Item:
The case involves Cancellation of the Certificate of Candidacy (COC) of Ms. Regina O. Reyes for having made material misrepresentations in her COC for stating that she is a natural-born Filipino. But as admitted by her later she is a naturalized American citizen after all.
"Thus, the COMELEC was correct in ruling that she was no longer a Filipino citizen when she filed her Certificate of Candidacy and that without complying with the requirements of R.A. 9225, she was not qualified to run for public office", so stated Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno in her Separate Concurring Opinion.
"Thus, the COMELEC was correct in ruling that she was no longer a Filipino citizen when she filed her Certificate of Candidacy and that without complying with the requirements of R.A. 9225, she was not qualified to run for public office", so stated Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno in her Separate Concurring Opinion.
This also shows that the case in question involves a pre-proclamation controversy that, even after its final resolution by the Comelec, led to the staging of a "proclamation" staged "in bad faith" by the tainted PBOC. That's a proclamation that the congressional backers of Ms. Reyes, completely ignoring the controversies and inherent "bad faith" surrounding it, are now shouting from the rooftops - a hastily staged proclamation that a Comelec en Banc resolution had, in fact, declared in July 2013 to be "null and void and without any legal effect". More on this later.
It would help perhaps, except to those who'd rather be blind, to take a look and review the deliberation of the framers of our Constitution. The deliberations of the
Constitutional Commission on the jurisdiction of Comelec vis-à-vis
that of the HRET reveal that HRET has no jurisdiction over pre-proclamation
controversies. Read:
“MR. MAAMBONG: Madam
President, members of the Committee, I will focus most of my questions only on
one point, on the electoral tribunal. Did I hear the Committee correctly, in
reply to one of the questions, that the electoral tribunal, either of the House
or of the Senate, has jurisdiction over preproclamation contests?
MR. AZCUNA: Just a moment,
Madam President; we are checking the word, it refers to contest.
MR. MAAMBONG: I will repeat
the question. Does the electoral tribunal, either of the House or of the
Senate, have jurisdiction over preproclamation contests? If I heard the answer correctly that it has jurisdiction over
preproclamation contests, I would sincerely request a reconsideration of that
answer because as far as I am concerned, based on previous experience, these
electoral tribunals do not have jurisdiction over preproclamation contests. If
that answer can be corrected, I will be happy with it; it will make my day.
MR. AZCUNA: If the answer had been made, then it
should be corrected. This does not refer to preproclamation contests.
Records of the 1986
Constitutional Commission
Volume 2
07-22-1986 R.C.C. No. 36”
“INTERPELLATION OF MR.
MAAMBONG
On whether the electoral
tribunal, either of the Lower House of the Senate, has jurisdiction over
preproclamation contests, Mr. Azcuna clarified that contrary to what had been
previously stated, the Electoral
Tribunal would not have such jurisdiction.
Journal of the 1986 Constitutional
Commission
Volume No. 1
07-23-1986 Journal No. 36”
Sereno fuirther stated, thus: "It must also be pointed out that even the PBOC already knew of the cancellation of the Certificate of Candidacy of petitioner when it proclaimed her. The COMELEC En Banc Resolution dated 9 July 2013 and submitted to this Court through the Manifestation of private respondent, quoted the averments in the Verified Petition of petitioner therein as follows:
"xxx While the proceedings of the PBOC is suspended or in
recess, the process server of this Honorable Commission,
who identified himself as PEDRO P. STA. ROSA II ("Sta.
Rosa," for brevity), arrived at the session hall of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Marinduque where the
provincial canvassing is being held.
"xxx The process server, Sta. Rosa, was in possession of
certified true copies of the Resolution promulgated by the
Commission on Elections En Bane on 14 May 2013 in SPA
No. 13-053 (DC) entitled "Joseph Socorro B. Tan vs. Atty.
Regina Ongsiako Reyes" and an Order dated 15 May 2013
to deliver the same to the Provincial Election Supervisor of
Marinduque. The said Order was signed by no less than the
Chairman of the Commission on Elections, the Honorable
Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr.
"xxx Process Server Pedro Sta. Rosa II immediately
approached Atty. Edwin Villa, the Provincial Election
Supervisor (PES) of Marinduque, upon his arrival to serve
a copy of the aforementioned Resolution dated 14 May
20 ~ 3 in SPA No. 13-05 3 (DC). Despite his proper
identification that he is a process server from the
COMELEC Main Office, the PES totally ignored Process
Server Pedro Sta. Rosa II.
"xxx Interestingly, the PES likewise refused to receive the
copy of the Commission on Elections En Bane Resolution
dated 14 May 2013 in SPA No. 13-053 (DC) despite
several attempts to do so.
"xxx Instead, the PES immediately declared the resumption
of the proceedings of the PBOC and instructed the Board
Secretary to immediately read its Order proclaiming Regina
Ongsiako Reyes as winner for the position of Congressman
for the Lone District of Marinduque."
"This narration of the events shows that the proclamation was in contravention of a COMELEC En Banc Resolution cancelling the candidate's Certificate of Candidacy. The PBOC, a subordinate body under the direct control and supervision of the COMELEC/1 cannot simply disregard a COMELEC En Banc Resolution brought before its attention and hastily proceed with the proclamation by reasoning that it has not officially received the resolution or order.
"The proclamation of a non-candidate cannot take away the power vested in the COMELEC to enforce and execute its decisions. It is a power that enjoys precedence over that emanating from any other authority, except the Supreme Court, and that which is issued in habeas corpus proceedings as provided in Sec. 52(f) of the Omnibus Election Code.25"
'Bad faith should never be rewarded' - Chief Justice
"On a final note, I respectfully take exception to my distinguished colleague's statement that "the novel argument from no less than the Chief Justice" regarding petitioner Reyes' bad faith was" (o)ut of the blue and without any previous circulated written opinion" considering that, from the very beginning of the deliberations of this case I, together with another colleague, had already clearly expressed my opinion that bad faith should never be rewarded. Furthermore, the argument of bad faith is neither "novel" nor "out of the blue," as it had been repeatedly raised in several deliberations on this matter. The bad faith element was further confirmed by the records through the antecedents cited in the Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc dated 09 July 2013."
Full text of Chief Justice Sereno's Separate Concurring Opinion HERE
Full text of Chief Justice Sereno's Separate Concurring Opinion HERE
