 805 ( 1990).
42
Id.at811.
Dissenting Opinion 17 G.R. No. 207264
xerox copy and not even certified to be a true copy of the original, thus
similarly inadmissible. 43 (emphasis supplied)
This claim does not appear to have been refuted nor rebutted in the
records before us, except in Tan's claim that came out of the blue. The
records (specifically, the Certified True Copy from the MACHINE COPY
ON FILE WITH THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE COMMISSION
of the Sanchez Certification dated January 22, 2013- submitted by Reyes), 44
however, plainly show that the copy on file with the COMELEC of the
Sanchez certification is a machine copy and not an original copy. The
statement that a machine copy is on file with the COMELEC came from no
less than the Clerk of the Commission, Ma. Josefina E. dela Cruz. Thus,
Chairman Brillantes was correct - what was before the COMELEC, when it
ruled on the Tan petition, was a mere machine copy of the Sanchez
certification.
Even assuming for the sake solely of argument that the Sanchez
certification is admissible and has probative value, the certification itself is
not sufficient to establish that Reyes was a naturalized U.S. citizen.
43
Rollo, p. 166.
44
Id. at 135-137.
45
255 Phil. 934 (1989).
46
257 Phil. 1 (1989).
Dissenting Opinion 18 G.R. No. 207264
First, the COMELEC, both division and en bane, did not find the
supposed admission material in resolving Reyes' motion for reconsideration.
The COMELEC en bane itself, in its May 14, 2013 resolution, merely
considered Reyes' motion for reconsideration48 - the source of the supposed
admission - "a mere rehash and a recycling of claims." 49 Thus, the alleged
admission is not an issue at all in the present petition. Based on the
47
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Arturo D. Brion dated June 25, 2013, pp. 20-21.
48
Before the COMELEC en bane.
49
Rollo, p. 53.
Dissenting Opinion 19 G.R. No. 207264
COMELEC rulings, what stands out before the Court is the utter lack of
basis supporting the COMELEC's cancellation of Reyes' CoC.
50
Sabili v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 193261, Apri124, 2012,670 SCRA 664,681.
51
G.R. No. 176947, February 19,2009,580 SCRA 12.
Dissenting Opinion 20 G.R. No. 207264
later became naturalized citizens of another country and thereafter ran for
elective office in the Philippines. In the present case, Tambunting, a
natural-born Filipino, did not subsequently become a naturalized
citizen of another count'1. Hence, the twin requirements in R.A. No.
9225 do not apply to him. 2
C. Proclamation is not a
disputed and submitted issue.
The party who has the interest and the personality to seek the
annulment of Reyes' proclamation is the losing candidate- former Cong.
Velasco - who is not even a party to the present petition and who never
raised the issue of the validity of Reyes' proclamation before this Court.
In this light, I note with concern the majority's attempt in the Court's
June 25, 2013 Resolution to indirectly question the validity of Reyes'
proclamation by holding that:
In the present ponencia that this Dissent disputes, the attack on the
proclamation again surfaces, this time, directly and unabashedly. To quote
the present ponencia:
54
Resolution dated June 25, 20 13, p. 9.
Dissenting Opinion 23 G.R. No. 207264
Dates and events indicate that there was no basis for the
proclamation of petition on May 18, 2013. Without the proclamation,
the petitioner's oath of office is likewise baseless, and without a precedent
5
oath of office, there can be no valid and effective assumption of office. 5
I submit that the Court cannot rule on the issue of the validity or
invalidity of Reyes' proclamation as this is NOT an issue raised in the
present petition before this Court, nor an issue in the COMELEC
proceedings that is now under review. Proclamation is a separate
COMELEC action that came after and separately from the CoC cancellation
ruling.
55
Ponencia, p. 2.
56
Section 242 of the Omnibus Election Code states:
Section 242. Commission's exclusive jurisdiction of all pre-proclamation controversies. -
The Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all pre-proclamation controversies.
It may motu proprio or upon written petition, and after due notice and hearing, order the
partial or total suspension of the proclamation of any candidate-elect or annual partially
or totally any proclamation, if one has been made, as the evidence shall warrant in
accordance with the succeeding sections.
57
RA 7166, Section 15.
Dissenting Opinion 24 G.R. No. 207264
To reiterate what I have stated above, the party who may have the
standing to raise this issue is not before us. In her motion for
reconsideration, Reyes - the party who presented the petition before this
Court - pointedly stated that she never raised the issue of her proclamation
before this Court.
