 |
| Supreme Court en Banc. Photo: UNTV |
On the finality of SC's decision on Regina Ongsiako Reyes vs. Commission on Elections and Joseph Socorro B. Tan, we may never read important details of that decision in the mainstream media. We may never know that the High Court had, in fact, pointed out that "there is no conflict between the COMELEC and HRET in so far as the petitioner as being a Representative of Marinduque is concerned". But mainstream media could, at times, be full of omissions, deliberately spreading "half truths and other misinformation" endlessly supplied by entities in power.
The High Court's En Banc Resolution on the case mentioned (G.R. No. 207264, dated October 22, 2013), reads (underscoring mine):
"It may need pointing out that there is no conflict between the COMELEC and the HRET insofar as the petitioner as being a Representative of Marinduque is concerned. The COMELEC covers the matter of petitioner's certificate of candidacy, and its due course or its cancellation, which are the pivotal conclusions that determines who can be legally proclaimed. The matter can go to the Supreme Court but not as a continuation of the proceedings in the COMELEC, which has in fact ended, but on an original action before the Court grounded on more than mere error of judgment but on error of jurisdiction for grave abuse of discretion. At and after the COMELEC En Banc decision, there is no longer any certificate cancellation matter than can go to the HRET. In that sense, the HRET's constitutional authority opens, over the qualification of its MEMBER, who becomes so only upon a duly and legally based proclamation, the first and unavoidable step towards such membership. The HRET jurisdiction over the qualification of the Member of the House of Representatives is original and exclusive, and as such, proceeds de novo unhampered by the proceedings in the COMELEC which, as just stated has been terminated. The HRET proceedings is a regular, not summary, proceeding. It will determine who should be the Member of the House. It must be made clear though, at the risk of repetitiveness, that no hiatus occurs in the representation of Marinduque in the House because there is such a representative who shall sit as the HRET proceedings are had till termination. Such representative is the duly proclaimed winner resulting from the terminated case of cancellation of certificate of candidacy of petitioner. The petitioner is not, cannot, be that representative.xxxx"
The full text of the Supreme Court En Banc Resolution in this case, penned by Associate Justice Jose Portugal Perez, may be found here. Excerpts:
(Page 5)
"5. Apart from the presumed notice of the COMELEC En Banc decision on the very date of its promulgation on 14 May 2013, petitioner admitted in her petition before us that she in fact received a copy of the decision on 16 May 2013.(4) On that date, she had absolutely no reason why she would disregard the available legal way to remove the restraint on her proclamation, and, more than that, to in fact secure a proclamation two days thereafter. The utter disregard of a final COMELEC En Banc decision and of the Rule stating that her proclamation at that point MUST be on permission by the Supreme Court is even indicative of bad faith on the part of the petitioner.
"6. The indicant is magnified by the fact that petitioner would use her tainted proclamation as the very reason to support her argument that she could no longer be reached by the jurisdiction of the COMELEC; and that it is the HRET that has exclusive jurisdiction over the issue of her qualifications for office.
"7. The suggestions of bad faith aside, petitioner is in error in the conclusion at which she directs, as well as in her objective quite obvious from such conclusion. It is with her procured proclamation that petitioner nullifies the COMELEC's decision, by Division and then En Banc and pre-empts any Supreme Court action on the COMELEC decision. In other words, petitioner repudiates by her proclamation all administrative and judicial actions thereon, past and present. And by her proclamation, she
(page 6)
claims as acquired the congressional seat that she sought to be a candidate for. As already shown, the reasons that lead to the impermissibility of the objective are clear. She cannot sit as Member of the House of Representatives by virtue of a baseless proclamation knowingly taken, with knowledge of the existing legal impediment.
"8. Petitioner, therefore, is in error when she posits that at present it is the HRET which has exclusive jurisdiction over her qualifications as a Member of the House of Representatives. That the HRET is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the Members of the House of Representatives is a written constitutional provision. It is, however unavailable to petitioner because she is NOT a Member of the House at present. The COMELEC never ordered her proclamation as the rightful winner in the election for such membership.(5) Indeed, the action for cancellation of petitioner's certificate of candidacy, the decision in which is the indispensable determinant of the right of petitioner to proclamation, was correctly lodged in the COMELEC, was completely and fully litigated in the COMELEC and was finally decided by the COMELEC. On and after 14 May 2013, there was nothing left for the COMELEC to do to decide the case. The decision sealed the proceedings in the COMELEC regarding petitioner's ineligibility as a candidate for Representative of Marinduque. The decision erected the bar to petitioner's proclamation. The bar remained when no restraining order was obtained by petitioner from the Supreme Court within five days from 14 May 2013.
