Pangilinan vs. Commission on Elections

Section 15 of R.A. No. 7166, disallowing pre-proclamation controversies in elections for members of the House of Representatives, is constitutional because the phrase "pre-proclamation controversies" in Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution refers only to election cases within the COMELEC's exclusive original jurisdiction, which does not include elections of House members, over whom the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal is the sole judge of all contests relating to election, returns, and qualifications.

The petitioner and private respondent were rival candidates for congressman in the fourth legislative district of Quezon City in the 11 May 1992 elections. The 1987 Constitution vests in the COMELEC "exclusive original jurisdiction over all contest relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial and city officials," while Section 17, Article VI designates the Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives as the "sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications" of its members. This constitutional framework replaced the 1973 Constitution, under which the COMELEC was the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all Members of the Batasang Pambansa and elective provincial and city officials.

Francis Pancratius N. Pangilinan and Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. were both candidates for congressman in the fourth legislative district of Quezon City in the 11 May 1992 elections. On 23 April 1992, Elmer Candano and Jose Umali, Jr., as registered voters of the district, filed with the COMELEC a petition for disqualification against Belmonte for violation of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881), docketed as SPA Case No. 92-127. The petition alleged that during a rally held on 1 April 1992 at Agno Street, Barangay Tatalon, Quezon City, Belmonte boasted and acknowledged that he gave one sack of rice, P5,000.00, and medicines to the community and had made available to them the services of a lawyer; and that in Barangay San Vicente, during the coronation night of 4 April 1992 of the winner of the Miss San Vicente pageant, Belmonte gave tickets for two to Hongkong to the winner, Miss Ana Marie Debil. The COMELEC referred the petition to its Law Department (Investigation and Prosecution Division) for preliminary investigation.

On 20 May 1992, Pangilinan, together with the complainants in SPA Case No. 92-127, filed an Urgent Motion to Suspend Canvass and/or Proclamation, alleging that the election returns for the fourth district were being canvassed by the City Board of Canvassers and that, to prevent the disqualification petition from becoming moot and academic, an immediate order directing the suspension of canvassing and proclamation was needed. The COMELEC failed to act on the motion. On 22 May 1992, five other petitions for disqualification against Belmonte were filed with the COMELEC for violation of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, outlawing the giving of money or other material consideration to influence, induce, or corrupt voters, and Section 261(k) of the same Code, making it unlawful to solicit votes during the day of the election.

During the canvass of the returns, Pangilinan, through counsel, objected to over 120 election returns being canvassed by the City Board of Canvassers on the ground that they were tampered, altered, or spurious. The City Board of Canvassers overruled the objections on the ground that under Section 15 of R.A. No. 7166 and Section 23 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2413, entitled "General Instructions for the Provincial/City/District and Municipal Board of Canvassers," pre-proclamation controversies are not allowed in the election of members of the House of Representatives. On 21 May 1992, the Board of Canvassers created canvassing committees to canvass the returns; Pangilinan objected to the creation of such committees on the ground that he was not duly informed thereof and was not given the opportunity to appoint watchers and/or counsel before the said committees. The Board of Canvassers ignored the objections and proceeded to canvass the returns.

Pangilinan then filed the present petition, claiming that the public respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion and/or exceeded their respective jurisdictions and/or unlawfully neglected to perform acts that the law requires them to do, and that there was no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. By the time the Court considered the petition, Belmonte had already been proclaimed as the winner in the fourth district of Quezon City, had taken his oath of office, and had assumed his duties as representative.

• Violation of the Omnibus Election Code as Ground for Disqualification: Petitioner argued that private respondent violated the penal provisions of the Omnibus Election Code, which is a ground for his disqualification to run for Congressman in accordance with Section 68 of the said Code, and which justifies the suspension of the canvass and proclamation of private respondent pursuant to Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646.
• Unconstitutionality of Section 15 of R.A. No. 7166: Petitioner argued that Section 15 of R.A. No. 7166 and Section 23 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2413, disallowing pre-proclamation controversies in the election of members of the House of Representatives, are unconstitutional because the Constitution vests in the COMELEC the power to hear and decide pre-proclamation controversies without distinction as to whether the controversy involves the election of Members of the House of Representatives or provincial or local elective officials.
• Denial of Due Process: Petitioner argued that he was denied his right to due process when canvass committees were formed without prior notice to him and without affording him the opportunity to appoint watchers therein.