Tan, in his Comment (i.e., the first time he was ever heard by this
Court), mentioned "proclamation" but only to assert that Reyes had not
complied with the requirements of the June 25, 2013 Resolution of this
Court to become a Member of the House of Representatives - a legal issue
extraneous to the CoC cancellation that he initiated. Tan's claim that the
May 14, 2013 COMELEC en bane ruling became final on May 19, 2013, on
the other hand, clearly forgets that the proclamation took place a day before,
oronMay 18,2013.
In sum, it is only the ponencia that raises, argues about, and seeks
to impugn the validity of Reyes' proclamation. This, by itself, is another
unusual feature of this case - self-raised arguments from the Court on an
issue that had not been raised in the petition or in any significant manner, in
the Comment.
For the Court's ready and easy understanding of the context of Reyes'
mention of the word "proclamation," her argument in her petition runs this
way:
All these, of course, do not affect the main question raised before this
Court - whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in ruling on
the cancellation of Reyes' CoC. If indeed it did, then there is no valid and
standing COMELEC en bane ruling that would prevent the proclamation of
Reyes as the duly-elected congresswoman of the lone district of
Marinduque. If the COMELEC did not commit any grave abuse of
discretion, then the Court should so rule. What happens then to the
proclamation - a legal question that is not before this Court - is a matter that
should be taken up before the proper tribunal. Viewed in this manner,
everything goes back to the allegation of grave abuse of discretion that
Reyes brought before this Court.
58
Rollo, p. 22.
Dissenting Opinion 26 G.R. No. 207264
59
241 Phil. 343 ( 1988).
60
Id. at 345; emphasis ours.
61
391 Phil. 344 (2000).
62
Id. at 354; emphasis ours.
63
490 Phil. 285 (2005).
64
548 Phil. 712 (2007).
65
Supra note 28.
Dissenting Opinion 27 G.R. No. 207264
xxxx
In the case now before us, Tan argues in his Comment on Reyes'
Motion for Reconsideration that Reyes' proclamation on May 18, 2013 was
null and void, citing the July 9, 2013 COMELEC en bane resolution
annulling Reyes' proclamation. He emphasizes that the finality of the May
14, 2013 resolution on May 19, 2013 automatically voided Reyes' May 18,
2013 proclamation, rendering it a ministerial duty for the COMELEC to
annul Reyes' proclamation and proclaim Velasco as the sole eligible
candidate and winner for the position of Representative of Marinduque.
These allegations fall within the type of situation that the above-cited
cases cover so that the COMELEC (and even this Court) is now barred from
ruling on the validity of Reyes' proclamation. The issue should now be left
to the sound discretion of the HRET. Even this Court is covered by this
ruling as the grant of jurisdiction to the HRET is exclusive; the Court's tum
will come in a duly filed petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court.
Eufrocino Codilla, Sr. and Ma. Victoria Locsin were candidates for
the position of Representative of the 4th Legislative District of Leyte during
the May 14, 2001 elections. Codilla garnered the highest number of votes
(71,350 versus Locsin's 53,447 votes) but his proclamation was suspended
because he was facing charges of indirect solicitation of votes. Codilla filed
a motion to lift the suspension order. The COMELEC Second
Division, without resolving Codilla's pending motion, issued a resolution
declaring his disqualification and directing the immediate proclamation of
Locsin. Despite Codilla's timely Motion for Reconsideration where he
squarely raised the invalidity of Locsin's proclamation, the votes cast for
Codilla were declared stray and Locsin was proclaimed winner.
In the petition for mandamus and quo warranto Codilla filed with this
Court to question Locsin' s proclamation, the latter argued in defense that the
COMELEC en bane had no jurisdiction to annul her proclamation. She
maintained that the COMELEC en bane had been divested of jurisdiction to
review the validity of her proclamation because she had become a member
of the House of Representatives and the proper forum to question her
membership was the HRET.
The Court disregarded Locsin's arguments and held that the HRET
could not assume jurisdiction as Locsin's proclamation was invalid.
First, the Codilla ruling was made in a petition brought before this
Court to question Locsin's proclamation.
