codilla sr v de venecia

- mandamus and quo warranto v de venecia and sec-gen nazareno to compel to

implement decision of comelec en banc to let him take his oath and register his
name on the roll of members and against respondent locsin for usurpation
- both candidates for 4th district of leyte during may 2001 elections, codilla sr =
mayor of ormoc, locsin = rep of 4th district
- may 8, 2001 - josephine de la cruz, reg voter of kananga leyte, filed petition
for dq vs codilla sr - indirectly soliciting votes from registered voters of
kananga and matag-ob in violation of sec 68a of oec, alleged that pet used
government equipment and vehicles to extract, haul, and distribute gravel and sand
to the places to induce/influence/corrupt them to vote for him
- attached to petitions were affidavits, a joint-affidavit, extract records from
police blotter, and photographs showing government dump trucks, haulers and
surfacers, and portions of public roads allegedly filled-in and surfaced through
intercession of respondent
- at time of election, regional election director had yet to hear the case, initial
results: petitioner won
- may 16 motion to suspend proclamation by locsin
- june 14, 2001 - comelec: dq petitioner and proclaim respondent as winner
- comelec en banc: reverse 2nd division decision
- codilla proclaimed by provincial board of canvassers - sept 12, 2001
- mandamus will not lie: affects membership of the house, noting in rules of the
hor which imposes duty on house speaker to implement comelec decision
- comelec no jd = hret; determination of who sits =/= ministerial function cannot
mandamus

w/n proclamation of respondent locsin is valid = NO

- petitioner denied due process
- not notified of pet to dq through service of summons nor of the motion to suspend
proclamation
- 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, his violation of the provisions of the preceding sections
shall not prevent his proclamation and assumption to office
- the Court or Commission (COMELEC) shall continue with the trial or 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.
- comelec 2nd division: no specific findings that guilt is strong; gad - no hearing
= violation of sec 6 ra 6646 and violation of comelec reso 3402 requiring regional
election director to complete the hearing and reception of evidence
- petioner's motion to lift the order of suspension cannot be substituted for
hearing in the dq case
- it was only upon the filing of the Urgent Manifestation by Codilla that the
Members of the Commission (Second Division) and other Members of the Commission en
banc had the opportunity to consider Codillas affidavits. This time, Codilla was
able to present his side, thus, completing the presentation of evidentiary
documents from both sides
- careful reading of the petitioners Memorandum shows that he confined his
arguments in support of his Motion to Lift the Order of Suspension. In said
Memorandum, petitioner raised the following issues: (a) he was utterly deprived of
procedural due process, and consequently, the order suspending his proclamation is
null and void; (b) the said order of suspension of proclamation has no legal and
factual basis; and (c) evidence of guilt on his part is patently inexistent for the
purpose of directing the suspension of his proclamation. He urged the COMELEC
Second Division to conduct a full dress hearing on the main disqualification case
should the suspension be lifted
- not substantial evidence in second division, no hearing
- To be disqualified under the above-quoted provision, the following elements must
be proved: (a) the candidate, personally or through his instructions, must have
given money or other material consideration; and (b) the act of giving money or
other material consideration must be for the purpose of influencing, inducing, or
corrupting the voters or public officials performing electoral functions.
- The effect of a decision declaring a person ineligible to hold an office is only
that the election fails entirely, that the wreath of victory cannot be transferred
from the disqualified winner to the repudiated loser because the law then as now
only authorizes a declaration in favor of the person who has obtained a plurality
of votes, and does not entitle the candidate receiving the next highest number of
votes to be declared elected. In such case, the electors have failed to make a
choice and the election is a nullity. To allow the defeated and repudiated
candidate to take over the elective position despite his rejection by the
electorate is to disenfranchise the electorate without any fault on their part and
to undermine the importance and meaning of democracy and the peoples right to elect
officials of their choice.
- Respondent Locsin proffers a distinction between a disqualification based on
personal circumstances such as age, residence or citizenship and disqualification
based on election offenses. She contends that the election of candidates later
disqualified based on election offenses like those enumerated in section 68 of the
Omnibus Election Code should be invalidated because they violate the very essence
of suffrage and as such, the votes cast in his favor should not be considered. This
is without merit.

w/n proclamation of respondent divested the comelec en banc of jd to review its

validity - no
- validity of respondent's proclamation = core issue of pet's mr = in promulgating
the resolution in violation of its own rules of procedure and in directing therein
the immediate proclamation of the second highest vote getter.
- hret has no jd = The issue on the validity of the Resolution of the COMELEC
Second Division has not yet been resolved by the COMELEC en banc; The instant case
does not involve the election and qualification of respondent Locsin.
- A petition for quo warranto may be filed only on the grounds of ineligibility and
disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines.
- In the case at bar, neither the eligibility of the respondent Locsin nor her
loyalty to the Republic of the Philippines is in question. There is no issue that
she was qualified to run, and if she won, to assume office.

