G.R. Nos. 207199-200. October 22, 2013.

*
WIGBERTO R. TAÑADA, JR., petitioner, vs. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS, ANGELINA D. TAN, AND ALVIN JOHN S.
TAÑADA, respondents.
Constitutional Law; House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
(HRET); Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
provides that the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal is the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications
of its respective members.—Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution provides that the HRET is the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns, and qualifica-
_______________
* EN BANC.
189
VOL. 708, 189
OCTOBER 22,
2013
Tañada, Jr. vs.
Commission on Elections
tions of its respective members: Sec. 17. The Senate and the House
of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall
be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns,
and qualificationsof their respective Members. Each Electoral
Tribunal, shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be
Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice,
and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of
Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis
of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties
or organizations registered under the party-list system represented
therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its
Chairman.
Election Law; Commission on Elections (COMELEC); House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET); Jurisdiction; Case law
states that the proclamation of a congressional candidate following the
election divests the Commission on Elections of jurisdiction over
disputes relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the
proclaimed representative in favor of the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal.—Case law states that the proclamation of a
congressional candidate following the election divests the COMELEC
of jurisdiction over disputes relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of the proclaimed representative in favor of the HRET.
The phrase “election, returns and qualifications” refers to all matters
affecting the validity of the contestee’s title. In particular, the term
“election” refers to the conduct of the polls, including the listing of
voters, the holding of the electoral campaign, and the casting and
counting of the votes; “returns” refers to the canvass of the returns and
the proclamation of the winners, including questions concerning the
composition of the board of canvassers and the authenticity of the
election returns; and “qualifications” refers to matters that could be
raised in a quo warranto proceeding against the proclaimed winner,
such as his disloyalty or ineligibility or the inadequacy of his CoC.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
Jehremiah C. Asis and Wilfred D. Asis and Tañada, Vivo &
Tan for petitioner.190
190 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Tañada, Jr. vs. Commission
on Elections
V.Y. Eleazar Law Office for respondent Alvin John S.
Tañada.
George Erwin M. Garcia for respondent Angelina D. Tan.
RESOLUTION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in
1

relation to Rule 64 of the Rules of Court is the

Resolution dated April 25, 2013 of the Commission on
2

Elections (COMELEC) En Banc declaring respondent Alvin

John S. Tañada not a nuisance candidate.
The Facts
 Petitioner Wigberto R. Tañada, Jr., (Wigberto) and
respondents Angelina D. Tan (Angelina) and Alvin John S.
Tañada (Alvin John) were contenders for the position of
Member of the House of Representatives for the 4th District of
Quezon Province in the just concluded May 13, 2013 National
Elections. Wigberto ran under the banner of the Liberal Party;
3

Alvin John was the official congressional candidate of Lapiang

Manggagawa; while Angelina was fielded by the National
People’s Coalition. 4

On October 10, 2012, Wigberto filed before the COMELEC

two separate petitions: first, to cancel Alvin John’s CoC ; and, 5

_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 5-48.
2 Id., at pp. 457-472. Signed by COMELEC Chairman Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr. and
Commissioners Lucenito N. Tagle, Elias R. Yusoph, Christian Robert S. Lim, and Maria Gracia
Cielo M. Padaca.
3 See id., at pp. 78-79 (Certificate of Candidacy [CoC] of Wigberto), id., at pp. 80-81 (CoC
of Alvin John), and id., at pp. 82-83 (CoC of Angelina).
4 Id., at pp. 11-12.
5 Id., at pp. 479-487.
191
VOL. 708, OCTOBER 191
22, 2013
Tañada, Jr. vs. Commission
on Elections
second, to declare him as a nuisance candidate. The said 6

petitions were docketed as SPA Nos. 13-056 (DC) and 13-057

(DC), respectively.
In a Resolution dated January 29, 2013, the COMELEC
7

First Division dismissed both petitions for lack of merit. On

Wigberto’s motion for reconsideration, the COMELEC En 8

Banc, in a Resolution dated April 25, 2013, upheld the

9

COMELEC First Division’s ruling in SPA No. 13-057 (DC) that

Alvin John was not a nuisance candidate as defined under
Section 69 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 881, as amended,
10

otherwise known as the “Omnibus Election Code of the

Philippines” (OEC). However, in SPA No. 13-056 (DC), it
11

granted the motion for reconsideration and cancelled Alvin

John’s CoC for having committed false material
representations concerning his residency in accordance with
Section 78 of the OEC.
12 13