• Consistency with the Constitution: The Solicitor General, in his Comment, observed that Section 15 of R.A. No. 7166 is consistent with Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which makes the Electoral Tribunal of the Senate and the House of Representatives the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective members; petitioner's objection relating to the preparation, transmission, and appreciation of the election returns or certificates of canvass falls within the sole jurisdiction of the House Electoral Tribunal.

• Constitutionality of Section 15 of R.A. No. 7166: Whether Section 15 of R.A. No. 7166, disallowing pre-proclamation controversies in elections for members of the House of Representatives, is unconstitutional for violating Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution.
• COMELEC Duty to Act on Disqualification Petition: Whether the COMELEC should be compelled to hear and decide the petition for disqualification of private respondent in SPA No. 92-127.
• Board of Canvassers' Duty to Give Due Course to Objections: Whether the Board of Canvassers should be compelled to give due course to petitioner's objections to 120 election returns and be prohibited from further canvassing and proclaiming the winning candidate.
• Due Process in Creation of Canvass Committees: Whether petitioner was denied his right to due process when canvass committees were formed without prior notice to him and without affording him the opportunity to appoint watchers therein.

• Constitutionality of Section 15 of R.A. No. 7166: No. Section 15 of R.A. No. 7166 is not unconstitutional; it is in harmony with the 1987 Constitution. The phrase "pre-proclamation controversies" in Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution refers only to pre-proclamation controversies in election cases that fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the COMELEC, i.e., election cases pertaining to the election of regional, provincial, and city officials.
• COMELEC Duty to Act on Disqualification Petition: Not passed upon. Having concluded that Section 15 of R.A. No. 7166 is constitutional, the Court found it unnecessary to pass upon the other issues raised in the petition.
• Board of Canvassers' Duty to Give Due Course to Objections: Not passed upon. The Court found it unnecessary to pass upon the other issues raised in the petition.
• Due Process in Creation of Canvass Committees: Not passed upon. The Court found it unnecessary to pass upon the other issues raised in the petition.

• Constitutionality of Section 15 of R.A. No. 7166: Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution should be read in relation to Section 2, Article IX-C of the same Constitution, which vests in the COMELEC "exclusive original jurisdiction over all contest relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial and city officials." The COMELEC has no jurisdiction over contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of Members of the House of Representatives. Under Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 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 phrase "including pre-proclamation controversies" used in Section 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution should be construed as referring only to "pre-proclamation controversies" in election cases that fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the COMELEC, i.e., election cases pertaining to the election of regional, provincial, and city officials.
• Reliance on Olfato Misplaced: The petitioner's reliance on Olfato, et al. vs. COMELEC, et al. (103 SCRA 741), wherein the Court held that the word "all" in Section 242 of the Omnibus Election Code covers all pre-proclamation controversies involving elections of Batasan, provincial, city, and municipal officials, is misplaced. The Olfato case was decided under the regime of the 1973 Constitution, under which the COMELEC was "the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all Members of the Batasang Pambansa and elective provincial and city officials." Since the COMELEC had jurisdiction over election contests pertaining to the election of Members of the Batasang Pambansa, it had, likewise, the power and authority to hear and decide pre-proclamation controversies involving the election of Members of the Batasang Pambansa. Since the 1973 Constitution has been replaced by the 1987 Constitution, the Batasang Pambansa stands abolished, and the legislative power is now vested in the Congress of the Philippines consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate and the House of Representatives now have their respective Electoral Tribunals which are the "sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members," thereby divesting the COMELEC of its jurisdiction under the 1973 Constitution over election cases pertaining to the election of the Members of the Batasang Pambansa (Congress). It follows that the COMELEC is now bereft of jurisdiction to hear and decide pre-proclamation controversies against members of the House of Representatives as well as of the Senate.
• Effect of Proclamation: The private respondent Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. has already been proclaimed as the winner in the fourth district of Quezon City. He has taken his oath of office and assumed his duties as representative; hence, the remedy open to the petitioner was to have filed an electoral protest with the Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives.

