Bello v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the eligibility of Juan Miguel "Mikey" Arroyo to be the nominee of the Ang Galing Pinoy Party-List (AGPP) for the May 10, 2010 elections. Petitioners argued that Arroyo, as an incumbent member of the House of Representatives and chairman of its Energy Committee, did not belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors that AGPP purportedly represents, specifically tricycle drivers and security guards. They also questioned his bona fide membership in AGPP for the required ninety-day period preceding the election. 2. Procedural History: Petitions for disqualification against Arroyo were filed with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) by various groups, including Bayan Muna Party-List and petitioners Maza and Ocampo. These petitions were dismissed by the COMELEC Second Division and subsequently by the COMELEC en banc. The COMELEC en banc ruled that the requirement for a nominee to belong to the marginalized sector was ultra vires and that Arroyo met the statutory requirements of being a bona fide member of AGPP for at least ninety days. Separately, petitioners Bello and Rosales sought a writ of mandamus to compel the COMELEC to disqualify AGPP's nominees for failing to submit required documentary evidence, but the COMELEC failed to act on their letters. After Arroyo was proclaimed and took his oath as a Member of the House of Representatives, petitions for quo warranto were filed before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET). 3. The Petition: The consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court sought to annul the COMELEC's resolutions dismissing the disqualification cases and to compel the COMELEC to disqualify AGPP's nominees. Petitioners argued that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. The petition in G.R. No. 191998, filed by Bello and Rosales, sought mandamus to compel the COMELEC to disqualify AGPP's nominees and prohibition to stop the COMELEC from giving due course to AGPP's participation. The petitions in G.R. Nos. 192769 and 192832 sought certiorari to nullify the COMELEC's dismissal of the disqualification cases against Arroyo. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the mandamus petition for prematurity and mootness, and the certiorari petitions for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the HRET now has exclusive jurisdiction over Arroyo's qualifications.
Issue(s)
Whether mandamus lies to compel the COMELEC to disqualify AGPP's nominees motu proprio or to cancel AGPP's registration. Whether the COMELEC can be enjoined from giving due course to AGPP's participation, canvassing its votes, and proclaiming it a winner; and whether the HRET has jurisdiction over the question of Arroyo's qualifications as AGPP's nominee after his proclamation and assumption to office as a member of the House of Representatives. On the substantive merits of disqualification.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions. G.R. No. 191998 was dismissed for prematurity and mootness. G.R. Nos. 192769 and 192832 were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the mandamus aspect (G.R. No. 191998): The Court held that mandamus does not lie because the petitioners failed to exhaust plain, speedy, and adequate remedies available under the law, specifically, filing a petition for disqualification under COMELEC Resolution No. 8807 or a verified complaint for cancellation of registration under Section 6 of RA 7941. The Court noted that the petitioners confined themselves to writing letters to COMELEC, which did not constitute formal petitions. Resorting to mandamus without exhausting administrative remedies was deemed premature. The Court further stated that the prohibition aspect of the petition was mooted by Arroyo's election and proclamation as a Member of the House of Representatives, rendering the prayer for injunction futile. On the certiorari aspect (G.R. Nos. 192769 and 192832) and jurisdiction: The Court ruled that the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) has exclusive jurisdiction over the qualifications of party-list nominees once they have been proclaimed and have assumed office as Members of the House of Representatives. Citing previous rulings in Abayon v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Perez v. Commission on Elections, the Court reiterated that party-list representatives are considered "elected members" of the House, and their qualifications are subject to the HRET's sole judgment under Article VI, Section 17 of the Constitution. Since it was undisputed that Arroyo had been proclaimed and had taken his oath of office, the COMELEC's jurisdiction ended, and the HRET's jurisdiction began. The Court took judicial notice of the quo warranto petitions already filed before the HRET, confirming its exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions for lack of jurisdiction. On the substantive merits of disqualification (implicitly addressed): Although the Court dismissed the petitions on procedural and jurisdictional grounds, it implicitly affirmed the COMELEC's reasoning that the requirement for a nominee to belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector, as prescribed in COMELEC Resolution No. 8807, was ultra vires because it was not explicitly found in Republic Act No. 7941 (the Party-List System Act). The Court noted that RA 7941 primarily requires a nominee to be a "bona fide member" of the party or organization for at least ninety (90) days preceding the election, and to be at least twenty-five (25) years of age on election day. The Court found that Arroyo met these statutory requirements as determined by the COMELEC.
Main Doctrine
The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) has exclusive jurisdiction over the qualifications of party-list nominees once they have been proclaimed and have assumed office as Members of the House of Representatives, divesting the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) of such jurisdiction. Mandamus is not the proper remedy when plain, speedy, and adequate remedies like petitions for disqualification or cancellation of registration are available. Prohibition issues become moot once the election and proclamation have occurred.