Republic of the Philippines A.

The Main Case

SUPREME COURT
Manila This special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or restraining order seeks
EN BANC the annulment and setting aside of (1) the resolution of the HRET, dated
May 2, 1988, in Case No. 46, holding that the protest filed by private
G.R. No. 84297 December 8, 1988 respondent had been filed on time, and (2) its July 29, 1988 resolution
denying the motion for reconsideration.
CARMELO F. LAZATIN, petitioner,
vs. Without giving due course to the petition, the Court required the
THE HOUSE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and LORENZO G. respondents to comment on the petition. The Solicitor General filed a
TIMBOL, respondents. comment in behalf of the HRET while the private respondent filed his
comment with a motion to admit counter/cross petition and the petitioner
Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala & Cruz for petitioner. filed his consolidated reply. Thereafter, the Court resolved to give due
course to the petition, taking the comments filed as the answers to the
petition, and considered the case submitted for decision.
The Solicitor General for respondents.
Resolution of the instant controversy hinges on which provision governs
the period for filing protests in the HRET. Should Sec. 250 of the
Omnibus Election Code be held applicable, private respondent's election
CORTES, J.: protest would have been filed out of time. On the other hand, if Sec. 9 of
the HRET Rules is applicable, the filing of the protest would be timely.
Petitioner and private respondent were among the candidates for Representative of the first district of Succinctly stated, the basic issue is whether or not private respondent's
Pampanga during the elections of May 11, 1987. During the canvassing of the votes, private
respondent objected to the inclusion of certain election returns. But since the Municipal Board of protest had been seasonably filed.
Canvassers did not rule on his objections, he brought his case to the Commission on Elections. On
May 19, 1987, the COMELEC ordered the Provincial Board of Canvassers to suspend the
proclamation of the winning candidate for the first district of Pampanga. However, on May 26, 1987, To support his contention that private respondent's protest had been filed
the COMELEC ordered the Provincial Board of Canvassers to proceed with the canvassing of votes out of time and, therefore, the HRET did not acquire jurisdiction over it,
and to proclaim the winner. On May 27, 1987, petitioner was proclaimed as Congressman-elect.
Private respondent thus filed in the COMELEC a petition to declare petitioners proclamation void ab petitioner relies on Sec. 250 of the Omnibus Election Code, which
initio. Later, private respondent also filed a petition to prohibit petitioner from assuming office. The provides:
COMELEC failed to act on the second petition so petitioner was able to assume office on June 30,
1987. On September 15, 1987, the COMELEC declared petitioner's proclamation void ab initio.
Petitioner challenged the COMELEC resolution before this Court in a petition entitled "Carmelo F. Sec. 250. Election contests for Batasang Pambansa,
Lazatin v. The Commission on Elections, Francisco R. Buan, Jr. and Lorenzo G. Timbol," docketed as
G.R. No. 80007. In a decision promulgated on January 25, 1988, the Court set aside the COMELEC's
regional, provincial and city offices. — A sworn petition
revocation of petitioner's proclamation. On February 8, 1988, private respondent filed in the House of contesting the election of any Member of the Batasang
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as HRET an election protest, docketed as Pambansa or any regional, provincial or city official shall
Case No. 46.
be filed with the Commission by any candidate who has
duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted
Petitioner moved to dismiss private respondent's protest on the ground for the same office, within ten days after the proclamation
that it had been filed late, citing Sec. 250 of the Omnibus Election Code of the results of the election. [Emphasis supplied.]
(B.P. Blg. 881). However, the HRET filed that the protest had been filed
on time in accordance with Sec. 9 of the HRET Rules. Petitioner's motion
Petitioner argues that even assuming that the period to file an election
for reconsideration was also denied. Hence, petitioner has come to this
protest was suspended by the pendency of the petition to annul his
Court, challenging the jurisdiction of the HRET over the protest filed by
proclamation, the petition was filed out of time, considering that he was
private respondent.
proclaimed on May 27, 1987 and therefore private respondent had only
until June 6, 1987 to file a protest; that private respondent filed a petition and the fifteen-day period for Protestant to file his protest
to annul the proclamation on May 28, 1987 and the period was must be reckoned from that date.
suspended and began to run again on January 28, 1988 when private
respondent was served with a copy of the decision of the Court in G.R, Protestant filed his protest on February 8, 1988, or eleven
No. 80007; that private respondent therefore only had nine (9) days left (11) days after January 28. The protest, therefore, was
or until February 6, 1988 within which to file his protest; but that private filed well within the reglementary period provided by the
respondent filed his protest with the HRET only on February 8, 1988. Rules of this Tribunal. (Rollo, p. 129.]

