G.R. No. 172131 April 2, 2007 for the election of Members of the House of Representatives.

for the election of Members of the House of Representatives. It noted that the matters raised by
petitioner Chato, which formed part of the proceedings of the PBC, were proper for an election
protest before the competent tribunal. Further, according to the PBC, it had no authority to direct
LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO, Petitioner,
the MBC Labo to reconvene for the purpose of receiving petitioner Chato’s written objections and
vs.
supporting documents and re-canvassing the election returns.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and RENATO J. UNICO, Respondents.

Likewise on May 14, 2004, at 11:30 a.m., the PBC proclaimed respondent Unico as representative-
DECISION
elect of the lone congressional district of Camarines Norte.1awphi1.nét

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

Petitioner Chato forthwith filed with the COMELEC a Petition alleging manifest errors in that –

Before the Court is a petition for certiorari1 filed by Liwayway Vinzons-Chato seeking to nullify
1) Total number of ballots found in the compartment for valid ballots is more than the
the Resolution2 dated March 17, 2006 of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc in SPC
number of voters who actually voted in Barangays Anamea[m], Bagong Silang III,
No. 04-096. The assailed resolution affirmed the Resolution3 dated April 13, 2005 of the COMELEC
Bakiad, Malangcao Basud and Submakin;
(First Division) dismissing petitioner Chato’s "petition to correct/nullify the election returns in the
municipality of Labo, Camarines Norte, due to illegality of the proceedings before respondent
Municipal Board of Canvassers of Labo and for manifest errors in the election returns; to declare 2) Total number of votes counted is less than the number of voters who actually voted
null and void and without legal effect the proclamation of respondent candidate; and to declare in Barangays Gumamela, Pinya, Dalas, Anameam, Baay, Bagacay, Bagong Silang I, II &
and proclaim petitioner as the candidate with the highest number of votes received for the lone III, Bakiad, Bautista, Bayan-Bayan, Bulhao, Cabusay, Calabasa, Cabatuhan, Canapwan,
congressional district of the Province of Camarines Norte." Daguit I, Dumagmang, Exciban, Fundado, Gumacutan, Guisican, Iberica, Lugui, Mabilo
I & II, Macogon, Mahan-hawan, Malanggan Masalong, Napaod, Pag-asa, Pangpang, San
Antonio, Sta. Cruz, Submakin, Talobalib and Tulay na Lupa;
The factual and procedural antecedents are as follows:

3) The entries in some election returns coming from different precincts in Barangays
Petitioner Chato and respondent Renato J. Unico were among the candidates for the lone
Tulay na Lupa, Baay and Lugui, all of Labo, Camarines Norte, appear to have been
congressional district of Camarines Norte during the May 10, 2004 synchronized national and local
written by one person;1a\^/phi1.net
elections.

