House panel okays resolution on HRET power over poll cases

MANILA, Philippines - The House committee on suffrage and electoral reforms has approved a resolution reiterating the exclusive authority and jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) over electoral protest cases.

Passed by the panel was House Resolution No. 597 “reiterating adherence to the time-honored principle on the exclusivity of jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal over all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of its members to preserve the integrity, dignity and reputation of the House of Representatives and its members.”

It was filed by Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali and co-authored by 171 other lawmakers.

The filing of the resolution stemmed from the decision of the Supreme Court (SC) declaring Lord Allan Velasco the winner during the 2013 congressional race in the lone district of Marinduque, and not Regina Reyes, who was the one proclaimed by the local Commission on Elections (Comelec) after the canvassing.

Umali said the HRET should handle and hear the election protest of Velasco against Reyes and not the SC as the latter already took her oath as Marinduque representative.

Reyes was earlier proclaimed by the poll body as the winner with a margin of over 4,000 votes against Velasco, son of SC Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco.

On Tuesday night, Cavite Rep. Elpidio Barzaga, Velasco’s partymate in the National Unity Party, took the cudgels for the defeated congressional candidate, saying not respecting the decision of the SC could trigger a constitutional crisis.

He said the SC upheld the decision of the Comelec’s First Division to cancel Reyes’ certificate of candidacy for allegedly making material misrepresentations on her residency and citizenship.

The SC, according to Barzaga, “has spoken with finality. I appeal to reason and sense of fair play of every member of this honorable chamber to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution. I urge everyone, regardless of political affiliation, to abide by that final decision of the Court.”

Umali and Reps. Doy Leachon and Josephine Sato immediately stood up and contradicted Barzaga.

They said all election-related protests against proclaimed congressmen must be under the jurisdiction of the HRET, including Reyes’ case.

Leachon and Umali also said that it is clear that the SC decision was suspicious and doubtful since it was issued only 18 days after the case was filed.

They even cited the opinion of SC Associate Justice Arturo Brion who said that it looked like the decision was hastened to favor the son of a colleague.

For her part, Sato urged her colleagues to support and stand for the mandate of Congress to defend its dignity.

The SC has ordered the House of Representatives to answer Velasco’s bid to assume the post as representative of the lone district of Marinduque.

In their session the other day, the SC justices approved the issuance of an order directing the House to submit a comment on the petition filed by Velasco last month seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus ordering Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. to recognize him as duly elected winner in last year’s congressional race and administer his oath of office.

The SC gave the House 10 days from receipt of notice to comply with its order.

To read the full story please click HERE.

LP stalwart threatens to impeach justices anew

Posted in Manila Bulletin
By: Ben Rosario

Manila, Philippines — A close Malacañang ally in Congress raised anew the sword of Damocles over the heads of Supreme Court  (SC) justices as he revived his threat to impeach magistrates whom he accused of abusing the power of judicial review and violating the principle of separation of powers.

In a privilege speech, Mindoro Oriental Rep. Reynaldo Umali appealed to witnesses of alleged judicial abuses and irregularities in the judiciary to come out in the open to help the executive and legislative branches of government cleanse the courts of bad eggs.

Delivering his second SC bashing in three months, Umali assailed several High Court decisions which he claimed to have flip-flopped on past rulings, saying that these were reached by magistrates in the guise of “judicial elasticity.”

In his first anti-SC privilege speech, the administration lawmaker vowed to push for the impeachment of two Supreme Court members, telling journalists later that the complaint will be filed in January 2014.

In his latest blast against the SC, Umali did not state reasons for failing to pursue the impeachment cases, but he reiterated his accusations that certain members of the judiciary were guilty of betrayal of public trust which is an impeachable offense.

“As the highest tribunal in the land, the Supreme Court should be the stronghold of integrity and impartiality.  Yet how can we trust a Supreme Court that changes its mind whenever such change appears to be convenient?” asked Umali, who takes pride of having authored impeachment resolutions that led to the resignation of former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez and the ouster of former SC Chief Justice Renato Corona.