_______________
6 Id., at pp. 527-536.
7 Id., at pp. 446-456. Signed by Presiding Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento and
Commissioners Armando C. Velasco and Christian Robert S. Lim.
8 Id., at pp. 642-652.
9 Id., at pp. 457-472.
10 Section 69. Nuisance candidates.—The Commission may motu proprio or upon a
verified petition of an interested party, refuse to give due course to or cancel a certificate of
candidacy if it is shown that said certificate has been filed to put the election process in
mockery or disrepute or to cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of the names of
the registered candidates or by other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that the
candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy
has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate.
11 Rollo, pp. 464-466.
12 Section 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy.—A
verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed
by the person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as
required under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition
192
192 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Tañada, Jr. vs. Commission
on Elections
On May 15, 2013, Wigberto filed a 2nd Motion for Partial
Reconsideration of the COMELEC En Banc’s ruling in SPA
14

No. 13-057 (DC) on the ground of newly discovered evidence.

He alleged that Alvin John’s candidacy was not bona
fide because: (a) Alvin John was merely forced by his father to
file his CoC; (b) he had no election paraphernalia posted in
official COMELEC posting areas in several barangays of
Gumaca, Quezon Province; (c) he did not even vote during the
May 13, 2013 National Elections; and (d) his legal
representation appeared to have been in collusion with the
lawyers of Angelina. 15

On May 15 and 16, 2013, Wigberto filed with the

COMELEC En Banc an Extremely Urgent Motion to Admit
Additional and Newly Discovered Evidence and to Urgently
Resolve Motion for Reconsideration and an Urgent 16

Manifestation and Supplemental thereto. These motions, 17

however, remained un-acted upon until the filing of the present

petition before the Court on May 27, 2013. Thus, in order to
avoid charges of forum-shopping, said motions were withdrawn
by Wigberto.
In a related development, despite the cancellation of Alvin
John’s CoC due to his material misrepresentations therein, his
name was not deleted from — and thus, remained printed on
— the ballot, prompting Wigberto to file a motion with the 18

Provincial Board of Canvassers of Quezon Province (PBOC)

asking that the votes cast in the name of Alvin John
_______________
may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the
certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen
days before the election.
13 Rollo, pp. 466-471.
14 Id., at pp. 665-669.
15 See id., at pp. 20-22, and 33-37.
16 Id., at pp. 689-695.
17 Id., at pp. 708-713.
18 The said motion is not attached to the records of this case.
193
VOL. 708, OCTOBER 193
22, 2013
Tañada, Jr. vs. Commission
on Elections
be credited to him instead in accordance with the Court’s ruling
in Dela Cruz v. COMELEC and COMELEC Resolution No.
19

9599. The PBOC, however, denied Wigberto’s motion in a

20

Resolution dated May 16, 2013, holding that the votes of Alvin
21

John could not be counted in favor of Wigberto because the

cancellation of the former’s CoC was on the basis of his
material misrepresentations under Section 78 of the OEC and
not on being a nuisance candidate under Section 69 of the same
law. Consequently, the PBOC canvassed the votes of all three
contenders separately, and thereafter, on May 16, 2013,
proclaimed Angelina as the winning candidate for the position
of Member of the House of Representatives for the 4th District
of Quezon Province. According to Wigberto, it was for the
22

foregoing reason that he impleaded Angelina as a party-

respondent in the instant petition for certiorari. 23

It appears, however, that Wigberto had already filed with the

COMELEC a Petition to Annul the Proclamation of Angelina
(Petition to Annul) under SPC No. 13-013, asserting that had
the PBOC followed pertinent rulings, the votes cast for Alvin
24

John would have been counted in his favor which could have
resulted in his victory. While the Petition to Annul was still
25

pending resolution, Wigberto initiated the instant certiorari

case against the COMELEC En BancResolution dated April
25, 2013 declaring Alvin John not a nuisance candidate.
_______________
19 G.R. No. 192221, November 13, 2012, 685 SCRA 347.
20 Entitled “IN THE MATTER OF THE AMENDMENT TO RULE 24 OF THE COMELEC RULES OF
PROCEDURE, AS AMENDED BY RESOLUTION NO. 9523”; dated December 21, 2012.
21 See Rollo, p. 841. The said resolution is not attached to the records of this case.
22 Id., at p. 9.
23 Id., at p. 8.
24 Referring to, inter alia, the rulings in Fernandez v. Fernandez (G.R. No. L-32675,
November 3, 1970, 36 SCRA 1) and Dela Cruz v. COMELEC (supra note 19).
25 Rollo, p. 9.
194
194 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Tañada, Jr. vs. Commission
on Elections
On July 3, 2013, Wigberto filed a Manifestation informing 26

the Court that he had caused the filing of an Election

Protest Ad Cautelam entitled “Wigberto R. Tañada, Jr. v.
Angelina ‘Helen’ D. Tan,” before the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal (HRET), which was docketed as Electoral
Protest Case No. 13-018.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), on behalf of public
respondent COMELEC, affirmed in its Comment dated August
18, 2013, that an Election Protest Ad Cautelam had, indeed,
27

been filed by Wigberto against Angelina before the HRET,

praying that he be declared the winner in the 2013
congressional race in the 4th District of Quezon Province. It
also alleged that on June 28, 2013, the COMELEC Second
Division issued a Resolution annulling the proclamation of
Angelina as Member of the House of Representatives for the
4th District of Quezon Province. The propriety of this ruling is
now pending resolution before the COMELEC En Banc. 28