w/n it is the ministerial duty of the speaker to recognize the legitimate winner
- A purely ministerial act or duty is one which an officer or tribunal performs in
a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a
legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the
propriety or impropriety of the act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a public
officer and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed,
such duty is discretionary and not ministerial. The duty is ministerial only when
the discharge of the same requires neither the exercise of official discretion or
judgment.
- the administration of oath and the registration of the petitioner in the Roll of
Members of the House of Representatives representing the 4th legislative district
of Leyte is no longer a matter of discretion on the part of the public respondents.
The facts are settled and beyond dispute: petitioner garnered 71,350 votes as
against respondent Locsin who only got 53, 447 votes in the May 14, 2001 elections.
The COMELEC Second Division initially ordered the proclamation of respondent
Locsin; on Motion for Reconsideration the COMELEC en banc set aside the order of
its Second Division and ordered the proclamation of the petitioner. The Decision of
the COMELEC en banc has not been challenged before this Court by respondent Locsin
and said Decision has become final and executory. In sum, the issue of who is the
rightful Representative of the 4th legislative district of Leyte has been finally
settled by the COMELEC en banc, the constitutional body with jurisdiction on the
matter. The rule of law demands that its Decision be obeyed by all officials of the
land. There is no alternative to the rule of law except the reign of chaos and
confusion.

velasco v belmonte
- Tan alleged that Reyes made several material misrepresentations in her COC, i.e.,
"(i) that she is a resident of Brgy. Lupac, Boac, Marinduque; (ii) that she is a
natural-born Filipino citizen; (iii) that she is not a permanent resident of, or an
immigrant to, a foreign country; (iv) that her date of birth is July 3, 1964; (v)
that her civil status is single; and finally (vi) that she is eligible for the
office she seeks to be elected to."5 The case was docketed as SPA No. 13-053 (DC),
entitled "Joseph Socorro B. Tan v. Atty. Regina Ongsiako Reyes."

w/n mandamus to administer oath in favor of velasco

- not quo warranto: comelec decision is final and executory, petition is not to
determine the respondents rights
- "when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the
performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from
an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and
enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no
other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law" = mandamus;
prosper if it is shown that the subject thereof is a ministerial act or duty, and
not purely discretionary
- The duty is ministerial only when the discharge of the same requires neither the
exercise of official discretion or judgment.
- respondent belmonte and sec gen have no discretion whether or not to administer
the oath of office to Velasco and to register the latter's name in the Roll of
Members of the House of Representatives, respectively.
- her proclamation, oath and assumption of office - has not altered the legal
situation between Velasco and Reyes.
- The most crucial time is when Reyes's COC was cancelled due to her non-
eligibility to run as Representative of the Lone District of the Province of
Marinduque - for without a valid COC, Reyes could not be treated as a candidate in
the election and much less as a duly proclaimed winner. That particular decision of
the COMELEC was promulgated even before Reyes' s proclamation, and which was
affirmed by this Court's final and executory Resolutions dated June 25, 2013 and
October 22, 2013.
- Velasco has a right to warrant grant of present petition and supported by: COC
cancelled before proclamation, court upheld comelec decision, comelec cancelled the
proclamation and was not contested by reyes, reyes took oath before belmonte during
open session = no valid coc nor valid proc
- HRET acknowledged they had no jd for the qw vs reyes bec not a bona fide member
of the House of Representatives for lack of a valid proclamation.
- comelec decision = final and executory, not an issue who won, it velasco

abayon v hret
- daza's arguments: (1) forum shopping; (2) the resolution dismissing Abayon's
protest had become final and executory for his failure to file a motion for
reconsideration thereof; and (3) the petition did not indicate in its caption the
original case number before the HRET. Moreover, Daza contended that the petition
was without merit because the HRET could continue or discontinue the revision
proceedings motu propio. In addition, he stated that the case had been mooted by
the promulgation of the HRET decision declaring him as the winner in the last
electoral process.

w/n hret has jd to annul elections in contested precincts in lavezares and victoria
- yes
- abayon argues that the annulment of the election results in the contested
precincts was beyond the jurisdiction of the HRET as the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the House of
Representatives; only COMELEC en banc can annul or declare failure of elections
- daza: HRET has power to annul when fraud and terrorism AND it differs from
comelec powers
- Abayon and Daza do not contest the exclusive jurisdiction of the HRET to decide
election protests filed against members of the House of Representatives. They,
however, diverge as to the extent of its jurisdiction.
- hret power necessarily includes those which raise the issue of fraud, terrorism
or other irregularities committed before, during or after the elections. To deprive
the HRET the prerogative to annul elections would undermine its constitutional fiat
to decide election contests. The phrase "election, returns and qualifications"
should be interpreted in its totality as referring to all matters affecting the
validity of the contestee' s title.
- HRET, as the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of members of the House of Representatives, may annul election
results if in its determination, fraud, terrorism or other electoral irregularities
existed to warrant the annulment. Because in doing so, it is merely exercising its
constitutional duty to ascertain who among the candidates received the majority of
the valid votes cast.
- the difference between the annulment of elections by electoral tribunals and the
declaration of failure of elections by the COMELEC cannot be gainsaid. First, the
former is an incident of the judicial function of electoral tribunals while the
latter is in the exercise of the COMELEC's administrative function. Second,
electoral tribunals only annul the election results connected with the election
contest before it whereas the declaration of failure of elections by the COMELEC
relates to the entire election in the concerned precinct or political unit. As
such, in annulling elections, the HRET does so only to determine who among the
candidates garnered a majority of the legal votes cast. The COMELEC, on the other
hand, declares a failure of elections with the objective of holding or continuing
the elections, which were not held or were suspended, or if there was one, resulted
in a failure to elect. When COMELEC declares a failure of elections, special
elections will have to be conducted.
- ANNULMENT ONLY WHEN WARRANTED
- there is no overlap of jurisdiction because when the COMELEC declares a failure
of elections on the ground of violence, intimidation, terrorism or other
irregularities, it does so in its administrative capacity. In contrast, when
electoral tribunals annul elections under the same grounds, they do so in the
performance of their quasi-judicial functions.
- observes that only three (3) witnesses testified that they voted for Abayon out
of fear from the NDF-EV. The other witnesses merely described the alleged violence
committed by the NFD-EV but did not expound whether the same had ultimately made
other voters vote for Abayon.
- Neither did the testimonies of P/SSupt. Tonog and Col. Capulong corroborate the
fact that the alleged terrorism by the NDF-EV caused voters to vote for Abayon.
These testimonies do not prove that voters in the concerned precincts indeed voted
for Abayon out of fear of the NDF-EV.
- Daza presented three (3) voters as witnesses to establish that they were coerced
by NDF-EV armed partisan to vote for Abayon during the 2013 Elections. Their
collective testimonies, however, fail to impress. First, their testimonies made no
reference to Abayon's alleged participation in the purported terroristic acts
committed by the NDF-EV. Second, Daza's witnesses alone are insufficient to prove
that indeed terrorism occurred in the contested precincts and the same affected at
least 50% of the votes cast therein. The testimonies of three (3) voters can hardly
represent the majority that indeed their right to vote was stifled by violence.
With the allegation of widespread terrorism, it would have been more prudent for
Daza to present more voters who were coerced to vote for Abayon as a result of the
NDFEV's purported violence and intimidation.
- PNP and COMELEC: no failure of elections, generally orderly
- The testimonies of a minute portion of the registered voters in the said
precincts should not be used as a tool to silence the voice of the majority
expressed through their votes during elections. To do so would disenfranchise the
will of the majority and reward a candidate not chosen by the people to be their
representative.
- the decision of the HRET was clearly unsupported by clear and convincing
evidence. Thus, the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion in annulling the
elections in the contested precincts and disregarding the respective number of
votes received by Abayon and Daza from the precincts, which led to its conclusion
that Daza was the one elected by the majority of voters in the First Legislative
District of Northern Samar to be their Representative in Congress. Hence, Abayon
should be reinstated as the duly elected Representative of the said legislative
district.
- Daza cannot claim that the issue had been mooted by his assumption to office
because the same is premised on the fact that the HRET had correctly ruled Daza to
be the duly elected representative. A moot and academic case is one that ceases to
present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a
declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value; still a justiciable
controversy-who between Daza and Abayon was truly chosen by the majority of voters
of the First Legislative District of Northern Samar to be their representative.

reyes v comelec
- Petitioner alleges that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it took
cognizance of "newly-discovered evidence" without the same having been testi:ed on
and offered and admitted in evidence. She assails the admission of the blog article
of Eli Obligacion as hearsay and the photocopy of the Certi:cation from the Bureau
of Immigration. She likewise contends that there was a violation of her right to
due process of law because she was not given the opportunity to question and
present controverting evidence.
-