Case Digest: MICHAEL F. PLANAS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, et al. 484 SCRA 529 (2006)

MICHAEL F. PLANAS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, et al. 484 SCRA 529 (2006)

A Petition to Deny Due Course and/or Cancellation of the Certificate of Candidacy of Congressional Candidate Anna Liza C. Cabochan was filed by a registered voter of Quezon City before the Commission on Elections National Capital Region (COMELEC NCR), alleging that Cabochan’s certificate suffered from a serious and material defect as it was notarized by a Notary Public whose commission had already expired. Consequently, Cabochan withdrew her certificate of candidacy and Matias V. Defensor, Jr. filed his in substitution of Cabochan. Herein petitioner Michael F. Planas (Planas), also a candidate for the same position, filed before the Quezon City Board of Canvassers a Petition for the Suspension of the Canvassing of Votes in favor of Defensor who appeared to be leading the congressional race, citing the memorandum- recommendation of the NCR Acting Director directing that the certificate of Cabochan be denied due course and that the substitution of Defensor for Cabochan be accordingly declared invalid. Defensor was proclaimed as the winning candidate for the congressional seat of the Third District of Quezon City. On March 11, 2005, the COMELEC En Banc issued the challenged Resolution ruling that the COMELEC is already ousted with jurisdiction over the case thus, the same is already under the jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET); and that the certificate of candidacy of Cabonchan is valid, and the subsequent substitution by Defensor is legal. Hence, the present petition of Planas.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the COMELEC was divested of its jurisdiction by virtue of Defensor’s proclamation and assumption of office as member of the House of Representatives.

HELD:

The general rule is that the proclamation of a congressional candidate divests COMELEC of jurisdiction in favor of the HRET. This rule, however, is not without exception. As held in Mutuc, et al. v. COMELEC, et al., the usual remedy of any party aggrieved in an election is to be found in an election protest. But that is so only on the assumption that there has been a valid proclamation. Where the proclamation itself is illegal, the assumption of office cannot in any way affect the basic issues.
In the case at bar, at the time of the proclamation of Defensor who garnered the highest number of votes, the Division Resolution invalidating his certificate of candidacy was not yet final, hence, he had at that point in time remained qualified. Therefore, his proclamation was valid or legal. Following Mutuc then, as at the time of Defensor‘s proclamation the denial of his COC due course was not yet final, his proclamation was valid or legal and as he in fact had taken his oath of office and assumed his duties as representative, the COMELEC had been effectively divested of jurisdiction over the case.