CASE DIGEST
TAÑADA, JR. V. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
G.R. No. 217012, [March 1, 2016]
EN BANC, CARPIO, J.
HRET Jurisdiction; Nuisance
Candidate
The House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal (HRET) did not commit grave abuse of discretion in disclaiming
jurisdiction over the protest filed by herein petitioner Wigberto
"Toby" R. Tañada, Jr. (Wigberto). the HRET lacks the authority to rule on whether or not Alvin John is
indeed a nuisance candidate. The latte is not considered a "Member"
of Congress, as a non-member of Congress, the HRET could not therefore assume
jurisdiction over the issues concerning his eligibility, e.g. the issue on whether
he is a nuisance candidate.
Wigberto "Toby" R. Tañada,
Jr. (Wigberto) filed an election protest ad cautelam before the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) contesting the 2013 election results
for the Representative of the Fourth Legislative District of Quezon. Wigberto's protest stemmed from the
2013 elections where three candidates, including himself, contested the
position. For the May 13, 2013 National and Local Elections, the name of
candidate Alvin John remained in the ballots. After the canvass of the votes,
the following results indicated that Tan was the winning candidate, to wit: Tan
(84,782), Tañada, Wigberto (80,698) and Tañada, Alvin John (7,038). The Quezon
PBOC then proclaimed Tan as the winning candidate.
He filed petitions with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) seeking the cancellation of Alvin John's Certificate of Candidacy (CoC), on the basis of his material misrepresentations under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, but not on being a nuisance candidate under Section 69 of Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC dismissed the petitions, but later, on Wigberto's motion for reconsideration, cancelled Alvin John's CoC based on Section 78. While Wigberto's petition for certiorari was still pending in the Supreme Court, the COMELEC En Banc affirmed the action of the COMELEC Second Division annulling Tan's proclamation. However, Tan had by then taken her oath and assumed office past noon time of June 30, 2013, thereby rendering the adverse resolution on her proclamation moot.
Wigberto, after the election, filed an election protest before the HRET, alleging fraud in the fielding of Alvin John as a nuisance candidate, resulting in the miscounting of votes. The HRET dismissed the protest, asserting it lacked jurisdiction to declare Alvin John a nuisance candidate.
Whether or not HRET had jurisdiction to
declare Alvin John a nuisance candidate.
NO. The Supreme Court found that the HRET
did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in declaring that it lacked
jurisdiction to determine whether Alvin John was a nuisance candidate. Wigberto
committed procedural errors by filing a motion for reconsideration of the
COMELEC En Banc's ruling, which is expressly prohibited by the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure. The ruling had become final and executory, barring him from raising
the issue in another forum. If Wigberto had timely filed a petition
before the Supreme Court to question Alvin John's nuisance candidacy, the Court
could have assumed jurisdiction. The COMELEC En Banc's resolution on Alvin
John's alleged nuisance candidacy had already become final and executory by the
time Wigberto filed his petition before the Supreme Court.
The SC reasoned that it appears that
Wigberto's petition challenging Alvin John's nuisance candidacy filed before
the HRET, and now before this Court, is a mere afterthought. It was only after Tan
was proclaimed a winner that Wigberto renewed his zeal in pursuing Alvin John's
alleged nuisance candidacy. It is not enough for Wigberto to have Alvin John's
COC cancelled, because the effect of such cancellation only leads to stray
votes. Alvin John must also be declared a nuisance candidate, because only then
will Alvin John's votes be credited to Wigberto.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court
dismissed Wigberto's petition, affirming the HRET's Resolutions and emphasizing
the importance of timely and proper legal procedures in election cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment