CONSTITUTION I

A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA

• Because at the time of Ruiz's petition, Rodolfo Fariñas was not yet a
TOPIC Substitution candidate, there was no COC to cancel per se. There was no disqualification
to speak of because he was not yet a candidate.
CASE NO. G.R. No. 137004
• Ruiz filed a Motion for Reconsideration, contending that Fariñas could not
CASE NAME Guerrero v. COMELEC validly substitute Chevylle since Chevylle was not the official candidate of
PONENTE Quisumbing, J,. the Lakas ng Makabayang Masang Pilipino (LAMMP), but was an
PETITIONER Arnold V. Guerrero independent candidate.
RESPONDENT COMELEC, Hon. Manuel Villar Jr., Hon. Roberto • On June 3, 1998, Fariñas took his oath of office as member of the House of
Representatives.
Nazareo, Rodolfo Fariñas, and Guillermo Ruiz
• Petitioner Arnold Guerrero filed his Petition in Intervention in the
TYPE OF CASE Certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with prayer for
COMELEC Case in the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Ruiz.
temporary restraining order and/or preliminary
o He claimed that he was the official candidate of the Liberal Party (LP)
injunction
in said elections for Congressman and stood to be adversely affected
MEMBER Rafael Mendoza
by the case.
o He further contended that, Fariñas, having failed to file his COC on or
ISSUE before the last day therefor, being midnight of March 27, 1998, Fariñas
1. W/N the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that illegally resorted to the remedy of substitution.
the determination of the validity of the Certificate of Candidacy of Fariñas o He prayed that the position of Representative of the 1st District of
is already within the exclusive jurisdiction of the HRET. Ilocos Norte be declared vacant and special elections called for but
2. W/N the jurisdiction of the HRET is limited only to the qualifications disallowing the candidacy of Fariñas.
prescribed under Sec. 6, Article VI of the Constitution • The COMELEC En Banc dismissed Ruiz’s Motion for Reconsideration and
3. W/N the HRET assumes jurisdiction only if there is a valid proclamation of Guerrero’s Petition-in-Intervention, stating that the jurisdiction over the issue
the winning candidate. was already within the jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal.
RELEVANT FACTS
• In the COMELEC 2nd Division, Guillermo Ruiz sought to perpetually RATIO DECIDENDI
disqualify Rodolfo Fariñas as a candidate for the position of Congressman, 1. W/N the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that
alleging that Fariñas had been campaigning in the May 11, 1998 polls, despite the determination of the validity of the Certificate of Candidacy of Fariñas
his failure to file a Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for said office. is already within the exclusive jurisdiction of the HRET. NO.
• Ruiz asked the COMELEC to declare Fariñas a “nuisance candidate” and to
disqualify him from running in the May 1998 elections, as well as in all • In the present case, we find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
future polls. COMELEC when it held that its jurisdiction had ceased with the assumption
• On May 8, 1998, Fariñas filed his COC with the COMELEC, substituting of office of respondent Fariñas as Representative for the 1st District of Ilocos
candidate Chevylle Fariñas who withdrew on April 3. Norte
• The COMELEC 2nd Division dismissed Ruiz’s petition stating that since no • While the COMELEC is vested with the power to declare valid or invalid a
COC was to be cancelled, there was no candidate to be disqualified. COC, its refusal to exercise that power following the proclamation and

1
 CONSTITUTION I
A.Y. 1819– DEAN CANDELARIA
assumption of the position by Fariñas is a recognition of the jurisdictional
boundaries separating the COMELEC and the HRET.
• Under Art. VI, Sec. 17 of the Constitution, the HRET has sole and exclusive
jurisdiction over all contests relative to the election, returns, and
qualifications of members of the House of Representatives.
• Thus, once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and
assumed office as a member of the House of Representatives, COMELEC’s
jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns, and
qualifications ends, and the HRET’s own jurisdiction begins.
• Thus, the COMELEC’s decision to discontinue exercising jurisdiction over
the case is justiciable, in deference to the HRET’s own jurisdiction and
functions.
2. W/N the jurisdiction of the HRET is limited only to the qualifications
prescribed under Sec. 6, Article VI of the Constitution. NO.
• Petitioner's contention that the jurisdiction of the HRET as defined in Art. 17,
Sec. 17 of the Constitution is limited only to the qualifications prescribed by
Section 6, Art. VI of the Constitution. He claims that any issue which does
not involve constitutional qualifications is beyond the jurisdiction of the
HRET
• SC held that this contention lacks cogency and is far from persuasive.
• Article VI, Section 17 cannot be circumscribed lexically - the word
"qualifications" cannot be read as qualified by the term "constitutional"
• It is a basic rule in statutory construction that where the law does not
distinguish, the courts should not distinguish
• There should be no distinction in the application of a law where none is
indicated
o First, the drafters of the Constitution, in making no qualification in the
use of a general word must not have intended a distinction at all
o Second, the Courts only distinguish where there are facts or
circumstances showing that the lawgiver intended a distinction of
qualification. The Courts merely give effect to the intent of lawmakers
3. W/N the HRET assumes jurisdiction only if there is a valid proclamation of
the winning candidate. NO
• Petitioner argues that if a candidate fails to satisfy the statutory requirements to
qualify as a candidate, then his proclamation is void ab initio. As such, there is
no proclamation at all
• The SC held that in an electoral contest where the validity of the proclamation
of a winning candidate who has taken his oath of office and assumed his post as
Congressman is raised, that issue is best addressed to the HRET
• The purpose of this is to avoid duplicity of proceedings and a clash of
jurisdiction between constitutional bodies
DISPOSITIVE POSITION
Wherefore, the petition is hereby dismissed for lack of merit. Costs against the
petitioner. SO ORDERED.
DOCTRINE/PRECEDENT
• Issues on substitution must be addressed by the sound judgment of the Electoral
Tribunal and not the Court. Only then can the Court demonstrate loyalty to the
Constitutional provision that the HRET shall be the judge of all contests relating
to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective members
RELEVANT LAWS
Section 6, Article VI. No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he
is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-
five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the party-list representatives, a registered
voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less
than one year immediately preceding the day of the election.
Section 17, Article VI. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an
Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns,
and qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of
nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the
Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of
Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional
representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the
party-list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its
Chairman.