On the other hand, in finding that the protest was flied on time, the HRET The Court is of the view that the protest had been filed on time and,
relied on Sec. 9 of its Rules, to wit: hence, the HRET acquired jurisdiction over it.

Election contests arising from the 1987 Congressional Petitioner's reliance on Sec. 250 of the Omnibus Election Code is
elections shall be filed with the Office of the Secretary of misplaced. Sec. 250 is couched in unambiguous terms and needs no
the Tribunal or mailed at the post office as registered interpretation. It applies only to petitions filed before the
matter addressed to the Secretary of the Tribunal, COMELEC contesting the election of any Member of the Batasang
together with twelve (12) legible copies thereof plus one Pambansa, or any regional, provincial or city official. Furthermore, Sec.
(1) copy for each protestee, within fifteen (15) days from 250 should be read together with Sec. 249 of the same code which
the effectivity of these Rules on November 22, 1987 provides that the COMELEC "shall be the sole judge of all contests
where the proclamation has been made prior to the relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of all Members of the
effectivity of these Rules, otherwise, the same may be Batasang Pambansa, elective regional, provincial and city officials,"
filed within fifteen (15) days from the date of the reiterating Art. XII-C, Sec. 2(2) of the 1973 Constitution. It must be
proclamation. Election contests arising from the 1987 emphasized that under the 1973 Constitution there was no provision for
Congressional elections filed with the Secretary of the an Electoral Tribunal, the jurisdiction over election contests involving
House of Representatives and transmitted by him to the Members of the Batasang Pambansa having been vested in the
Chairman of the Tribunal shall be deemed filed with the COMELEC.
tribunal as of the date of effectivity of these Rules, subject
to payment of filing fees as prescribed in Section 15 That Sec. 250 of the Omnibus Election Code, as far as contests
hereof. [Emphasis supplied.] regarding the election, returns and qualifications of Members of the
Batasang Pambansa is concerned, had ceased to be effective under the
Thus, ruled the HRET: 1987 Constitution is readily apparent. First, the Batasang Pambansa has
already been abolished and the legislative power is now vested in a
On the basis of the foregoing Rule, the protest should bicameral Congress. Second, the Constitution vests exclusive jurisdiction
have been filed within fifteen (15) days from November over all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the
22, 1987, or not later than December 7, 1987. However, Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives in the
on September 15, 1987, the COMELEC acting upon a respective Electoral Tribunals [Art. VI, Sec. 171. The exclusive original
petition filed by the Protestant (private respondent jurisdiction of the COMELEC is limited by constitutional fiat to election
herein), promulgated a Resolution declaring the contests pertaining to election regional, provincial and city offices and its
proclamation void ab initio. This resolution had the effect appellate jurisdiction to those involving municipal and barangay offices
of nullifying the proclamation, and such proclamation was [Art. IX-C, Sec. 2(2)].
not reinstated until Protestant received a copy of the
Supreme Court's decision annulling the COMELEC Petitioner makes much of the fact that the provisions of the Omnibus
Resolution on January 28, 1988. For all intents and Election Code on the conduct of the election were generally made
purposes, therefore, Protestee's (petitioner herein) applicable to the congressional elections of May 11, 1987. It must be
proclamation became effective only on January 28, 1988,
emphasized, however, that such does not necessarily imply the returns and qualifications of the members of the legislative branch has
application of all the provisions of said code to each and every aspect of been exclusively granted either to the legislative body itself [i.e., the
that particular electoral exercise, as petitioner contends. On the contrary, Philippine Assembly under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Senate and
the Omnibus Election Code was only one of several laws governing said the House of Representatives under the Philippine Autonomy Act (Jones
elections. * Law)] or to an independent, impartial and non-partisan body attached to
the legislature [i.e., the Electoral Commission under the 1935
An examination of the Omnibus Election Code and the executive orders specifically applicable to the Constitution and the Electoral Tribunals under the amended 1935 and the
May 11, 1987 congressional elections reveals that there is no provision for the period within which to
file election protests in the respective Electoral Tribunals. Thus, the question may well be asked
1987 Constitutions].
whether the rules governing the exercise of the Tribunals' constitutional functions may be prescribed
by statute.
Except under the 1973 Constitution, the power granted is that of being
the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and
The Court is of the considered view that it may not. qualifications of the members of the legislative body. Article VI of the
1987 Constitution states it in this wise:
The power of the HRET, as the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns and qualifications of the Members of the House of See. 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives
Representatives, to promulgate rules and regulations relative to matters shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the
within its jurisdiction, including the period for filing election protests before sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns,
it, is beyond dispute. Its rule-making power necessarily flows from the and qualifications of their respective Members. Each
general power granted it by the Constitution. This is the import of the Electoral tribunal shall be composed of nine Members,
ruling in the landmark case of Angara v. Electoral Commission [63 Phil. three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to
139 (1936)], where the Court, speaking through Justice Laurel, declared be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six
in no uncertain terms: shall be Members of the Senate or the House of
Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be
... [The creation of the Electoral Commission carried with chosen on the basis of proportional representation from
it ex necessitate rei the power regulative in character to the political parties and the parties or organizations
limit the time within which protests entrusted to its registered under the party-list system represented therein.
cognizance should be filed. It is a settled rule of The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its
construction that where a general power is conferred or Chairman.
duly enjoined, every particular power necessary for the
exercise of the one or the performance of the other is also The use of the word "sole" emphasizes the exclusive character of the