He detailed a number of cases which he said have been shrouded with judicial controversies due to reversals of previous decisions.

But his main criticism appeared to be aimed at the case of Marinduque Rep. Regina Reyes whose proclamation as congressional race winner over former Rep. Lord Allan Velasco has been ordered nullified by the Court.

Failing to get Speaker Feliciano Belmonte to acknowledge the ruling, Velasco, son of SC Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco, filed  a Petition for Mandamus seeking to compel Belmonte to administer his oath of office and direct Secretary General Emilia Barua-Yap to remove Reyes’ name from the roll of members  of the House.

Citing a House resolution signed by majority of congressmen and jurisprudence, Umali, himself a lawyer, stressed that the Supreme Court no longer has jurisdiction over the electoral controversy because the decision is already under the jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal which Justice Velasco chairs.

“Surely, a full blown constitutional crisis will ensue at a huge cost to our political system on account of a flip-flopping , albeit, unwarranted decision of the High Court to favor a  son of a sitting magistrate, which I submit constitute betrayal of public trust, a clear ground for impeachment,” Umali said.

Reyes case was “motu propio” decided in record time of 18 days, without even requiring the sitting solon to comment, he said.

“It is very unusual how the Supreme Court was able to decide the Reyes case so swiftly when some, if not most, cases remain for years in the court dockets despite its mandate under the 1987 Constitution to resolve cases within 24 months from the date of submission,” Umali said.

Read the full article: click here

Double flip - flop by high court

The justices of the Supreme Court have been drowning in cases. As of 2004, the last year they gave us information through the Philippine Statistical Yearbook, their case backlog (defined as case load minus case outflow) was 6,882 cases. Divide that by 15 justices, and that means an average of 458 cases each that the justices haven’t disposed of yet.

Meanwhile, new cases are coming in. Has this backlog been reduced? Not if we go by the high court’s case disposition rate (ratio of total cases decided/resolved in a year, over the total cases filed), which in 2003 and 2004 was 0.97.  For the mathematically challenged, that means the backlog is growing.

All this is by way of introduction. Each justice has so many to take charge of that he/she usually doesn’t want to get involved with someone else’s case by way of giving a dissenting or concurring opinion, unless it is of great moment. Just take a look at the decisions handed down each month (sc.judiciary.gov.ph) to see how few and far between those are.

That is why the decision in the case involving Regina O. Reyes vs. Comelec and Joseph Socorro B. Tan (GR 207264) caught my eye.  There were three dissenting opinions and two separate concurring opinions. That’s like the pork barrel case, for heaven’s sake. Not only that. What made me sit up and take notice were the names of the dissenters: Arturo Brion, Antonio Carpio, and Marvic Leonen, who I consider to be three of the high court’s intellectual heavyweights.

That was enough for me to read all the case material.

Here’s the case in a nutshell: Regina O. Reyes filed her candidacy as representative of the lone district of Marinduque in the last elections. Her candidacy was questioned by Tan, a voter and resident of the district. On what grounds? Essentially, that she lied about her civil status, her birthday, her residence, and her citizenship. He brought the case to the Commission on Elections. The Comelec found that she was a US citizen, and had not renounced her US citizenship. Therefore, the Comelec cancelled her certificate of candidacy (which means, among other things, that she is not a valid candidate, and that all the votes in her favor are “stray” votes).

Her motion for reconsideration failing in the Comelec, Reyes then filed her case in the Supreme Court, which decided in favor of the Comelec (there was no grave abuse of discretion on its part) and Tan.

Everything looks on the up and up, right?  Well, there is a glaring error. Would you believe that the Comelec decided that she was an American citizen on the basis of a blog? I kid you not. Justice Brion was brutal: “Common sense and the minimum sense of fairness dictate that an article in the Internet cannot simply  be taken to be evidence of the truth of what it says, nor can photocopies of documents not shown to be genuine be taken as proof of the ‘truth.’ To accept these materials as statements of ‘truth’ is to be partisan and to deny the petitioner her right to both procedural and substantive due process. Again, at the very least, further inquiry should have been made before there was the judgment.” Comelec Chair Sixto Brillantes had similar thoughts in his dissent.