67
442 Phil. 139 (2002).
Dissenting Opinion 29 G.R. No. 207264
Unlike Codilla and as I have repeatedly harped on, the present Reyes
petition relates to the COMELEC's cancellation of her CoC and is not
about her proclamation. In fact, her proclamation was never an issue
before the COMELEC. Specifically, proclamation was not an issue in the
Motion for Reconsideration Reyes filed on April 8, 2013 and which the
COMELEC First Division ruled upon on March 27, 2013. It was this First
Division ruling that the COMELEC en bane ruled upon on May 14, 2013.
These facts alone show that Reyes' proclamation was a separate
COMELEC action that came after and separately from the CoC
cancellation ruling.
Third, the core issue in Codilla was whether the candidate who
garnered the second highest number of votes could be validly proclaimed as
the winner in the election contest in the event that the winner is disqualified.
The Court took note in this case of the settled jurisprudence that a candidate
who obtained the second highest number of votes is not entitled to assume
the position in case the winner is disqualified.
In the present case, the core issues before the Court are: (i) whether
the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in cancelling Reyes'
CoC; and (ii) as an obiter side issue, whether the subsequent proclamation of
Reyes divested the COMELEC of jurisdiction to rule on her qualifications.
Thus, the facts and issue raised are far different from Codilla. If this cited
case is applicable at all, it is under the ruling that the Court has jurisdiction
because grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC is involved.
Fourth, from the perspective of this Court, the jurisprudential rule that
Codilla establishes is that the jurisdiction of this Court prevails when there is
Dissenting Opinion 30 G.R. No. 207264
grave abuse of discretion rendering a ruling void. Thus, the Court assumed
jurisdiction despite the previous proclamation of Locsin as the proclamation
was void. Parenthetically, in Codilla, what was brought squarely before the
Court was a petition questioning the proclamation of Locsin itself.
Assuming arguendo that the Court can rule on the validity of Reyes'
proclamation, the records before this Court suggest that the PBOC correctly
proclaimed Reyes.
In this regard, I find Justice Abad's position that the May 14, 2013
COMELEC en bane Resolution became final and executory on May 27,
2013 to be without factual and legal basis. As stated elsewhere in this
Opinion, the assailed resolution could not have attained finality because
Reyes' proclamation on May 18, 2013 divested the COMELEC of
jurisdiction over matters pending before it with respect to Reyes' eligibility.
First, I note that Justice Abad failed to cite any legal basis for his
proposition that the May 14, 2013 COMELEC en bane resolution became
final and executory on May 27, 2013 after Reyes failed to file a petition
within ten (10) days from receipt of the COMELEC's May 14, 2013
resolution. On the contrary, Section 3, Rule 37 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure expressly states that "decisions in x x x petitions to deny due
course to or cancel certificates of candidacy, x x x shall become final and
executory after the lapse of five (5) days from their promulgation unless
restrained by the Supreme Court." Thus, in the present case, Reyes'
proclamation on May 18, 2013 came one (1) day ahead ofthe May 19, 2013
deadline for the finality of the May 14, 2013 resolution, pursuant to the
afore-cited rule.
68
COMELEC Rules of Procedure, Rule 37, Section 3. Supra note 12.
Dissenting Opinion 31 G.R. No. 207264
Second, even if we reckon the date of finality of the May 14, 2013
COMELEC en bane resolution from the date of receipt (May 16, 2013) of
the said resolution, Reyes' proclamation would still be three (3) days ahead
of the deadline for finality. COMELEC Resolution No. 9648 dated February
22, 2013 provides that the ruling of the Commission En Bane shall become
final and executory if no restraining order is issued by the Supreme Court
within five (5) days from receipt of the decision or resolution. Applied in
this case, Reyes' proclamation on May 18, 2013 came three (3) days ahead
of the May 21, 2013 deadline for the finality of the May 14, 2013
COMELEC en bane resolution, pursuant to Section 28( 1) of COMELEC
Resolution No. 9648.