conferred (Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, eighth ed., jurisdiction conferred [Angara v. Electoral Commission, supra, at 1621.
vol. 1, pp. 138, 139). In the absence of any further The exercise of the power by the Electoral Commission under the 1935
constitutional provision relating to the procedure to be Constitution has been described as "intended to be as complete and
followed in filing protests before the Electoral unimpaired as if it had remained originally in the legislature" [Id. at 175].
Commission, therefore, the incidental power to Earlier, this grant of power to the legislature was characterized by Justice
promulgate such rules necessary for the proper exercise Malcolm as "full, clear and complete" [Veloso v. Board of Canvassers of
of its exclusive power to judge all contests relating to the Leyte and Samar, 39 Phil. 886 (1919)]. Under the amended 1935
election, returns and qualifications of members of the Constitution, the power was unqualifiedly reposed upon the Electoral
National Assembly, must be deemed by necessary Tribunal Suanes v. Chief Accountant of the Senate, 81 Phil. 818 (1948)]
implication to have been lodged also in the Electoral and it remained as full, clear and complete as that previously granted the
Commission. [At p. 177; emphasis supplied.] legislature and the Electoral Commission Lachica v. Yap, G.R. No.
L25379, September 25, 1968, 25 SCRA 1401. The same may be said
A short review of our constitutional history reveals that, except under the with regard to the jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunals under the 1987
1973 Constitution, the power to judge all contests relating to the election, Constitution.
The 1935 and 1987 Constitutions, which separate and distinctly apportion sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and
the powers of the three branches of government, lodge the power to qualifications of their respective Members [Art. VI, Sec. 17].
judge contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of
members of the legislature in an independent, impartial and non-partisan The inescapable conclusion from the foregoing is that it is well within the
body attached to the legislature and specially created for that singular power of the HRET to prescribe the period within which protests may be
purpose (i.e., the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Tribunals) [see filed before it. This is founded not only on historical precedents and
Suanes v. Chief Accountant of the Senate, supra]. It was only under the jurisprudence but, more importantly, on the clear language of the
1973 Constitution where the delineation between the powers of the Constitution itself.
Executive and the Legislature was blurred by constitutional
experimentation that the jurisdiction over election contests involving Consequently, private respondent's election protest having been filed
members of the Legislature was vested in the COMELEC, an agency within the period prescribed by the HRET, the latter cannot be charged
with general jurisdiction over the conduct of elections for all elective with lack of jurisdiction to hear the case.
national and local officials.
B. Private-Respondent's Counter/Cross Petition
That the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended to restore fully to the
Electoral Tribunals exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relating to the
Private respondent in HRET Case No. 46 prayed for the issuance of a
election, returns and qualifications of its Members, consonant with the
temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin
return to the separation of powers of the three branches of government
petitioner herein from discharging his functions and duties as the
under the presidential system, is too evident to escape attention. The
Representative of the first district of Pampanga during the pendency of
new Constitution has substantially retained the COMELEC's purely
the protest. However, on May 5, 1988, the HRET resolved to defer action
administrative powers, namely, the exclusive authority to enforce and
on said prayer after finding that the grounds therefor did not appear to be
administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election,
indubitable. Private respondent moved for reconsideration, but this was
plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall; to decide, except those
denied by the HRET on May 30, 1988. Thus, private respondent now
involving the right to vote, all questions affecting elections; to deputize
seeks to have the Court annul and set aside these two resolutions and to
law enforcement agencies and government instrumentalities for election
issue a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction
purposes; to register political parties and accredit citizens' arms; to file in
on the premise that the grounds therefor are too evident to be doubted.
court petitions for inclusion and exclusion of voters and prosecute, where
appropriate, violations of election laws [Art. IX(C), Sec. 2(1), (3)-(6)], as
well as its rule-making power. In this sense, and with regard to these The relief prayed for in private respondent's counter/cross petition is not
areas of election law, the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code are forthcoming.
fully applicable, except where specific legislation provides otherwise. But
the same cannot be said with regard to the jurisdiction of the COMELEC The matter of whether or not to issue a restraining order or a writ of
to hear and decide election contests. This has been trimmed down under preliminary injunction during the pendency of a protest lies within the
the 1987 Constitution. Whereas the 1973 Constitution vested the sound discretion of the HRET as sole judge of all contests relating to the
COMELEC with jurisdiction to be the sole judge of all contests relating to election, returns and qualifications of the Members of the House of
the elections, returns and qualifications of all Members of the Batasang Representatives. Necessarily, the determination of whether or not there
Pambansa and elective provincial and city officials [Art. XII(C), Sec. 2(2)], are indubitable grounds to support the prayer for the aforementioned
the 1987 Constitution, while lodging in the COMELEC exclusive original ancilliary remedies also lies within the HRETs sound judgment. Thus, in
jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns and G.R. No. 80007, where the Court declined to take cognizance of the
qualifications of all elective regional, provincial and city officials and private respondent's electoral protest, this Court said:
appellate jurisdiction over contests relating to the election of municipal
and barangay officials [Art. IX(C), Sec. 2(2)]. expressly makes the The alleged invalidity of the proclamation (which had
Electoral Tribunals of the Senate and the House of Representatives the been previously ordered by the COMELEC itself) despite
alleged irregularities in connection therewith, and despite
 the pendency of the protests of the rival candidates, is a Narvasa, J., is on leave.
matter that is also addressed, considering the premises,
to the sound judgment of the Electoral Tribunal.  