The Issues Before the Court

Wigberto assails the COMELEC En Banc Resolution dated
April 25, 2013 declaring that Alvin John was not a nuisance
candidate as defined under Section 69 of the OEC. In
consequence, he seeks that the votes cast in favor of Alvin John
be credited to him and, thereafter, to be declared the winning
candidate for the congressional post.
The Court’s Ruling
The petition must fail.
Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
provides that the HRET is the sole judge of all contests relat-
_______________
26 Id., at pp. 830-831.
27 Id., at pp. 836-856.
28 Id., at p. 842.
195
VOL. 708, OCTOBER 195
22, 2013
Tañada, Jr. vs. Commission
on Elections
ing to the election, returns, and qualifications of its respective
members:
Sec. 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each
have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral
Tribunal, shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall
be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief
Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or
the House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be
chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the
political parties and the parties or organizations registered under
the party-list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the
Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
Case law states that the proclamation of a congressional
candidate following the election divests the COMELEC of
jurisdiction over disputes relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of the proclaimed representative in favor of the
HRET. The phrase “election, returns and qualifications”
29

refers to all matters affecting the validity of the contestee’s

title. In particular, the term “election” refers to the conduct of
30

the polls, including the listing of voters, the holding of the

electoral campaign, and the casting and counting of the votes;
“returns” refers to the canvass of the returns and the
proclamation of the winners, including questions concerning
the composition of the board of canvassers and the authenticity
of the election returns; and “qualifications” refers to matters
that could be raised in a quo warranto proceeding against the
_______________
29 Jalosjos, Jr. v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 192474, 192704, and 193566, June 26, 2012, 674
SCRA 530, 534-535.
30 Vinzons-Chato v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 172131, April 2, 2007, 520 SCRA 167, 178,
citing Rasul v. COMELEC, 371 Phil. 760, 766; 313 SCRA 18, 23 (1999).
196
196 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Tañada, Jr. vs. Commission
on Elections
proclaimed winner, such as his disloyalty or ineligibility or the
inadequacy of his CoC. 31

In the foregoing light, considering that Angelina had already

been proclaimed as Member of the House of Representatives
for the 4th District of Quezon Province on May 16, 2013, as she
has in fact taken her oath and assumed office past noon time
of June 30, 2013, the Court is now without jurisdiction to
32

resolve the case at bar. As they stand, the issues concerning

the conduct of the canvass and the resulting proclamation of
Angelina as herein discussed are matters which fall under the
scope of the terms “election” and “returns” as above-stated and
hence, properly fall under the HRET’s sole jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno (CJ.), Carpio, Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta,
Abad, Villarama, Jr., Mendoza, Reyes and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Velasco, Jr., J., No part being the HRET Chairman.
Bersamin, J., No part being a Member of the HRET.
Del Castillo and Perez, JJ., On Official Leave.
Petition dismissed.
Notes.—The ten-day prescriptive period under the 1998
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) Rules
does not apply to disqualification cases based on citizenship —
citizenship being a continuing requirement, one who as-
_______________
31 Id., at p. 179, citing Barbers v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 165691, June 22, 2005, 460 SCRA
569, 582.
32 Rollo, pp. 807-808. See Angelina’s Manifestation (In Lieu of Comment) dated July 24,
2013.
197
 VOL. 708, OCTOBER 197
22, 2013
Tañada, Jr. vs. Commission
on Elections
sails a member’s citizenship or lack of it may still question the
same at any time, the ten-day prescriptive period
notwithstanding. (Limkaichong vs. Commission on Elections,
583 SCRA 1 [2009])
Once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his
oath and assumed office as a member of the House of
Representatives, Commission on Elections’ (COMELEC’s)
jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election,
returns, and qualifications ends and the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal’s (HRET’s) own
jurisdiction begins; Court does not have jurisdiction to pass
upon the eligibility of the private respondent who was already
a Member of the House of Representatives at the time of filing
of the petition for certiorari. (Gonzalez vs. Commission on
Elections, 644 SCRA 761 [2011])
——o0o——