69
It must be mentioned, however, that a recent COMELEC issuance, Resolution No. 9648 dated
February 22, 2013, otherwise known as the "GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE BOARD OF
CANVASSERS ON THE CONSOLIDATION/CANVASS AND TRANSMISSION OF VOTES
CONNECTION WITH THE MAY 13, 2013 NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTIONS," provides that a
ruling of the Commission En Bane shall become final and executory if no restraining order is issued by the
Supreme Court within five (5) days from RECEIPT of the Decision or Resolution. It pertinently states:
Section 28. x x x
PROCLAMATION OF THE WINNING CANDIDATES
xxxx
A candidate who obtained the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed by
the Board, except for the following:
1. In case the certificate of candidacy of the candidate who obtains the highest
number of votes has been cancelled or denied due course by a final and
executory Decision or Resolution, the votes cast for such candidate shall be
considered stray, hence, the Board shall proceed to proclaim the candidate who
obtains the second highest of number votes, provided, the latter's certificate of
candidacy has not likewise been cancelled by a final and executory Decision or
Resolution;
xxxx
In all cases, a Decision or Resolution is deemed final and executory if, in
case of a Division ruling, no motion for reconsideration is filed within the
reglementary period, or in cases of the ruling of the Commission En Bane,
no restraining order was issued by the Supreme Court within five (5) days
from receipt of the Decision or Resolution.
Thus, without a final and executory ruling cancelling Reyes' CoC, and
in the absence of any order from the COMELEC to suspend Reyes'
proclamation, the PBOC acted well within its authority to proclaim Reyes as
the winner in the Marinduque congressional elections.
These arguments forget the existing legal realities pointed out above.
It forgets, too, that it cannot single out and isolate a set of circumstances in a
given case and, based on these, impute bad faith against a party to the case in
the absence of a clear showing of such bad faith based on the totality of all
the attendant circumstances.
Everything considered, Reyes was well within her rights to move for
her proclamation as the winning candidate who garnered the highest number
of votes. Stated in the context of the ponencia, it cannot attribute bad faith
to Reyes since she was merely exercising her legal right as the winning
candidate, following the legal truism that the proper exercise of a lawful
right cannot constitute a legal wrong for which an action will lie, although
the act may result in damage to another, for no legal right has been
.mvadde. 72
where said Petition is pending, the Board shall proceed to proclaim the winner.
[emphases ours]
70
Ponencia, p. 4.
71
Id. at 5-6.
72
See Sps. Custodio v. Court ofAppeals, 323 Phil. 575, 588-589 (1996), where the Court held:
Dissenting Opinion 33 G.R. No. 207264
The first is the proclamation on May 18, 2013 which came one ( 1)
day ahead of the May 19, 2013 deadline for the finality of the May 14, 2013
resolution, pursuant to Section 3, Rule 37 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure. Under this COMELEC Rule, "decisions in x x x petitions to
deny due course to or cancel certificates of candidacy, x x x shall become
final and executory after the lapse of five (5) days from their promulgation
unless restrained by the Supreme Court." 73
The proper exercise of a lawful right cannot constitute a legal wrong for which
an action will lie, although the act may result in damage to another, for no legal right has
been invaded. One may use any lawful means to accomplish a lawful purpose and though
the means adopted may cause damage to another, no cause of action arises in the latter's
favor. Any injury or damage occasioned thereby is damnum absque injuria. The courts
can give no redress for hardship to an individual resulting from action reasonably
calculated to achieve a lawful end by lawful means. [citations omitted, italics supplied]
73
Supra note 12.
Dissenting Opinion 34 G.R. No. 207264
votes. This material record further strengthens the conclusion that no legal
impediment existed for the PBOC on May 18, 2013 when it proclaimed
Reyes.
The short answer is NO, far from it, as already impliedly suggested .
above. If former Cong. Velasco and the quo warranto petitioner before the
HRET are determined to pursue their petitions, then they are free to do so
without any hindrance from this Court; what simply transpires is the transfer
of the forum of their disputes from the COMELEC to the HRET.
Hard though this conclusion may seem for the HRET petitioners, it is
the command of no less than the Constitution and, as such, must be strictly
obeyed. The upside, of course, of this observation is that they are not denied
their legal remedies; these are simply relocated to another forum out of
respect for their separation of powers and independence that the Constitution
ordains.
In that case, the Court ruled that the COMELEC acted without
jurisdiction when it issued its June 3, 2010 order granting the motion for
reconsideration and declaring Jalosjos ineligible after he had already been
proclaimed the winner for the position of Representative of the Second
District of Zamboanga Sibugay. Significantly, at the time the COMELEC
issued the order, Jalosjos had yet to take his oath of office and assume
the duties of his office, viz.:
74
G.R. Nos. 192474, 192704 and 193566, June 26,2012,674 SCRA 530.
75
Id. at 534-535.
Dissenting Opinion 36 G.R. No. 207264
xxxx
76
Id. at 535-536.
77
G.R. No. 133944, October 28, 1999, 317 SCRA 641.
