GEORGIDI B. AGGABAO, PETITIONER, VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF ISABELA, AND ANTHONY MIRANDA, RESPONDENTS.

Aggabao versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed by Georgidi B. Aggabao against the Commission on Elections, the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Isabela, and his rival candidate Anthony Miranda. Aggabao asks the Supreme Court to annul a resolution of the Commission on Elections En Banc and to set aside Miranda's proclamation as Congressman for the Fourth District of Isabela. The case matters because it draws the boundary between two constitutional bodies: it tells us exactly when the Commission on Elections loses jurisdiction over a congressional election contest and the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal takes over.

Procedural History

Aggabao and Miranda were rival congressional candidates in the Fourth District of Isabela in the May 2004 elections. During the canvassing of the certificates of canvass for the municipalities of Cordon and San Agustin, Miranda moved to exclude the first copy of the certificates of canvass, alleging that it was tampered with, prepared under duress, differed from other authentic copies, and contained manifest errors. Aggabao objected, arguing that these grounds belong only to a pre-proclamation controversy, which is not allowed in elections for Members of the House of Representatives. The reconstituted Provincial Board of Canvassers nonetheless excluded the contested certificates and used the fourth and seventh copies instead. On the results, Miranda garnered the highest number of votes.

Aggabao appealed to the Commission on Elections, insisting that the Provincial Board of Canvassers acted without jurisdiction and that the contested certificates appeared regular and properly authenticated. While that appeal was pending before the Second Division, Miranda filed a very urgent motion for proclamation, which Aggabao opposed on the ground that the pendency of his appeal barred proclamation. The Commission's commissioner in charge for Regions Two and Three approved the proclamation of the remaining winning candidates, and the Commission En Banc issued the resolution now assailed, likewise directing proclamation. Aggabao moved to set that aside, but Miranda was proclaimed on June 14, 2004. Two days later, Aggabao filed this petition for certiorari, claiming that the En Banc acted without jurisdiction because the Second Division had not yet resolved his appeal. Miranda moved to dismiss, arguing that the issue belongs to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. Aggabao later manifested that the Second Division had given due course to his appeal, and bewailed its failure to annul the proclamation.

Facts

In the May 2004 elections, Aggabao and Miranda competed for the congressional seat of the Fourth District of Isabela. When the provincial board canvassed the certificates of canvass from Cordon and San Agustin, Miranda sought exclusion of the first copies as tampered, prepared under duress, differing from authentic copies, and manifestly erroneous. Aggabao countered that such grounds are proper only in a pre-proclamation controversy, which the law does not permit in House of Representatives elections.

The reconstituted Provincial Board of Canvassers excluded the contested certificates and canvassed the fourth and seventh copies instead, and Miranda emerged with the highest number of votes. Aggabao appealed to the Commission on Elections, questioning the board's jurisdiction and the exclusion.

While the appeal remained pending in the Second Division, the Commission En Banc issued the challenged resolution directing the proclamation of the remaining winning candidates in Isabela. Miranda was proclaimed on June 14, 2004, took his oath, and assumed office. Aggabao then came to the Supreme Court on certiorari.

Issues

• Whether or not the Supreme Court may take cognizance of the petition for certiorari.
• Whether or not the Commission on Elections retained jurisdiction over the election contest after Miranda had been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office.
• Whether or not the alleged nullity of Miranda's proclamation divests the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal of jurisdiction.

Applicable Provisions

Section 17 of Article Six of the 1987 Constitution provides:

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 organization registered under the party-list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.

This provision is the source of the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction and the reason the Commission on Elections is divested once a winning candidate has been proclaimed and has assumed office.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that certiorari lies only upon the concurrence of two essential requisites: that the tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction; and that there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Court found that an adequate remedy existed, namely an electoral protest before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, so the petition could not prosper.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that the Tribunal has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relative to the election, returns, and qualifications of Members of the House of Representatives. Once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office, the Commission's jurisdiction ends and the Tribunal's begins. Since Miranda had been proclaimed, sworn in, and assumed office, Aggabao's recourse was an electoral protest, not certiorari.

On the third issue, the Court held that the allegation that the proclamation is null and void from the start does not divest the Tribunal of jurisdiction. The Court explained that such an issue is best addressed to the Tribunal, for this avoids duplicity of proceedings and a clash of jurisdiction between constitutional bodies, with due regard to the people's mandate. It recalled its earlier ruling that the alleged invalidity of a proclamation, even one previously ordered by the Commission itself, is a matter addressed to the sound judgment of the Electoral Tribunal.

Doctrine

Under Section 17 of Article Six, the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of Members of the House. The Commission on Elections is bereft of jurisdiction to hear and decide pre-proclamation controversies against Members of the House. The moment a winning candidate is proclaimed, takes his oath, and assumes office, the Commission's jurisdiction ends and the Tribunal's begins. The remedy of the losing candidate is an electoral protest before the Tribunal, not a petition for certiorari. Even a claim that the proclamation is null and void from the start does not divest the Tribunal of jurisdiction, because the validity of the proclamation of a candidate who has taken his oath and assumed office is best addressed to the Tribunal.

Disposition

The petition for certiorari was dismissed for lack of merit, with no pronouncement as to costs, leaving Miranda's proclamation standing and the contest to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.

Remember This

Memorize the line: once a winning candidate is proclaimed, takes his oath, and assumes office, the Commission on Elections' jurisdiction ends and the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal's jurisdiction begins. Examiners use this case to test the boundary between the Commission and the Electoral Tribunal, and whether certiorari is the proper remedy after proclamation.