Lazatin v.

COMELEC, 157 SCRA 337 (1988)

Topic: Electoral Tribunal

FACTS:
Petitioner questions the jurisdiction of the COMELEC
in annulling the proclamation to assume office as
Congressman of first district in Pampanga stating
Electoral Tribunal has sole jurisdiction with the
Solicitor General agreeing that proclamation was
valid.
COMELEC states proclamation of petitioner was
illegal and void because the board simply corrected
the returns contested by the petitioner without waiting
for final resolutions
ISSUE: WON COMELEC erred in annulling proclamation?
RULING: YES
Although the Court cant take cognizance in the case
since it results in usurp of functions of the Electoral
Tribunal, likewise the COMELEC despite mention
irregularities is also only to be addressed to the
sound judgment of the Electoral Tribunal.
As such to set aside revocation of proclamation of
COMELEC
Lazatin v. COMELEC, 168 SCRA 391 (1988)
Topic: Electoral Tribunal
Doctrine:
Power of HRET: 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
Representatives, to promulgate rules and regulations
relative to matters within its jurisdiction, including the
period for filing election protests before it, is beyond
dispute. Its rule-making power necessarily flows from
the general power granted it by the Constitution.
Facts:
Petitioner and respondent was candidates for Rep. of
1st District of Pampanga. Respondent raised in
Comelec the non-inclusion of certain returns resulting
in suspending declaration of winning party however
later comelec announced to proceed with the
declaration resulting with petitioner proclaimed
Congressman-elect.
Resondent filed to prohibit petitioner from assuming
office which Comelec grant stating proclamation of
the petitioner void-ab-initio however petitioner filed
challenging such grant with the Court and as such
reversing Comelec decision
Respondent then filed with the HRET which the
petitioner filed motion for dismissal that such filing
was late however HRET states it was filed on time in
accordance with HRET rules in Sec 9
Petitioner relies on Sec 250 of Omnibus Election in
determining time filed which is 10 days after
proclamation and proclamation was made May 27
1987which was suspended and run again on January
28 1988 while filing made to HRET on Feb 8 1988
while the 10 day limits is only until Feb 6 1988.
Sec 9 of HRET on the other hand states filing within
15 days from date of proclamation.
ISSUE: WON HRET erred in stating filing was made on
time?
Ruling: NO
Sec 250 applies to only those that filed before the
COMELEC on election of members of Batasang
Pambansa as stated in Sec 249 and these elections
of members has ceased upon the 1987 constitution
being that the Batasang Pambansa has already been
abolished and sole jurisdiction over election, returns,
and qualification is vested to the Electoral Tribunal.
Power of HRET includes promulgate rules and
regulation on matters in his jurisdiction such as
period of election protests.
The power grant to Electoral Tribunal is being the
sole judge emphasizing the exclusive character.
Unlike 1973, intent of 1987 constitutional framers like
that of 1935 framers was to restore exclusive
jurisdiction of Electoral Tribunal with COMELEC
retaining purely administrative powers except to
decide in election case, which is vested to the
Electoral Tribunal.