Dissenting Opinion 37 G.R. No. 207264
78
Id. at 646-64 7.
79
Supra note 27.
80
Id. at 536.
81
Supra note 64.
82
Supra note 28.
83
Supra note 29.
Dissenting Opinion 38 G.R. No. 207264
The Court has invariably held that once a winning candidate has
been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a Member of the
House of Representatives, the COMELEC's jurisdiction over election
contests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications ends, and the
HRET's own jurisdiction begins. Stated in another manner, where the
candidate has already been proclaimed winner in the congressional
elections, the remedy of the petitioner is to file an electoral protest
with the HRET.
xxxx
84
Supra note 64, at 179-180.
Dissenting Opinion 39 G.R. No. 207264
In this regard, I take exception to Justice Abaci's view that the period
for the filing of an election protest or a petition for quo warranto is merely a
deadline. The HRET Rules clearly state that filing periods are
jurisdictional. Rule 19 of the 2011 HRET Rules provides that the period
for the filing of the appropriate petition, as prescribed in Rules 1687 and Rule
17,88 is jurisdictional and cannot be extended. Significantly, the filing of an
election protest or petition for quo warranto beyond the periods provided in
85
Supra note 28, at 33-37.
86
See Dissenting Opinion of Justice Arturo D. Brion dated June 25, 2013, pp. 15-16.
87
RULE 16. Election Protest.- A verified petition contesting the election or returns of any Member
of the House of Representatives shall be filed by any candidate who has duly filed a certificate of
candidacy and has been voted for the same office, within fifteen (15) days after the proclamation of the
winner.
88
RULE 17. Quo Warranto.- A verified petition for quo warranto contesting the election of a
Member of the House of Representatives on the ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of
the Philippines shall be filed by any registered voter of the district concerned within fifteen ( 15) days from
the date of the proclamation of the winner. The party filing the petition shall be designated as the petitioner
while the adverse pm1y shall be known as the respondent.
Dissenting Opinion 40 G.R. No. 207264
Rule 16 and Rule 17 of the HRET Rules is a ground for summary dismissal
of the petition.
Thus, using the facts of the present case, if indeed no election protest
or quo warranto petition can be filed until after July 22, 2013 (the day that
Congress convened), then the HRET would simply dismiss any petition filed
after that date for having filed out of time since Reyes was proclaimed on
May 18, 2013 or more than 2 months before Congress formally convened.
We cannot simply close our eyes to this resulting absurdity proposed by the
majority, considering that the presumption is always against absurdity, and it
is the duty of the courts to interpret the law in such a way as to avoid absurd
results. 89
89
People of the Philippines v. Villanueva, No. L-150 14, April29, 1961.
90
See Dissenting Opinion of COMELEC Commissioner Christian Robert S. Lim in SPC No. 13-
010; rolla, p. 256.
91
Ibid.
92
Ibid.
Dissenting Opinion 41 G.R. No. 207264
Despite the recourse to this Court and the original jurisdiction we now
exercise over the petition, our action on the present petition should
understandably be limited. We can only rule on the existence of the grave
abuse of discretion we found and on the consequent invalidity of the
COMELEC action in the cancellation case before it; we cannot rule on
the issue of Reyes' qualifications (i.e., on the issue of citizenshiy and
residency). We have so held in Perez v. Commission on Elections 9 and
Bello v. Commission on Elections 94 and we have no reason to change tack
now. The HRET, as the constitutionally designated tribunal to rule at the
first instance, should resolve the issues presented before it, including the task
of appreciating the supposed admission of Reyes that she married an
American citizen.
III. EPILOGUE
93
Supra note 77.
94
G.R. Nos. 191998, 192769 and 192832, December 7, 2010,637 SCRA 59.
Dissenting Opinion 42 G.R. No. 207264
caution and joined Justice Carpio in pointing out that the venue now to
question the proclamation is the HRET.
Out of the blue and without any previous circulated written opinion,
the Chief Justice argued that in the COMELEC's resolution of July 9, 2013,
annulling Reyes' proclamation (a resolution rendered by the COMELEC
long after the disputed cancellation of CoC ruling on May 14, 2013, and
likewise long after the proclamation of May 18, 2013 that the ponencia
capitalized on), she saw how Reyes acted in bad faith and the Court should
not allow this kind of action to pass. She thus declared .that she was voting
based on this consideration.
Qruofl~
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice