G.R. No. L-25379 September 25, 1968
JOSE L. LACHICA and the LIBERAL PARTY, petitioners, vs. HON. JUAN E. YAP, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, SERGIO ABESAMES, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Jose L. Lachica, the Liberal Party candidate for Congressman of the Second District of Sorsogon, filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction. They sought to nullify an order dated November 29, 1965, issued by respondent Judge Juan E. Yap, which denied their petition for a judicial recount of ballots cast in several precincts. The petitioners also prayed for an order directing the respondent Judge to proceed with the recount and, assuming respondent Vicente L. Peralta (the Nacionalista Party candidate) had been proclaimed, to declare such proclamation null and void to ascertain the true winner after the recount. This Court gave due course to the petition on December 3, 1965. Respondent Vicente L. Peralta, in his answer, asserted there was no valid ground for a judicial recount and that his proclamation by the Provincial Board of Canvassers was a consummated fact, made in the regular performance of duty and without illegality. In a subsequent manifestation dated January 14, 1966, respondent Peralta informed the Court that he had been proclaimed, had taken his oath of office on December 30, 1965, and had assumed his duties as Congressman, rendering the petition moot. Petitioners, in a counter-manifestation, did not deny the fact of proclamation but urged the Court to still rule on the merits of their petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court can still rule on the petition for a judicial recount of ballots after the proclaimed candidate (respondent Vicente L. Peralta) has taken his oath of office and assumed the duties of a Member of the House of Representatives.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that after the proclamation of respondent Peralta and, more significantly, after he had taken his oath of office and commenced the discharge of his duties as the duly elected Congressman, the matter falls under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives. The Constitution vests the House Electoral Tribunal with the authority to be the “sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of its respective Members.” Citing the doctrine established in Angara v. Electoral Commission, the Court emphasized that this grant of power to the Electoral Tribunal is intended to be as complete and unimpaired as if it had remained originally in the legislature; it is full, clear, and complete. Prior to proclamation, the Supreme Court could have passed on the validity of the respondent Judge’s order in an appropriate proceeding. However, after proclamation and assumption of office, any ruling by the Supreme Court would curtail the plenary authority of the Electoral Tribunal and could lead to conflict between the constitutional agencies. The Court found the precedent in Nacionalista Party v. Commission on Elections applicable, where a similar petition was dismissed because the determination of the elected member’s qualification properly and exclusively pertained to the Senate Electoral Tribunal once the member had been proclaimed and assumed office. Consequently, the petition was denied for being moot and beyond the Court’s jurisdiction, without pronouncement as to costs.