Moreover, private respondent's attempt to have the Court set aside the Footnotes
HRET's resolution to defer action on his prayer for provisional relief is
undeniably premature, considering that the HRET had not yet taken any * Among the other applicable laws were Executive Order
final action with regard to his prayer. Hence, there is actually nothing to No. 134 (Enabling Law for the Elections for Members of
review or and and set aside. But then again, so long as the Constitution Congress on May 11, 1987, and for Other Purposes) and
grants the HRET the power to be the sole judge of all contests relating to E.O. No. 144 (Supplemental Law on the May 11, 1987
the election, returns and qualifications of Members of the House of Elections for Members of Congress), together with some
Representatives, any final action taken by the HRET on a matter within other executive orders on elections in general.
its jurisdiction shall, as a rule, not be reviewed by this Court. As stated
earlier, the power granted to the Electoral Tribunal is full, clear and
complete and "excludes the exercise of any authority on the part of this
Court that would in any wise restrict or curtail it or even affect the same."
(Lachica v. Yap, supra, at 143.] As early as 1938 in Morrero v. Bocar (66
Phil. 429, 431 (1938)), the Court declared that '[the judgment rendered by
the [Electoral] Commission in the exercise of such an acknowledged
power is beyond judicial interference, except, in any event, upon a clear
showing of such arbitrary and improvident use of the power as will
constitute a denial of due process of law." Under the 1987 Constitution,
the scope of the Court's authority is made explicit. The power granted to
the Court includes the duty "to determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government (Art. VIII,
Sec. 11. Thus, only where such grave abuse of discretion is clearly
shown shall the Court interfere with the HRET's judgment. In the instant
case, there is no occasion for the exercise of the Court's collective power,
since no grave abuse of discretion that would amount to lack or excess of
jurisdiction and would warrant the issuance of the writs prayed for has
been clearly shown.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is hereby DISMISSED. Private

respondent's Counter/Cross Petition is likewise DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Paras, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado,

JJ., concur.

Fernan, C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Sarmiento, Cruz and

Feliciano, JJ., took no part.