4) No data on number of voters who actually voted and of ballots found in

In her petition filed with the COMELEC, petitioner Chato alleged that during the canvassing of the
compartment for valid ballots from Barangays Bulhao, San Antonio, Tulay na Lupa,
election returns before the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Labo (MBC Labo) from May 10 to 12,
Daguit, Pinya, Cabusay, Napaod, Pag-asa and Dalas; and
2004, her counsel raised several objections and pointed to manifest errors or obvious discrepancies
in the election returns from various precincts of the municipality of Labo. Prior to the suspension
of proceedings on May 12, 2004, the MBC Labo gave her twenty-four (24) hours, or until 6:00 p.m. 5) One election return is supposedly an election return from Barangay Del Carmen,
of May 13, 2004, to prove her allegations. Labo, but there is apparently no Barangay Del Carmen and does not appear to be part of
the series of election returns assigned to Labo.5
Allegedly in violation of the procedure prescribed in Section 204 of Republic Act No. 7166 (An Act
Providing for Synchronized National and Petitioner Chato insisted that correction of manifest errors in the certificates of canvass or election
returns, questions affecting the composition or proceedings of the boards of canvassers, or noting
of
Local Elections and For Electoral Reforms, Authorizing Appropriations Therefor, and For Other
objections on election returns or certificates of canvass were allowed before the MBC. She further
Purposes), before the expiration of the period granted and without notice to petitioner Chato or
claimed that with all the manifest errors and obvious discrepancies appearing on the face of the
her counsel, the MBC Labo concluded the canvassing of votes and hastily forwarded the results of
election returns, it could not be said that the canvassing of votes in Labo reflected the true and
its canvass to the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) of Camarines Norte. At that time, which
correct number of votes that she received in the said municipality.
was around 4:00 p.m. of May 13, 2004, petitioner Chato’s counsel was supposed to deliver to the
MBC Labo her letter enumerating the election returns allegedly containing manifest errors and
discrepancies. On July 2, 2004, the COMELEC (First Division) ordered the suspension of the effects of the
proclamation of respondent Unico. On July 23, 2004, it lifted the said order on the ground that
respondent Unico’s proclamation and taking of oath of office had not only divested the
Petitioner Chato’s counsel was thus constrained to appear before the PBC and moved for the
Commission of any jurisdiction to pass upon his election, returns, and qualifications, but also
suspension of its proceedings on the ground that there were still pending incidents before the MBC
automatically conferred jurisdiction to another electoral tribunal.
Labo. The PBC, however, denied the said motion. Upon instruction of the PBC, petitioner Chato
filed therewith a letter-petition for reconsideration of the denial of her request to remand the
matter to the MBC. However, on May 14, 2004, at around 10:00 a.m., petitioner Chato’s counsel Subsequently, the COMELEC (First Division) issued the Resolution dated April 13, 2005,
received a Resolution, of even date, of the PBC denying with finality her letter-petition for dismissing the petition for lack of merit. It stated preliminarily that the MBC is precluded from
reconsideration. In so ruling, the PBC stated that pre-proclamation controversy was not allowed entertaining pre-proclamation controversies on matters relating to the preparation, transmission,
1
receipt, custody, and appreciation of the election returns or certificates of canvass involving the In Pangilinan vs. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 105278, November 18, 1993), the Supreme
positions of President, Vice-President, Senators, and Members of the House of Representatives and Court made a categorical pronouncement that:
Party-List.
The Senate and the House of Representatives now have their respective Electoral Tribunals which
The COMELEC (First Division) found that the relief sought by petitioner Chato was actually for are the "sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their
the re-counting of votes, not merely correction of manifest errors in the election returns. Further, in respective Members, thereby divesting the Commission on Elections of its jurisdiction under the
seeking to nullify respondent Unico’s proclamation, petitioner Chato alleged manifest errors in the 1973 Constitution over election cases pertaining to the election of the Members of the Batasang
election returns and that they were tampered with and prepared under duress. Pambansa (Congress). It follows that the COMELEC is now bereft of jurisdiction to hear and
decide the pre-proclamation controversies against members of the House of Representatives as
well as of the Senate.
Addressing these contentions, the COMELEC (First Division) explained that a re-count of votes is
not within the province of a pre-proclamation controversy, which is generally limited to an
examination of the election returns on their face. It observed that under Section 31 6 of COMELEC The Honorable Court reiterated the aforequoted ruling in the recent case of Aggabao vs.
Resolution No. 6669 (General Instructions for Municipal/City/Provincial and District Board of COMELEC, et al. (G.R. No. 163756, January 26, 2005), where it held that:
Canvassers in connection with the May 10, 2004 Elections), objections to the election returns or
certificates of canvass were to be specifically noted in the minutes of the board. With respect to the
The HRET has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relative to the election, returns, and
manifest errors alleged by petitioner Chato, the COMELEC (First Division) stated that her
qualifications of members of the House of Representatives. Thus, once a winning candidate has
objections were general in character as they failed to specify the election return(s) containing these
been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a Member of the House of Representatives,
alleged manifest errors as well as the precinct(s) from which they came. Under the circumstances,
COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications
the MBC Labo could not immediately rule on petitioner Chato’s bare allegations for to do so would
ends, and the HRET’s own jurisdiction begins.
have resulted in a fishing expedition.

Considering that private respondent Renato Unico had already taken his oath and assumed office
The COMELEC (First Division) mentioned that even her petition for reconsideration filed with the
as member of the 13th Congress, the Commission had already lost jurisdiction over the case.
PBC was bereft of evidence to support her claim of manifest errors. It was only in her petition filed
with the COMELEC that petitioner Chato specifically enumerated the election returns that
allegedly contained infirmities or manifest errors. However, according to the COMELEC (First WHEREFORE, premises considered, the MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION is hereby DENIED
Division), the resolution of the matters raised by petitioner Chato, e.g., correction of the votes for lack of merit. The Resolution of this Commission (First Division) promulgated last April 13,
garnered by the candidates and reflected in the election returns, would require the opening of the 2005 is affirmed.
ballots. This could only be done in an election protest considering that petitioner Chato likewise
alleged fraud, substitution, and vote padding.
SO ORDERED.8

The COMELEC (First Division) also held that the MBC or PBC had no discretion on matters
Petitioner Chato now seeks recourse to the Court alleging that:
pertaining to the proclamation of the winning candidates because they were simply performing a
ministerial function.1ªvvphi1.nét Absent a lawful order from the COMELEC to suspend or annul a
proclamation, the PBC of Camarines Norte, in particular, was mandated to comply with its duties THE SOLE ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THIS HONORABLE COURT IS WHETHER OR
and functions including the proclamation of respondent Unico as the winning candidate for the NOT THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMELEC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
lone congressional district of Camarines Norte. The decretal portion of the Resolution dated April AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN PROMULGATING THE
13, 2005 of the COMELEC (First Division) stated: QUESTIONED RESOLUTION ON MARCH 17, 2006.9

