PEREZ vs COMELEC and AGUINALDO G.R. No. 133944. October 28, 1999

PEREZ vs COMELEC and AGUINALDO      G.R. No. 133944.  October 28, 1999

FACTS:

                On March 26, 1998, private respondent filed his certificate of candidacy for Representative of the Third District of Cagayan in the May 11, 1998 elections.  Four days later, on March 30, 1998, petitioner, as a voter and citizen, filed in the COMELEC a petition for the disqualification of private respondent as a candidate on the ground that he had not been a resident of the district for at least one (1) year immediately before the day of the elections as required by Art. VI, §6 of the Constitution.

On May 10, 1998, the First Division of the COMELEC, in a unanimous resolution,^[11] dismissed the petition for disqualification, finding private respondent Aguinaldo qualified to run as representative for the Third District of Cagayan.

ISSUE:

                Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition for certiorari and eventually pass upon private respondent’s eligibility for the office of Representative of the Third District of Cagayan?

RULING:

     …the following provision of R.A. No. 6646:

Sec. 6  Effect of Disqualification Case. ¾ 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 (COMELEC) 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.

“As already stated, the petition for disqualification against private respondent was decided by the First Division of the COMELEC on May 10, 1998.  The following day, May 11, 1998, the elections were held.  Notwithstanding the fact that private respondent had already been proclaimed on May 16, 1998 and had taken his oath of office on May 17, 1998, petitioner still filed a motion for reconsideration on May 22, 1998, which the COMELEC en banc denied on June 11, 1998.  Clearly, this could not be done.  Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 6646 authorizes the continuation of proceedings for disqualification even after the elections if the respondent has not been proclaimed.  The COMELEC en banc had no jurisdiction to entertain the motion because the proclamation of private respondent barred further consideration of petitioner’s action.  In the same vein, considering that at the time of the filing of this petition on June 16, 1998, private respondent was already a member of the House of Representatives, this Court has no jurisdiction over the same.  Pursuant to Art. VI, §17 of the Constitution, the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal has the exclusive original jurisdiction over the petition for the declaration of private respondent’s ineligibility.  As this Court held in Lazatin v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal:^[14]”

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

When does section 6 of R.A. 6646 apply to petitions for disqualifying a candidate and when does it not apply?

In the case supra, R.A 6646, section 6 cannot be applied since there was already a decision made by COMELEC based on substantial evidence, dismissing the petition for disqualification, finding private respondent Aguinaldo qualified to run as representative for the Third District of Cagayan. Accordingly he was proclaimed elected and, on May 17, 1998, he was sworn in office. It therefore barred further consideration of petitioner’s action.

“Petitioner’s remedies should have been:

1)      to reiterate her prayer in the petition for disqualification, and move for the issuance of an order by the COMELEC suspending the proclamation of private respondent pending the hearing of the said petition and, in the event the motion was denied before the proclamation of private respondent, file a petition for certiorari in this Court with a prayer for a restraining order to enjoin the proclamation of private respondent;

2)      to file a petition for quo warranto in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal within ten (10) days after the proclamation of private respondent as Representative-elect on May 16, 1998.”

“In the case of Lonzanida where this court held that the clear legislative intent is that the COMELEC should continue the trial and hearing of the disqualification case to its conclusion i.e., until judgment is rendered.  The outright dismissal of the petition for disqualification filed before the election but which remained unresolved after the proclamation of the candidate sought to be disqualified will unduly reward the said candidate and may encourage him to employ delaying tactics to impede the resolution of the petition until after he has been proclaimed.”

“…In Aguam v. COMELEC this Court held- ‘Time and again this Court has given its imprimatur on the principle that COMELEC is with authority to annul any canvass and proclamation which was illegally made.  The fact that a candidate proclaimed has assumed office, we have said, is no bar to the exercise of such power.  It of course may not be availed of where there has been a valid proclamation.  Since private respondent’s petition before the COMELEC is precisely directed at the annulment of the canvass and proclamation, we perceive that inquiry into this issue is within the area allocated by the Constitution and law to COMELEC xxx Really, were a victim of a proclamation to be precluded from challenging the validity thereof after that proclamation and the assumption of office thereunder, baneful effects may easily supervene.”

“It must be emphasized that the purpose of a disqualification proceeding is to prevent the candidate from running or, if elected.  From serving, or to prosecute him for violation of the election laws.  Obviously, the fact that a candidate has been proclaimed elected does not signify that his disqualification is deemed condoned and may no longer be the subject of a separate investigation.”