"9. When petitioner finally went to the Supreme Court on 10 June 2013 questioning the COMELEC First Division ruling and the 14 May 2013 COMELEC En Banc decision, her baseless proclamation on 18 May 2013 did not by that fact of promulgation alone become valid and legal. A decision favorable to her by the Supreme Court regarding the decision of the COMELEC En Banc on her certificate of candidacy was indispensably needed, not to legalize her proclamation on 18 May 2013 but to authorize a proclamation with the Supreme Court decision as basis."
(page 11)
"11. It may need pointing out that there is no conflict between the COMELEC and the HRET insofar as the petitioner as being a Representative of Marinduque is concerned. The COMELEC covers the matter of petitioner's certificate of candidacy, and its due course or its cancellation, which are the pivotal conclusions that determines who can be legally proclaimed. The matter can go to the Supreme Court but not as a continuation of the proceedings in the COMELEC, which has in fact ended, but on an original action before the Court grounded on more than mere error of judgment but on error of jurisdiction for grave abuse of discretion. At and after the COMELEC En Banc decision, there is no longer any certificate cancellation matter than can go to the HRET. In that sense, the HRET's constitutional authority opens, over the qualification of its MEMBER, who becomes so only upon a duly and legally based proclamation, the first and unavoidable step towards such membership. The HRET jurisdiction over the qualification of the Member of the House of Representatives is original and exclusive, and as such, proceeds de novo unhampered by the proceedings in the COMELEC which, as just stated has been terminated. The HRET proceedings is a regular, not summary, proceeding. It will determine who should be the Member of the House. It must be made clear though, at the risk of repetitiveness, that no hiatus occurs in the representation of Marinduque in the House because there is such a representative who shall sit as the HRET proceedings are had till termination. Such representative is the duly proclaimed winner resulting from the terminated case of cancellation of certificate of candidacy of petitioner. The petitioner is not, cannot, be that representative. And this, all in all, is the crux of the dispute between the parties: who shall sit in the House in representation of Marinduque, while there is yet no HRET decision on the qualifications of the Member.
"12. As finale, and as explained in the discussion just done, no unwarranted haste can be attributed, as the dissent does so, to the resolution
(page 12)
of this petition promulgated on 25 June 2013. It was not done to prevent the exercise by the HRET of its constitutional duty. Quite the contrary, the speedy resolution of the petition was done to pave the way for the unimpeded performance by the HRET of its constitutional role. The petitioner can very well invoke the authority of the HRET, but not as a sitting member of the House of Representatives. (8)
"The inhibition of this ponente was moved for. The reason for the denial of the motion was contained in a letter to the members of the Court on the understanding that the matter was internal to the Court. The ponente now seeks the Courts approval to have the explanation published as it is now appended to this Resolution.
"The motion to withdraw petition filed AFTER the Court has acted thereon, is noted. It may well be in order to remind petitioner that jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost upon the instance of the parties, but continues until the case is terminated.(9) When petitioner filed her Petition for Certiorari jurisdiction vested in the Court and, in fact, the Court exercised such jurisdiction when it acted on the petition. Such jurisdiction cannot be lost by the unilateral withdrawal of the petition by petitioner.
"More importantly, the Resolution dated 25 June 2013, being a valid court issuance, undoubtedly has legal consequences. Petitioner cannot, by the mere expediency of withdrawing the petition, negative and nullify the Court's Resolution and its legal effects. At this point, we counsel petitioner against trifling with court processes. Having sought the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, petitioner cannot withdraw her petition to erase the ruling adverse to her interests. Obviously, she cannot, as she designed below, subject to her predilections the supremacy of the law.
"WHEREFORE, The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. The dismissal of the petition is affirmed. Entry of Judgment is ordered."
