Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EN BANC LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 211140 2016-01-12	LORD ALLAN JAY Q. VELASCO v. SPEAKER FELICIANO R. BELMONTE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It will not be the first time that the Court will grant Mandamus to compel the Speaker of the House of Representatives to administer the oath to the rightful Representative of a legislative district and the Secretary-General to enter said Representative's name in the Roll of Members of the House of Representatives. In Codilla, Sr. v. De Venecia,[46] the Court decreed: Under Rule 65, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, any person may file a verified petition for mandamus "when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." For a petition for mandamus to prosper, it must be shown that the subject of the petition for mandamus is a ministerial act or duty, and not purely discretionary on the part of the board, officer or person, and that the petitioner has a well-defined, clear and certain right to warrant the grant thereof.
	GR No. 207264 2013-10-22	REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES v. COMELEC PEREZ, J.
In the instant Petition, petitioner questioned the jurisdiction of the COMELEC after it cancelled the Certificate of Candidacy, and after the proclamation was made by the Provincial Board of Canvassers. Contending that her proclamation as winner in the congressional race in the Province of Marinduque effectively ousted COMELEC of any jurisdiction, she claimed "that its disqualification of the Petitioner should be declared to have no legal force and effect and may not be made the basis to annul petitioner's proclamation or to unseat her from office."[17]
	GR No. 207264 2013-10-22	REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES v. COMELEC PEREZ, J.
(3) The Court's June 25, 2013 Resolution is contrary to prevailing jurisprudence on the validity of the proclamation of a winning candidate. Reyes cites the cases of Planas v. Commission on Elections,[27] Limkaichong v. Commission on Elections[28] and Gonzalez v. Commission on Elections[29] where the Court upheld the validity of the proclamations made considering that the cancellation of their CoCs at that time had not attained finality. Even so, such questions on the validity of Reyes' proclamation are better addressed by the HRET which now has jurisdiction over the present case, citing Lazatin v. The Commission on Elections.[30]
	GR No. 207264 2013-06-25	REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES v. COMELEC PEREZ, J.
In Vinzons-Chato v. COMELEC,[22] citing Aggabao v. COMELEC[23] and Guerrero v. COMELEC,[24] the Court ruled that: The Court has invariably held that once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a Member of the House of Representatives, the COMELEC's jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications ends, and the HRET's own jurisdiction begins. (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 149548 2009-12-04	ROXAS v. DAMBA-NFSW CARPIO MORALES, J.
The Court had in fact passed upon a similar matter before. Thus in DAR v. Franco,[7] it pronounced: Thus, the DAR Regional Office VII, in coordination with the Philippine Tourism Authority, has to determine precisely which areas are for tourism development and excluded from the Operation Land Transfer and the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. And suffice it to state here that the Court has repeatedly ruled that lands already classified as non-agricultural before the enactment of RA 6657 on 15 June 1988 do not need any conversion clearance.[8] (emphasis and underscoring supplied).
	GR NOS. 178831-32 2009-07-30	JOCELYN SY LIMKAICHONG v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
x x x The Court has invariably held that once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a Member of the House of Representatives, the COMELEC's jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications ends, and the HRET's own jurisdiction begins.[8] It follows then that the proclamation of a winning candidate divests the COMELEC of its jurisdiction over matters pending before it at the time of the proclamation. The party questioning his qualification should now present his case in a proper proceeding before the HRET, the constitutionally mandated tribunal to hear and decide a case involving a Member of the House of Representatives with respect to the latter's election, returns and qualifications. The use of the word "sole" in Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution and in Section 250[9] of the OEC underscores the exclusivity of the Electoral Tribunals' jurisdiction over election contests relating to its members.[10]
	GR Nos. 178831-32 2009-04-01	JOCELYN SY LIMKAICHONG v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
We do not agree. The Court has invariably held that once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a Member of the House of Representatives, the COMELEC's jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications ends, and the HRET's own jurisdiction begins.[61] It follows then that the proclamation of a winning candidate divests the COMELEC of its jurisdiction over matters pending before it at the time of the proclamation. The party questioning his qualification should now present his case in a proper proceeding before the HRET, the constitutionally mandated tribunal to hear and decide a case involving a Member of the House of Representatives with respect to the latter's election, returns and qualifications. The use of the word "sole" in Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution and in Section 250[62] of the OEC underscores the exclusivity of the Electoral Tribunals' jurisdiction over election contests relating to its members.[63]
	GR Nos. 178831-32 2009-04-01	JOCELYN SY LIMKAICHONG v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
We do not agree. The Court has invariably held that once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a Member of the House of Representatives, the COMELEC's jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications ends, and the HRET's own jurisdiction begins.[61] It follows then that the proclamation of a winning candidate divests the COMELEC of its jurisdiction over matters pending before it at the time of the proclamation. The party questioning his qualification should now present his case in a proper proceeding before the HRET, the constitutionally mandated tribunal to hear and decide a case involving a Member of the House of Representatives with respect to the latter's election, returns and qualifications. The use of the word "sole" in Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution and in Section 250[62] of the OEC underscores the exclusivity of the Electoral Tribunals' jurisdiction over election contests relating to its members.[63]