G.R. No. 105278 November 18, 1993
FRANCIS PANCRATIUS N. PANGILINAN, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF QUEZON CITY, 4TH LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT, and FELICIANO BELMONTE, JR., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Francis Pancratius N. Pangilinan and private respondent Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. were candidates for congressman in the fourth legislative district of Quezon City in the 11 May 1992 elections. Prior to the elections, a petition for disqualification (SPA Case No. 92-127) was filed against Belmonte, Jr. for alleged violation of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code (vote-buying). During the canvass, petitioner objected to over 120 election returns on grounds of being tampered, altered, or spurious. The Board of Canvassers overruled these objections, citing Section 15 of R.A. No. 7166 and Section 23 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2413, which disallow pre-proclamation controversies for members of the House of Representatives. Petitioner also objected to the creation of canvassing committees without prior notice. The COMELEC failed to act on an Urgent Motion to Suspend Canvass and/or Proclamation filed in the disqualification case. Belmonte, Jr. was eventually proclaimed winner, took his oath, and assumed office.

ISSUE

Whether Section 15 of R.A. No. 7166 , which disallows pre-proclamation controversies in the election of members of the House of Representatives, is unconstitutional for violating Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution , which grants the COMELEC the power to promulgate rules for the disposition of election cases, “including pre-proclamation controversies.”

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition. Section 15 of R.A. No. 7166 is constitutional and in harmony with the 1987 Constitution . The phrase “including pre-proclamation controversies” in Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution must be read in relation to Section 2, Article IX-C, which grants the COMELEC exclusive original jurisdiction over contests relating to elective regional, provincial, and city officials. The COMELEC has no jurisdiction over contests for Members of the House of Representatives; under Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution , the Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of its members. Consequently, the constitutional provision on pre-proclamation controversies refers only to cases within the COMELEC’s exclusive original jurisdiction. The ruling in Olfato v. COMELEC, which applied under the 1973 Constitution where the COMELEC had jurisdiction over Batasang Pambansa members, is no longer applicable. Since private respondent had already been proclaimed and assumed office, the proper remedy for the petitioner was to file an electoral protest with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.