ROMEO M.
JALOSJOS, JR., G.R.
No. 192474
Petitioner,
Present:
CARPIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
- versus - PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
ABAD,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ,
MENDOZA,
SERENO,
REYES,
and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
and DAN ERASMO, SR.,
Respondents.
x ------------------------------------------ x
DAN ERASMO,
SR., G.R.
No. 192704
Petitioner,
- versus -
ROMEO M. JALOSJOS, JR. and
HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
Respondents.
x ------------------------------------------ x
DAN ERASMO,
SR., G.R.
No. 193566
Petitioner,
- versus -
Promulgated:
ROMEO M. JALOSJOS, JR.,
Respondent. June 26, 2012
x
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD, J.:
These cases reiterate the demarcation line between the
jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET).
The Facts and the Case
In May 2007 Romeo M. Jalosjos, Jr., petitioner in G.R. 192474,
ran for Mayor of Tampilisan, Zamboanga del Norte, and won. While serving as Tampilisan Mayor, he bought a
residential house and lot in
After eight months or on May 6, 2009 Jalosjos applied with
the Election Registration Board (ERB) of Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay, for the
transfer of his voters registration record to Precinct 0051F of
Undeterred, Erasmo filed a petition to exclude Jalosjos
from the list of registered voters of Precinct 0051F before the 1st
Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Ipil-Tungawan-R.T. Lim (MCTC).[3] After hearing, the MCTC rendered judgment on August
14, 2009, excluding Jalosjos from the list of registered voters in question. The MCTC found that Jalosjos did not abandon
his domicile in Tampilisan since he continued even then to serve as its Mayor. Jalosjos appealed[4]
his case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Jalosjos elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) through
a petition for certiorari with an
application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.[6]
On November 26, 2009 the CA granted his application
and enjoined the courts below from enforcing their decisions, with the result
that his name was reinstated in the
On November 28, 2009 Jalosjos filed his Certificate of
Candidacy (COC) for the position of Representative of the Second District of
Zamboanga Sibugay for the May 10, 2010 National Elections. This prompted Erasmo to file a petition to
deny due course to or cancel his COC before the COMELEC,[7]
claiming that Jalosjos made material misrepresentations in that COC when he
indicated in it that he resided in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay. But the Second Division of the COMELEC issued
a joint resolution, dismissing Erasmos petitions for insufficiency in form and
substance.[8]
While Erasmos motion for reconsideration was pending
before the COMELEC En Banc, the May 10, 2010 elections took place, resulting in
Jalosjos winning the elections for Representative of the Second District of
Zamboanga Sibugay. He was proclaimed winner
on May 13, 2010.[9]
Meantime, on June 2, 2010 the CA rendered judgment in the
voters exclusion case before it,[10]
holding that the lower courts erred in excluding Jalosjos from the voters list
of Barangay Veterans Village in Ipil since he was qualified under the
Constitution and Republic Act 8189[11]
to vote in that place. Erasmo filed a
petition for review of the CA decision before this Court in G.R. 193566.
Back to the COMELEC, on June 3, 2010 the En Banc granted
Erasmos motion for reconsideration and declared Jalosjos ineligible to seek
election as Representative of the Second District of Zamboanga Sibugay. It held that Jalosjos did not satisfy the
residency requirement since, by continuing to hold the position of Mayor of
Tampilisan, Zamboanga Del Norte, he should be deemed not to have transferred his
residence from that place to
Both Jalosjos and Erasmo came up to this Court on certiorari. In G.R. 192474, Jalosjos challenges the COMELECs
finding that he did not meet the residency requirement and its denial of his
right to due process, citing Roces v. House
of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.[12] In G.R. 192704, Erasmo assails the COMELEC En
Bancs failure to annul Jalosjos proclamation as elected Representative of the
Second District of Zamboanga Sibugay despite his declared ineligibility.
Subsequently, the Court ordered the consolidation of the
three related petitions.[13] In its comment,[14]
the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) sought the dismissal of Erasmos
petitions and the grant of that of Jalosjos since all such petitions deal with
the latters qualifications as proclaimed Representative of the district mentioned. The OSG claims that under Section 17, Article
VI of the 1987 Constitution, jurisdiction over this issue lies with the HRET.
Threshold Issue Presented
The threshold issue presented is whether or not the Supreme
Court has jurisdiction at this time to pass upon the question of Jalosjos
residency qualification for running for the position of Representative of the
Second District of Zamboanga Sibugay considering that he has been proclaimed
winner in the election and has assumed the discharge of that office.
The Courts Ruling
While the Constitution vests in the COMELEC the power to decide
all questions affecting elections,[15]
such power is not without limitation. It
does not extend to contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Constitution vests the resolution of
these contests solely upon the appropriate Electoral Tribunal of the Senate or
the House of Representatives.[16]
The
Court has already settled the question of when the jurisdiction of the COMELEC
ends and when that of the HRET begins.
The proclamation
of a congressional candidate following the election divests COMELEC of
jurisdiction over disputes relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of the proclaimed Representative in favor of the HRET.[17]
Here, when the COMELEC En
Banc issued its order dated June 3, 2010, Jalosjos had already been proclaimed
on May 13, 2010 as winner in the election.[18] Thus, the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction
when it still passed upon the issue of his qualification and declared him ineligible
for the office of Representative of the Second District of Zamboanga
Sibugay.
It is of course argued, as
the COMELEC law department insisted, that the proclamation of Jalosjos was an exception
to the above-stated rule.[19] Since the
COMELEC declared him ineligible to run for that office, necessarily, his
proclamation was void following the ruling in Codilla, Sr. v. De Venecia.[20]
For Erasmo, the COMELEC still has
jurisdiction to issue its June 3, 2010 order based on Section 6 of Republic Act
6646. Section 6 provides:
Section 6.
Effects of Disqualification Case. Any candidate who has been declared by final
judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him
shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final
judgment before an election to
be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in
such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and
hearing of the action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the complainant
or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the
proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong.
Here, however, the fact is
that on election day of 2010 the COMELEC En Banc had as yet to resolve Erasmos
appeal from the Second Divisions dismissal of the disqualification case
against Jalosjos. Thus, there then existed
no final judgment deleting Jalosjos name from the list of candidates for the congressional
seat he sought. The last standing
official action in his case before election day was the ruling of the COMELECs
Second Division that allowed his name to stay on that list. Meantime, the COMELEC En Banc did not issue
any order suspending his proclamation pending its final resolution of his case. With the fact of his proclamation and
assumption of office, any issue regarding his qualification for the same, like his
alleged lack of the required residence, was solely for the HRET to consider and
decide. [21]
Consequently, the Court
holds in G.R. 192474 that the COMELEC En Banc exceeded its jurisdiction in
declaring Jalosjos ineligible for the position of representative for the Second
District of Zamboanga Sibugay, which he won in the elections, since it had
ceased to have jurisdiction over his case.
Necessarily, Erasmos petitions (G.R. 192704 and G.R. 193566)
questioning the validity of the registration of Jalosjos as a voter and the
COMELECs failure to annul his proclamation also fail. The Court cannot usurp the power vested by
the Constitution solely on the HRET.[22]
WHEREFORE, the Court
GRANTS the petition in G.R. 192474, REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the respondent
Commission on Elections En Bancs order dated June 3, 2010, and REINSTATES the Commissions Second
Division resolution dated February 23, 2010 in SPA 09-114(DC), entitled Dan Erasmo, Sr. v. Romeo Jalosjos Jr. Further, the Court DISMISSES the petitions in G.R. 192704 and G.R. 193566 for lack of
jurisdiction over the issues they raise.
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
Associate Justice Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARTIN
S. VILLARAMA, JR. JOSE PORTUGAL
PEREZ
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
(On Official Leave)
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice Associate Justice
BIENVENIDO L. REYES ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Senior Associate Justice
(Per Section 12, R.A. 296,
The
Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended)
[1] Docketed as Case 0901.
[2] Resolution dated July 31, 2009.
[3] Docketed as Election Case 590.
[4] Docketed as Election Case 0006-2K9.
[5] Initially, the appeal was filed before the
Regional Trial Court of Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay, however, the appeal was
transferred to the RTC of Pagadian City after the inhibition of the Presiding
Judge of RTC Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.
[6] Docketed as CA-G.R. SP 03179-MIN.
[7] Docketed as SPA 09-114(DC).
[8] Joint Resolution of the Second Division of the
COMELEC dated February 23, 2010.
[9] Rollo (G.R. 192474), p. 436.
[10] Decision
dated June 2, 2010. Erasmos motion for
reconsideration was also denied by the CA in its Resolution dated August 10,
2010.
[11] The Voters
Registration Act of 1996.
[12] 506 Phil. 654 (2005).
[13] Resolutions dated July 20, 2010 and December
13, 2010.
[14] Comment dated October 11, 2010. Rollo
(G.R. 192474), pp. 638-653.
[15] Constitution (1987), Art. IX (B), Sec. 2, par. (3).
[16]
[17] Planas v. Commission on Elections, 519 Phil. 506, 512 (2006). See also Vinzons-Chato v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 172131, April 2, 2007, 520 SCRA 166, 178; Perez v. Commission on Elections, 375 Phil. 1106, 1115-1116 (1999), cited in Agpalo, R., Philippine Political Law, 2005 ed.
[18] Rollo (G.R. 192474), p. 436.
[19] In Mutuc v. Commission on Elections, 130 Phil. 663, 672 (1968), the Court held that: It is indeed true that after proclamation the usual remedy of any party aggrieved in an election is to be found in an election protest. But that is so only on the assumption that there has been a valid proclamation. Where as in the case at bar the proclamation itself is illegal, the assumption of office cannot in any way affect the basic issues. (Emphasis supplied)
[20] 442 Phil. 139 (2002).
[21] Perez v. Commission on Elections, supra note 17.
[22]