Pangilinan v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Francis Pancratius N. Pangilinan and private respondent Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. were candidates for congressman in the fourth legislative district of Quezon City in the May 11, 1992 elections. On April 23, 1992, a petition for disqualification was filed against private respondent for alleged violation of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881) due to acts of vote-buying. The COMELEC referred this to its Law Department. On May 20, 1992, petitioner and others filed an Urgent Motion to Suspend Canvass and/or Proclamation, which the COMELEC failed to act upon. On May 22, 1992, five more disqualification petitions were filed against private respondent for violations of the Omnibus Election Code. During the canvass, petitioner objected to over 120 election returns, alleging tampering, alteration, or spuriousness. The Board of Canvassers overruled these objections, citing Section 15 of R.A. No. 7166 and Section 23 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2413, which disallow pre-proclamation controversies in House of Representatives elections. Petitioner also objected to the formation of canvassing committees without prior notice and opportunity to appoint watchers. Procedural History: The COMELEC failed to act on the Urgent Motion to Suspend Canvass and/or Proclamation. The Board of Canvassers overruled petitioner's objections to election returns and the formation of canvassing committees. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus seeking to compel the COMELEC to hear the disqualification petition, declare Section 15 of R.A. No. 7166 unconstitutional, compel the Board of Canvassers to give due course to his objections, and prohibit further canvass and proclamation. Petitioner argued that private respondent violated election laws, that Section 15 of R.A. No. 7166 is unconstitutional, and that he was denied due process.
Issue(s)
Whether Section 15 of R.A. No. 7166, disallowing pre-proclamation controversies in elections for Members of the House of Representatives, is unconstitutional; and whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction to hear and decide pre-proclamation controversies involving elections for Members of the House of Representatives. Whether petitioner was denied due process in the formation of canvassing committees.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The private respondent Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. has already been proclaimed as the winner, taken his oath, and assumed his duties. The proper remedy for the petitioner was to file an electoral protest with the Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives.
Ratio Decidendi
On the constitutionality of Section 15 of R.A. No. 7166 and COMELEC's jurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies in House of Representatives elections: The Court held that Section 15 of R.A. No. 7166 is constitutional and in harmony with the 1987 Constitution. The Court clarified that while Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution states that the COMELEC may promulgate rules to expedite the disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, this power must be read in conjunction with Section 2, Article IX-C. Section 2 grants the COMELEC exclusive original jurisdiction over contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of regional, provincial, and city officials, but not Members of the House of Representatives. Under Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, the Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of its members. Therefore, the phrase "including pre-proclamation controversies" in Section 3, Article IX-C refers only to those falling within the COMELEC's original jurisdiction, i.e., those concerning regional, provincial, and city officials. The Court distinguished the present case from Olfato, et al. vs. COMELEC, which was decided under the 1973 Constitution where the COMELEC had jurisdiction over Batasang Pambansa members' election contests. The 1987 Constitution abolished the Batasang Pambansa and vested legislative power in Congress, with its own Electoral Tribunals having sole jurisdiction over their members' election contests. Consequently, the COMELEC is now bereft of jurisdiction to hear and decide pre-proclamation controversies against members of the House of Representatives. The Solicitor General's comment, stating that objections relating to election returns fall within the sole jurisdiction of the House Electoral Tribunal, was cited as consistent with this interpretation. The Court found that Section 15 of R.A. No. 7166 correctly reflects this constitutional division of jurisdiction. On the denial of due process: Since the Court found that the COMELEC lacked jurisdiction over the pre-proclamation controversy, it deemed it unnecessary to pass upon the issue of due process concerning the canvassing committees. Furthermore, the private respondent had already been proclaimed, making the appropriate remedy an electoral protest before the Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives, not a petition before the Supreme Court concerning pre-proclamation issues.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has no jurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies involving elections for Members of the House of Representatives, as such jurisdiction is vested solely in the Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives under the 1987 Constitution. Section 15 of R.A. No. 7166 is constitutional and in harmony with the Constitution.