• COMELEC Jurisdiction over Pre-Proclamation Controversies — The phrase "pre-proclamation controversies" in Section 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution must be read in relation to Section 2, Article IX-C, which vests in the COMELEC exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials. The phrase refers only to pre-proclamation controversies in election cases that fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the COMELEC, not to elections of Members of the House of Representatives, over whom the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal is the sole judge.
• Constitutional Change from 1973 to 1987 Constitution — Under the 1973 Constitution, the COMELEC was the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all Members of the Batasang Pambansa and elective provincial and city officials. Under the 1987 Constitution, the Senate and the House of Representatives have their respective Electoral Tribunals as the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members, thereby divesting the COMELEC of jurisdiction over election cases pertaining to the election of Members of the Batasang Pambansa (Congress).

• "Sec. 3, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution should be read in relation to Sec. 2, Article IX-C of the same Constitution which provides, among others, as follows: Sec. 2 The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions: x x x (2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contest relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials." — This passage establishes the interpretive framework for determining the scope of COMELEC jurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies, anchoring the phrase in Section 3 to the jurisdictional grant in Section 2.
• "Consequently, the phrase 'including pre-proclamation controversies' used in Sec. 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution should be construed as referring only to 'pre-proclamation controversies' in election cases that fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the COMELEC, i.e., election cases pertaining to the election of regional, provincial and city officials." — This is the ratio decidendi of the case, defining the scope of COMELEC jurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies under the 1987 Constitution.
• "It follows that the COMELEC is now bereft of jurisdiction to hear and decide pre-proclamation controversies against members of the House of Representatives as well as of the Senate." — This passage states the direct legal consequence of the constitutional framework, confirming the validity of Section 15 of R.A. No. 7166.

• Olfato, et al. vs. COMELEC, et al., 103 SCRA 741 — Distinguished. The Court held that the word "all" in Section 242 of the Omnibus Election Code covers all pre-proclamation controversies involving elections of Batasan, provincial, city, and municipal officials, but this was decided under the 1973 Constitution, under which the COMELEC had jurisdiction over election contests pertaining to the election of Members of the Batasang Pambansa. The case is no longer controlling under the 1987 Constitution.

• Section 15, R.A. No. 7166 — Disallows pre-proclamation cases in elections for President, Vice-President, Senator, and Members of the House of Representatives on matters relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody, and appreciation of election returns or certificates of canvass, while allowing the appropriate canvassing body motu proprio or upon written complaint of an interested person to correct manifest errors. The Court held this provision constitutional and in harmony with the 1987 Constitution.
• Section 3, Article IX-C, 1987 Constitution — Provides that the COMELEC may sit en banc or in two divisions and shall promulgate its rules of procedure to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. The Court construed the phrase "pre-proclamation controversies" as referring only to those within the COMELEC's exclusive original jurisdiction.
• Section 2, Article IX-C, 1987 Constitution — Vests in the COMELEC exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials. This provision limits the scope of COMELEC jurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies.
• Section 17, Article VI, 1987 Constitution — Makes the Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives the "sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications" of its members. This provision divests the COMELEC of jurisdiction over election cases pertaining to House members.
• Section 68, Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881) — Outlaws the giving of money or other material consideration to influence, induce, or corrupt voters; served as the basis for the disqualification petitions against private respondent.
• Section 261(k), Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881) — Makes it unlawful to solicit votes during the day of the election; served as an additional ground in the disqualification petitions against private respondent.
• Section 6, R.A. No. 6646 — Cited by petitioner as the basis for justifying the suspension of the canvass and proclamation of private respondent pursuant to the disqualification petition.
• Section 23, COMELEC Resolution No. 2413 — Entitled "General Instructions for the Provincial/City/District and Municipal Board of Canvassers," disallowing pre-proclamation controversies in the election of members of the House of Representatives; cited by the City Board of Canvassers in overruling petitioner's objections.
• Section 2(2), Article XII-C, 1973 Constitution — Made the COMELEC the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all Members of the Batasang Pambansa and elective provincial and city officials; the basis for the Olfato ruling, now superseded by the 1987 Constitution.
• Section 1, Article VI, 1987 Constitution — Vests legislative power in the Congress of the Philippines consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives, replacing the Batasang Pambansa under the 1973 Constitution.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Melo, Quiason, Puno, and Vitug, JJ., concurred. Bellosillo, J., was on leave.