GR 268546 Lazaro Javier (Digest)
G.R. No. 268546 , August 6, 2024
AN WARAY PARTY-LIST, REPRESENTED BY FLORENCIO GABRIEL “BEM” NOEL, AND VICTORIA ISABEL NOEL, IN HER OWN PERSONAL CAPACITY, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, DANILO T. PORNIAS, JR., AND JUDE A. ACIDRE, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) ordered the cancellation of the registration of AN WARAY Party-list. The COMELEC found that AN WARAY arrogated unto itself the authority to have its 2nd nominee, Victoria Isabel Noel, take her oath and assume office in the House of Representatives despite knowing it was only entitled to one seat during the 2013 National and Local Elections per NBOC Resolution No. 13-030 (PL)/0004-14. The COMELEC held that this violated Section 6(5) of Republic Act No. 7941 and the NBOC Resolution. The Majority of the Supreme Court denied the Petition for Certiorari, upholding the COMELEC’s jurisdiction and ruling.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC had jurisdiction over the petition for cancellation of AN WARAY’s party-list registration, which directly affected its membership in the House of Representatives, or whether such jurisdiction belonged exclusively to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET).
RULING
The Dissenting Opinion of Justice Lazaro-Javier held that the COMELEC did NOT have jurisdiction over the petition. The core of the controversy specifically delved into the qualifications of the incumbent AN WARAY itself, which appeared in the Larger House through its agent, Representative Noel. Disqualifying the incumbent AN WARAY was a declaration of a House Member’s lack of qualifications. This falls under Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution , which grants the HRET sole, exclusive, and absolute jurisdiction as the “sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members.” This exclusive jurisdiction applies to nominees of winning party-lists who sit in the House. The constitutional power of the HRET must be construed as complete and unimpaired. The Dissent posited that the Court cannot confer carte blanche jurisdiction upon the COMELEC when it exercises its statutory role of canceling a party-list’s registration if the effect is to disqualify a sitting member of the House, a matter reserved by the Constitution to the HRET.