GR L 80007; (January, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-80007. January 25, 1988. CARMELO F. LAZATIN, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO R. BUAN, JR., and LORENZO G. TIMBOL, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Carmelo F. Lazatin was proclaimed winner of the congressional elections for the First District of Pampanga. He subsequently took his oath of office, assumed the position, and began discharging his duties as a Member of the House of Representatives. However, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) later issued a resolution annulling his proclamation. Rival candidates Francisco R. Buan, Jr. and Lorenzo G. Timbol alleged that the proclamation was hasty and illegal, as it was made while their separate pre-proclamation protests against certain election returns were still pending resolution before the COMELEC.
Lazatin filed this petition, challenging the COMELEC’s jurisdiction to annul his proclamation. He argued that, under Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution , the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) had become the sole judge of all contests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications upon his assumption of office. The Solicitor General supported the petition, contending the proclamation was valid as it was made pursuant to a COMELEC telex order authorizing the canvassing board to proclaim a winner.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC retained jurisdiction to annul the proclamation of petitioner Lazatin after he had taken his oath of office and assumed his duties as a Member of the House of Representatives.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner Lazatin and set aside the COMELEC’s revocation of his proclamation. The legal logic is anchored on the constitutional delineation of jurisdiction between the COMELEC and the Electoral Tribunal. The Court held that once a candidate has been proclaimed winner, has taken his oath, and has assumed office as a Member of the House of Representatives, jurisdiction over any question pertaining to his election, including the validity of his proclamation, shifts exclusively to the HRET.
This is mandated by Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution , which vests in the Electoral Tribunal the sole authority to be the judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of its members. Consequently, the COMELEC was divested of its jurisdiction to annul the proclamation. Any alleged irregularities in the proclamation process, such as its prematurity or the pendency of pre-proclamation protests, are matters that fall within the HRET’s domain to examine and resolve. For the Supreme Court to allow the COMELEC to proceed would constitute a usurpation of the HRET’s constitutional function.