G.R. No. 192856
March 8, 2011
Facts:
Petitioner
Fernando V. Gonzalez and private respondent Reno G. Lim both filed certificates
of candidacy for the position of Representative of the 3rd congressional
district of the Province of Albay in the May 10, 2010 elections. Lim was the
incumbent congressman of the 3rd district while Gonzalez was former Governor of
Albay.
A petition for Disqualification and
Cancellation of Certificate of Candidacy (COC) was filed by Stephen Bichara
[SPA No. 10-074 (DC)] on the ground that Gonzalez is a Spanish national, being
the legitimate child of a Spanish father and a Filipino mother, and that he
failed to elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority in
accordance with the provisions of Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 625.
Gonzalez denied having willfully
made false and misleading statement in his COC regarding his citizenship and
pointed out that Bichara had filed the wrong petition under Section 68 of
the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) to question his eligibility as a
candidate. Gonzalez also argued that the petition which should have been correctly
filed under Section 78 of the OEC was filed out of time. He asserted that he is
a Filipino citizen as his Alien Certificate of Registration was issued during
his minority. However, he took an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines. Since then he had comported himself as a Filipino considering that
he is married to a Filipina; he is a registered voter who voted during
elections; he has been elected to various local positions; he holds a
Philippine passport; and most importantly, he has established his life in the
Philippines as a Filipino.
The COMELEC’s Second Division
issued the assailed resolution which Respondent Fernando Vallejo Gonzalez is
declared disqualified to be a candidate for the position of Member of the House
of Representatives.
Finding the petition to be both a
petition for disqualification and cancellation of COC, the Second Division
ruled that the same was filed on time. It held that what Gonzalez submitted a
mere photocopy of his oath of allegiance which was not duly certified by the
National Statistics Office, and hence there was no compliance with the
requirement of filing with the nearest civil registry, the last act required of
a valid oath of allegiance under C.A. No. 625.
Gonzalez filed a motion for
reconsideration of the May 8, 2010 resolution. Gonzalez reiterated that the
Second Division’s finding that Bichara’s petition is both a petition for
disqualification and to cancel COC is not borne by the petition itself and
contrary to Section 68 of the OEC and COMELEC Resolution No. 8696. Applying
Section 78 of the OEC which is the proper petition based on alleged deliberate
misrepresentation and false statement in the COC, Gonzalez contended that
Bichara’s petition was filed out of time.
The COMELEC En Banc denied the
motion for reconsideration and affirmed its finding that Gonzalez failed to
prove with sufficient evidence that he had fully complied with the requirements
for electing Philippine citizenship under C.A. No. 625.
Gonzalez filed the instant petition
on July 29, 2010 while Lim filed a Very Urgent Motion For the Issuance of Writ
of Execution which the COMELEC granted on August 5, 2010.
Issue:
(1) Whether the petition in SPA No.
10-074 (DC) was timely filed;
(2) Whether Gonzalez was validly
proclaimed as the duly elected Representative of the 3rd District of Albay in
the May 10, 2010 elections; and
(3) Whether the COMELEC had lost
jurisdiction over the issue of Gonzalez’s citizenship.
Held:
The petition in SPA No. 10-074 (DC) was not timely filed.
The petition in SPA No. 10-074 (DC)
based on the allegation that Gonzalez was not a natural-born Filipino which was
filed before the elections, is in the nature of a petition filed under Section
78. The recitals in the petition in said case, however, state that it was filed
pursuant to Section 4 (b) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8696 and Section 68 of the
OEC to disqualify a candidate for lack of qualifications or possessing some
grounds for disqualification. The COMELEC treated the petition as one filed
both for disqualification and cancellation of COC, with the effect that Section
68, in relation to Section 3, Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, is
applicable insofar as determining the period for filing the petition.
Since the petition in SPA No.
10-074 (DC) sought to cancel the COC filed by Gonzalez and disqualify him as a
candidate on the ground of false representation as to his citizenship, the same
should have been filed within twenty-five days from the filing of the COC,
pursuant to Section 78 of the OEC. Gonzales filed his COC on December 1, 2009.
Clearly, the petition for disqualification and cancellation of COC filed by Lim
on March 30, 2010 was filed out of time. The COMELEC therefore erred in giving
due course to the petition.
Yes. Gonzalez should have been validly proclaimed as the
duly elected Representative of the 3rd District of Albay in the May 10, 2010
elections.
Even assuming arguendo that the
petition in SPA No. 10-074 (DC) was timely filed, we find that the COMELEC
gravely erred when it held that the proclamation of Gonzalez by the PBOC of
Albay on May 12, 2010 was premature and illegal.
The COMELEC ruled that the motion
for reconsideration of the COMELECs resolution filed by Gonzalez was pro forma and
hence did not suspend the execution of the COMELEC resolution disqualifying him
as a candidate, therefore making the resolution disqualifying him final
and executory, which had the effect of making Gonzalez subsequent
proclamation invalid and illegal. However, mere reiteration of issues
already passed upon by the court does not automatically make a motion for
reconsideration pro forma. Indeed, in the cases where a motion for
reconsideration was held to be , the motion was so held because (1) it
was a second motion for reconsideration, or (2) it did not comply with the rule
that the motion must specify the findings and conclusions alleged to be
contrary to law or not supported by the evidence, or (3) it failed to
substantiate the alleged errors, or (4) it merely alleged that the decision in
question was contrary to law, or (5) the adverse party was not given notice
thereof. In the case at bar,
the motion for reconsideration filed by Gonzalez failed to show that it suffers
from the foregoing defects, since it substantiated the arguments contained
therein. Not being pro forma, the MR should have suspended the execution
of the COMELEC resolution, and validated the proclamation of Gonzalez.
Yes. The COMELEC had lost jurisdiction over the issue of
Gonzalez’s citizenship.
The Court has invariably held that
once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath,
and assumed office as a Member of the House of Representatives, the
COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns,
and qualifications ends, and the HRET’s own jurisdiction begins.
Under Article VI, Section 17 of
the1987 Constitution, the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal is the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of
the members of the House of Representatives. Here, subsequent events showed
that Gonzalez had not only been duly proclaimed, he had also taken his oath of
office and assumed office as Member of the House of Representatives. The HRET
therefore has jurisdiction.
No comments:
Post a Comment