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for utter LACK OF Petitioner Chato essentially contends that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
MERIT. when it ruled that it had already been divested of jurisdiction upon respondent Unico’s
assumption of office as a Member of the House of Representatives. Petitioner Chato vigorously
asserts that respondent Unico’s proclamation was void because it was based on doctored election
SO ORDERED.7
documents and not through the legitimate will of the electorate. As such, it can allegedly be
challenged even after respondent Unico had assumed office.
Aggrieved, petitioner Chato filed a motion for reconsideration thereof which was elevated to the
COMELEC en banc for resolution.
Petitioner Chato further submits that the COMELEC possesses the authority to pass upon issues
involving manifest errors in the certificates of canvass and the composition of the board or its
In the assailed Resolution dated March 17, 2006, the COMELEC en banc denied petitioner Chato’s proceedings. It also has the authority to pass upon the nullity of what otherwise is a null and void
motion for reconsideration ruling that the Commission already lost jurisdiction over the case in proclamation.
view of the fact that respondent Unico had already taken his oath as a Member of the Thirteenth
(13th) Congress. It reasoned, thus:
With respect to petitioner Chato’s case, the MBC allegedly violated Section 20 of RA 7166 by failing
to rule on her objections during the canvassing of votes. The PBC allegedly confounded this error
2
by refusing to correct the alleged manifest errors in the election returns or certificate of canvass and the proclamation of the winners, including questions concerning the composition of the board
before it. The COMELEC, for its part, allegedly committed grave abuse of discretion when it did of canvassers and the authenticity of the election returns; and "qualifications" to matters that could
not annul the proclamation of respondent Unico even as it allegedly possessed such authority as be raised in a quo warranto proceeding against the proclaimed winner, such as his disloyalty or
well as to correct manifest errors in the election returns and certificates of canvass, and order the ineligibility or the inadequacy of his certificate of candidacy.12 (Emphasis supplied).
re-counting of the ballots. Petitioner Chato emphasized that the COMELEC has the power of
supervision and control over boards of canvassers, including the power to review, revise and/or
The Court has invariably held that once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath,
set aside their rulings. Although the COMELEC, through the First Division in its earlier order
and assumed office as a Member of the House of Representatives, the COMELEC’s jurisdiction
suspending the effects of respondent Unico’s proclamation, ordered the examination of the
over election contests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications ends, and the HRET’s own
evidence and documents submitted by the parties, petitioner Chato avers that the COMELEC
jurisdiction begins.13 Stated in another manner, where the candidate has already been proclaimed
never disclosed the outcome of this supposed examination.
winner in the congressional elections, the remedy of the petitioner is to file an electoral protest
with the HRET.14
She thus urges the Court to order the COMELEC to direct the examination of the election returns
of the municipality of Labo, Camarines Norte, or release the results thereof if one had already been
In the present case, it is not disputed that respondent Unico has already been proclaimed and
undertaken; constitute and convene a new MBC, and direct the same to prepare a new election
taken his oath of office as a Member of the House of Representatives (Thirteenth Congress); hence,
return, accomplish a new certificate of canvass and submit it to the PBC; direct the PBC to
the COMELEC correctly ruled that it had already lost jurisdiction over petitioner Chato’s petition.
reconvene and canvass the new certificate of canvass, and subsequently proclaim the winning
The issues raised by petitioner Chato essentially relate to the canvassing of returns and alleged
candidate for the lone congressional district of Camarines Norte.
invalidity of respondent Unico’s proclamation. These are matters that are best addressed to the
sound judgment and discretion of the HRET. Significantly, the allegation that respondent Unico’s
The petition is bereft of merit. proclamation is null and void does not divest the HRET of its jurisdiction:

Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution reads: x x x [I]n an electoral contest where the validity of the proclamation of a winning candidate who
has taken his oath of office and assumed his post as Congressman is raised, that issue is best
addressed to the HRET. The reason for this ruling is self-evident, for it avoids duplicity of
SEC. 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which
proceedings and a clash of jurisdiction between constitutional bodies, with due regard to the
shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their
people’s mandate.15
respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom
shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six
shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be Further, for the Court to take cognizance of petitioner Chato’s election protest against respondent
chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or Unico would be to usurp the constitutionally mandated functions of the HRET. 16 Petitioner Chato’s
organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the remedy would have been to file an election protest before the said tribunal, not this petition for
Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman. certiorari. The special civil action of certiorari is available only if there is concurrence of the
essential requisites, to wit: (1) the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
Construing this provision in Pangilinan v. Commission on Elections, 10 the Court held that:
amounting to lack of jurisdiction, and (b) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law to annul or modify the proceeding. There must be capricious,
x x x The Senate and the House of Representatives now have their respective Electoral Tribunals arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power for certiorari to prosper. 17
which are the "sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their
respective Members," thereby divesting the Commission on Elections of its jurisdiction under the
All told, the COMELEC en banc clearly did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it issued
1973 Constitution over election cases pertaining to the election of the Members of the Batasang
the assailed Resolution dated March 17, 2006 holding that it had lost jurisdiction upon respondent
Pambansa (Congress). x x x
Unico’s proclamation and oath-taking as a Member of the House of Representatives. On the
contrary, it demonstrated fealty to the constitutional fiat that the HRET shall be the sole judge of all
With respect to the House of Representatives, it is the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of its members.
(HRET) that has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction over contests relative to the election, returns
and qualifications of its members. The use of the word "sole" in Section 17, Article VI of the
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Constitution and in Section 250 of the Omnibus Election Code underscores the exclusivity of the
Electoral Tribunals’ jurisdiction over election contests relating to its members. 11
SO ORDERED.
Further, the phrase "election, returns, and qualifications" has been interpreted in this wise:

The phrase "election, returns, and qualifications" should be interpreted in its totality as referring to
all matters affecting the validity of the contestee’s title. But if it is necessary to specify, we can say
that "election" referred to the conduct of the polls, including the listing of voters, the holding of the
electoral campaign, and the casting and counting of votes; "returns" to the canvass of the returns
3
Digest: The Senate and the House of Representatives now have their respective
Electoral Tribunals which are the “sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
Vinzons-Chato v. COMELEC
returns, and qualifications of their respective Members, thereby divesting the
G.R. No.
Commission on Elections of its jurisdiction under the 1973 Constitution over
election cases pertaining to the election of the Members of the Batasang Pambansa
Facts:
(Congress). It follows that the COMELEC is now bereft of jurisdiction to hear and
Petitioner Chato and respondent Renato J. Unico were among the candidates for the
decide the pre-proclamation controversies against members of the House of
lone congressional district of Camarines Norte during the May 10, 2004 synchronized national and
Representatives as well as of the Senate.
local elections.
The Honorable Court reiterated the aforequoted ruling in the recent case of Aggabao vs.
On May 14, 2004, at 11:30 a.m., the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC) proclaimed
COMELEC, et al. (G.R. No. 163756, January 26, 2005), where it held that:
respondent Unico as representative-elect of the lone congressional district of Camarines Norte. On
The HRET has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relative to
July 2, 2004, the COMELEC (First Division) ordered the suspension of the effects of the
the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives.
proclamation of respondent Unico. On July 23, 2004, it lifted the said order on the ground that Thus, once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed
respondent Unico’s proclamation and taking of oath of office had not only divested the office as a Member of the House of Representatives, COMELEC’s jurisdiction over
Commission of any jurisdiction to pass upon his election, returns, and qualifications, but also election contests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications ends, and the
automatically conferred jurisdiction to another electoral tribunal. HRET’s own jurisdiction begins.
Subsequently, the COMELEC (First Division) issued the Resolution dated April 13,
2005, dismissing the petition for lack of merit. It stated preliminarily that the Municipal Board of Considering that private respondent Renato Unico had already taken his oath and assumed office
Canvassers (MBC) is precluded from entertaining pre-proclamation controversies on matters as member of the 13th Congress, the Commission had already lost jurisdiction over the case.
relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody, and appreciation of the election returns
or certificates of canvass involving the positions of President, Vice-President, Senators, and
Members of the House of Representatives and Party-List.
The COMELEC (First Division) also held that the MBC or PBC had no
discretion on matters pertaining to the proclamation of the winning candidates because they were
simply performing a ministerial function. Absent a lawful order from the COMELEC to suspend or
annul a proclamation, the PBC of Camarines Norte, in particular, was mandated to comply with its
duties and functions including the proclamation of respondent Unico as the winning candidate for
the lone congressional district of Camarines Norte. His petition was dismissed for utter lack of
merit.
Aggrieved, petitioner Chato filed a motion for reconsideration thereof which was
elevated to the COMELEC en banc for resolution.

Issue:
Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of jurisdiction.
Held:

No. In the assailed Resolution dated March 17, 2006, the COMELEC en banc denied
petitioner Chato’s motion for reconsideration ruling that the Commission already lost jurisdiction
over the case in view of the fact that respondent Unico had already taken his oath as a Member of
the Thirteenth (13th) Congress. It reasoned, thus:
In Pangilinan vs. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 105278, November 18, 1993), the
Supreme Court made a categorical pronouncement that: