CASE 51

CHAVEZ VS COMELEC

Facts

Upon the issuance of the court’s resolution to declare senatorial candidate Melchor Chavez be
disqualified from running for position of senator in the May 11, 1992 elections, Francisco Chavez, petitioner in
this case, filed an urgent motion with the COMELEC, the herein respondent, to pray for the fastest means to
disseminate the court’s resolution. Moreover, petitioner prayed that all votes obtained by the disqualified
candidate be transferred to him. The COMELEC ordered the deletion of Melchor Chavez’s name from the list of
qualified candidates however, it failed to credit the latter’s obtained votes to the herein petitioner. Feeling
aggrieved, petitioner challenged the COMELEC’s proclamation of the 24th winning senatorial candidate thus,
asked the Senate Electoral Tribunal for a round of recount of votes.

Issue

Whether or not, the Senate Electoral Tribunal has jurisdiction over the herein case considering that,
petitioner’s wish to have recount is in consonance to the negligence of COMELEC’s function to delete the name
of the disqualified candidate, and considering further that, respondent has not commit errors to have been
doubted as a ground for the reopening of the ballots.

Ruling

No. the Senate Electoral Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the herein case. Thus, petitioner’s argument
is beside the point.

The court, in its most respectable words, made its pronouncement, “The law is very clear on the matter
and it is not right for petitioner to ask this Court to abandon settled jurisprudence, engage in judicial legislation,
amend the Constitution and alter the Omnibus Election Code. The mandatory procedures laid down by the
existing law in cases like the one at bar must be faithfully followed lest we allow anarchy to reign. The proper
recourse is for petitioner to ask not this Court but the Legislature to enact remedial measures.”

In this case, petitioner asked a constitutional body, the Senate Electoral Tribunal, to mainly act out of
its mandated jurisdiction. Petitioner’s wish cannot be granted clearly because, the grant of such prayer would
lead the court to override the existing laws, settled jurisprudence and other sources of law which, the court, with
its power, cannot alter however, most to resolve this case, is not the jurisdictional blessings enjoyed by the
electoral tribunal but a legislative enactment from of course, the prestigious province of the legislature.
CASE 52
GARCIA VS HRET

Facts

Harry Angping, the private respondent in this case, won the congressional election in the year 1998 to
which, said winning earned controversy hence, the need to decide for the present case. Garcia et al, the petitioners,
challenged the qualifications possessed by private respondent as mainly a ground for his disqualification further,
be declared as ineligible to hold office. Said constitutional qualification is citizenship, that private respondent is
a naturalized citizen. Petitioners filed their petition to the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal.
However, said petition was denied due to the absence of the P5000, a respective payment for filing fee.
Petitioners complied the said amount and submitted a motion for reconsideration together with the attached
receipt therewith. Yet, still, the same was denied.

Issue

Whether or not, the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal committed grave abuse of discretion,
considering that, petitioners claimed that their interpretation of their rules was too strict and literal, and
considering further that respondent invoked the late payment of the petitioners.

Ruling

No. the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
Petitioners’ contention is devoid of merit.

The court, accordingly said, “Correlatively, party litigants appearing before the HRET or to be more
precise, their lawyers, are duty bound to know and are expected to properly comply with the procedural
requirements laid down by the Tribunal without being formally ordered to do so. They cannot righteously impute
abuse of discretion to the Tribunal if by reason of the non-observance of those requirements it decides to dismiss
their petition. Imperative justice requires the proper observance of technicalities precisely designed to ensure its
proper and swift dispensation.”

In this case, it is so to assume however, that lawyers of the herein petitioners are bound to have exact
knowledge about the technicalities regarding the rules and procedures of the Electoral Tribunal, but despite such
knowledge, their action is on the contrary. The respondent acted prior to the fulfilment of its rules and procedures,
it is indeed, unjust to uphold charges against them because of the unfavourable consequences suffered by
petitioners knowing obviously, that the latter has committed error in the observance of their act.
CASE 53
SUANES VS CHIEF ACCOUNTANT

Facts

The Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET), in the year 1948, agreed through a resolution to propose for the
appointment of nine secretaries, one for each of the tribunal members having a rate of P3600 per annum. Suanes,
the herein petitioner, in relation to the tribunal’s resolution, was appointed as one of the secretaries. However,
he was also appointed by the Senate President to perform the same duty making conflict as to his salary rate.
Petitioner presented his appointment to the chief accountant, the herein respondent, but respondent honoured
the second appointment denying him to be entitled to such higher rate imposed by the tribunal.

Issue

Whether or not, Senate Electoral Tribunal is independent to its internal affairs considering that,
petitioner was first appointed by the chairman of the tribunal, and considering further that, respondent claimed
that the tribunal is part of the Senate and is not an independent body.

Ruling

Yes. The Senate Electoral Tribunal is independent with its internal affairs thus, the first appointment
of the petitioner is binding.

The fact that the appropriation for the Senate Electoral Tribunal is included in the budget corresponding
to the Senate, does not and cannot mean that the employees of the Electoral Tribunal are also employees of the
Senate, for both institutions are separate and independent of each other under the Constitution. Such inclusion
is due merely to section 182 of the Election Code which provides that expenses of the Electoral Tribunals shall
be paid from the funds of the respective houses of the Congress, not because said tribunals are dependencies of
Congress, but because as separate and independent bodies they are designed to try and settle issues for the benefit
of Congress.”

In this case, considering that the two appointments obtained by petitioner is with the same purpose,
that by serving the electoral tribunal as a secretary thereupon, petitioner therefore, is an employee of the tribunal
apart from the senate. Thus, the appointment contracted by the chairman of the tribunal and petitioner is lawful
and binding. Therefore, petitioner’s contention of invoking his true salary rate basing therefrom the rate imposed
by the tribunal is in no shadow of wrong however, it is, in fact, a correct manifestation that a tribunal acts for
the benefit of congress being independent with their own internal matters.
CASE 54
ROBLES VS HRET

Facts

Virgilio Robles, the petitioner in this case, and private respondent Romeo Santos, were district
representative candidates of the first district of Caloocan city in the year 1987 elections. Petitioner was
proclaimed the winner. Private respondent protested to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET),
the primary respondent in this case. Said protest was taken from the allegations of petitioner regarding electoral
fraud and various irregularities during election. Moreover, respondent ordered petitioner to identify initial 25%
of the respective precincts which he desires to have recount. Upon holding the initial result, respondent
terminated the remaining 75%. Petitioner withdrew his protest and filed for motion for recall. Later, petitioner
made his pronouncement that his motion be treated as a motion for reconsideration prior to the termination of
75%. The same was denied. Petitioner contended that HRET acted with grave abuse of discretion.

Issue

whether or not, HRET in its denial of the motion for reconsideration, acted with grave abuse of
discretion, considering that, petitioner himself withdrew his protest and contended that upon his withdrawal,
HRET lost its jurisdiction over the case, and considering further that respondent acted allegedly in compliance
with its rules and procedure.

Ruling

No. HRET did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration of the
petitioner. Hence, HRET has still jurisdiction over the case.

“The mere filing of the motion to withdraw protest on the remaining uncontested precincts, without any
action on the part of respondent tribunal, does not by itself divest the tribunal of its jurisdiction over the case.
Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated.”

In this case, petitioner dismissed his protest and filed a motion for recall, later, he prayed that his motion
for recall be treated as motion for reconsideration to reconsider the terminated 75% of his identified precincts.
This act of filing a motion for recall, and the later act of praying for the earlier motion be considered as a motion
for reconsideration is an indication that the case continues. Thus, the tribunal has not lost its jurisdiction over
the case. It is clear, upon the pronouncement of the court, that the jurisdiction of the tribunal to rule over a
certain case does not extinguish in the instance of a party but by termination of the case.