Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Sampayan vs. Daza, 213 SCRA 807

    Uploaded by

    Michelle Catadman
    106 views2 pages
    Petitioners sought to disqualify Congressman Daza from office, claiming he was a permanent resident of the US in violation of election laws. Daza denied being a permanent resident. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, finding it moot since Daza's term was ending. The Court also ruled the House Electoral Tribunal has sole jurisdiction over election contests and qualifications of members of Congress. Petitioners' remedies should have been to cancel Daza's candidacy before the election or file a quo warranto case with the HRET within 10 days of his proclamation.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Petitioners sought to disqualify Congressman Daza from office, claiming he was a permanent resident of the US in violation of election laws. Daza denied being a permanent resident. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, finding it moot since Daza's term was ending. The Court also ruled the House Electoral Tribunal has sole jurisdiction over election contests and qualifications of members of Congress. Petitioners' remedies should have been to cancel Daza's candidacy before the election or file a quo warranto case with the HRET within 10 days of his proclamation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    106 views2 pages

    Sampayan vs. Daza, 213 SCRA 807

    Uploaded by

    Michelle Catadman
    Petitioners sought to disqualify Congressman Daza from office, claiming he was a permanent resident of the US in violation of election laws. Daza denied being a permanent resident. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, finding it moot since Daza's term was ending. The Court also ruled the House Electoral Tribunal has sole jurisdiction over election contests and qualifications of members of Congress. Petitioners' remedies should have been to cancel Daza's candidacy before the election or file a quo warranto case with the HRET within 10 days of his proclamation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Sampayan vs.

    Daza
     on 6:42 AM  in Case Digests, Political Law 
     0
    213 SCRA 807

    o HRET has exclusive jurisdiction over election contests and qualifications of members of
    Congress
    o Remedies against a disqualified House of Representative candidate: (1) cancellation of
    certificate of candidacy filed with COMELEC before election; (2) quo warranto case filed with
    HRET after proclamation

    FACTS: 

    Petitioners filed a petition seeking to disqualify Daza, then incumbent congressman of their
    congressional district in Makati, from continuing to exercise the functions of his office on the
    ground that the latter is a greencard holder and a lawful permanent resident of the United States.
    They also alleged that Mr. Daza has not by any act or declaration renounced his status as
    permanent resident thereby violating the Omnibus Election Code (Section 68) and the 1987
    Constitution (section 18, Article III).

    Respondent Congressman filed his Comment denying the fact that he is a permanent resident of
    the United States as evidenced by a letter order of the US Immigration and Naturalization
    Service, Los Angeles, U.S.A, he had long waived his status when he returned to the Philippines
    on August 12, 1985.

    ISSUE: 

    o Whether or not respondent Daza should be disqualified as a member of the House


    of Representatives for violation of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code

    RULING:

    The Supreme Court vote to dismiss the instant case, first, the case is moot and academic for it is
    evident from the manifestation filed by petitioners dated April 6, 1992, that they seek to unseat
    the respondent from his position as Congressman for the duration of his term of office
    commencing June 30, 1987 and ending June 30, 1992. Secondly, jurisdiction of this case
    rightfully pertains to the House Electoral Tribunal. Under Section 17 of Article VI of the 1987
    Constitution, it is the House Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests
    relating to the election returns and qualification of its members.

    The petitioner’s appropriate remedy should have been to file a petition to cancel respondent
    Daza’s certificate of candidacy before the election or a quo warranto case with the House of
    Electoral Tribunal within ten days after Daza’s proclamation.

    You might also like