Then there is the matter of “undue haste” on the part of the Supreme Court in making its decision (it dismissed the Reyes petition outright) on the case. Reyes filed the case against the Comelec and Tan on June 7, 2013.  The decision was handed down barely three weeks later, on June 25. The high court did not even ask the Comelec, and Tan, for their answer (as presumably is the usual procedure). Justice Brion calls the majority approach “unusual,” and their rulings “strained,” which is why he could not allow it to stand without comments. And he calls them “comments” rather than “refutations” because the latter “implies a consideration on the merits of properly submitted and debated issues, which did not happen in this case.”

Why was there this “rush to judgment” by the majority? There’s the rub. The ruling would favor the son of a member of the high court, which is why, failing all else, the high court should “at least hear and consider both sides before making the ruling,” which it did not do.

Reyes’ opponent in the Marinduque elections was Lord Allan Velasco, son of Justice Presbitero Velasco. This apparently was discussed in the deliberations of the high court, but was not mentioned in any opinion except Justice Brion’s. That has to explain the high court’s seeming imprudence.

But the story does not end there. According to Justice Carpio, the high court’s ruling is a “double flip-flop.” It reverses the “well-settled” doctrines that the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal acquires sole jurisdiction over any contest relating to the “election, returns and qualifications” of House members, and that any question on the validity of the proclamation falls under the sole jurisdiction of the HRET. Reyes was proclaimed, so the high court should have stepped back. Why didn’t it? My guess: If the HRET determines that Reyes is disqualified, Lord Allan Velasco will have no advantage, and special elections will have to be held. Whereas if the high court’s position was that the Comelec still has the power to stop her proclamation, the votes for her will be regarded as stray, and her opponent (Velasco) will win.

In other words, the high court’s decision has the effect of disenfranchising 52,209 voters who voted for Reyes, and allowing Velasco to win the elections with his 48,236 votes.

Lesson: 48,000 wins over 52,000 if the Supreme Court is on your side.

Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/66885/double-flip-flop-by-high-court#ixzz2mrX4kkFq 

Dalawang magka-ibang desisyon ng Korte Suprema - Binatikos!

Naglabas kahapon ng desisyon ang Korte Suprema sa pangunguna ni Justice Estrela Perlas-Bernab ukol sa petisyon na isinumite ni Wigberto Tañada Jr., laban kay John Alvin Tañada at naproklamang kadidatong ng lalawigan ng Quezon na si Representative Angelina Tan.

Ayon sa Korte Suprema, ang mga kaso at reklamo tungkol sa mga nanalo at naiproklamang kongresista at hurisdiksyon na ng HRET o House of Representative Electoral Tribunal, dahil ito ang nakalagay sa ating Sanligang Batas.

mababasa dito ang buong kwento.

Ngunit kasalungat ito sa desisyon na kanilang inilabas noong nakaraang buwan na sinasabing diskwalipikado ang nanalo at proklamadong Representante ng ating lalawigan na si Congw. Regina Ongsiako Reyes dahil sa reklamong dual-citizenship.

mababasa dito ang buong kwento

Lumamang ng halos 4,000 boto noong nakaraang halalan si Congw. Reyes laban sa kanyang katungaling si Allan Jay Velasco. Prinoklama ng Comelec at sumumpa sa opisina ni House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. 

Inakusahan noon ni Congw. Reyes si Justice Presbitero Velasco na iniimpluwesyanahan nito ang iba pang mga hukom sa Korte Suprema upang pumabor ang mga desisyon sa kanyang anak.

Kung totoo ang sinabi ni Justice Estrela Perlas - Bernab na ayon sa ating Sanligang Batas, na ang mga nanalo at proklamadong kongresista ay hurisdiksyon na ng HRET. 

Baket hindi nalang nila hayaan na ang HRET ang magpasya tungkol sa kaso ni Congw. Reyes at ni Allan Jay Velasco? Baket hindi mabitaw-bitawan ng Korte Suprema ang kasong ito?

Marahil ay nagkakaroon na rin ng linaw ang totoong impluwensya ni Justice Presbitero Velasco sa usaping ito.

Legal fireworks at the Batasan?

 

It seems to be a “constitutional crisis” of its own making. By voting to uphold a ruling of the Commission on Elections annulling the proclamation of Regina Ongsiako Reyes as representative of Marinduque, the Supreme Court has placed itself and the poll body in a direct confrontation with the legislature, specifically the House of Representatives.

Indeed, reports have it that the House leadership has decided to let Reyes attend tomorrow’s opening of Congress as the sole and “official” representative of Marinduque’s lone congressional district.

Quezon City Rep. Feliciano “Sonny” Belmonte, widely presumed to retain the post of Speaker, and presumed deputy speaker Neptali Gonzales II, so news reports say, have called on both the Supreme Court and the Comelec to “back off” from Reyes’ case. Since Reyes had already been proclaimed the winner of the congressional contest, and indeed had taken her oath of office as congresswoman, the position of the House is that it is now up to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) to hear and decide the case.

Reyes’ opponent was former Rep. Lord Allan Jay Velasco, son of a Supreme Court justice.

Based on the complaint of a certain Joseph Tan, the Comelec en banc ruled that Reyes should be unseated because it had been “proven” that she had renounced her Filipino citizenship and had not established residence in Marinduque. When Reyes raised the issue to the Supreme Court, the tribunal ruled in the Comelec’s favor, although with four justices dissenting.

Reyes appeared before the media earlier this week brandishing proof of her citizenship: a genuine and legitimate passport and documents attesting that she had renounced her dual American citizenship. In fact, says Reyes’ camp, the newly elected congresswoman had not even been given the chance to refute the charges about her citizenship, charges based on a blog, with little proof offered.

As Comelec Chair Sixto Brillantes stated in his earlier dissenting opinion (he later changed his mind): “…[T]he issue of the candidate’s qualification—particularly his residence and citizenship—requires exhaustive presentation and examination of evidence, which issues are best heard in a full-blown quo warranto proceeding and not in a summary proceeding as in the instant case.”

* * *

And now, because of the Comelec ruling and the decision of the Supreme Court, three branches of government are facing a head-on confrontation over which body has the ultimate right to decide on electoral contests.

In a statement, Reyes said that she “stood for the truth” (in a previous press conference) because “Congress deserves no less.” “To take a stand against the interference directed at a coequal branch of government is a duty particularly of ALL elected members of Congress. If members of the House cannot defend a literal commitment to their institution, no other branch of government will.”

It’s a political and constitutional crisis, all right, and at this point one wonders which of the three institutions will give way and give up its prerogatives. One wonders, too, if the justices will be able to set aside their collegial feelings (Justice Presbitero Velasco, Lord Allan’s father, recused himself from voting) and remain faithful to the law and its wise interpretation. Reyes has filed a motion for reconsideration, and we should know soon which among the three bodies will “blink” and save the legal infrastructure from imminent collapse.

So it seems there will be more to look forward to beyond P-Noy’s Sona and the stylish gowns and barong worn by lawmakers walking down the red carpet at the Batasan tomorrow afternoon.

We might yet see fireworks of a legal sort.


Para sa buong detalye, Basahin dito

House throws out Comelec, SC ruling on electoral cases

July 17, 2013 9:04 pm

by Llanesca T. Panti Reporter

 

The House of Representatives have recognized two women lawmakers thus far even if both Commission on Elections (Comelec) and the Supreme Court nullified their election victory.
This developed after the Public Relations and Information Bureau of the House of Representatives released a partial, unofficial list of district representatives for the 16th Congress.


Dr. Angelina “Helen” Tan was identified as the representative of the fourth district of Quezon province, while Regina Reyes is named as the representative of the Lone District of Marinduque.

Tan beat Wigberto “Toby” Tañada Jr. of the ruling Liberal Party in the May polls by 4,000 votes, but the Comelec nullified Tan’s proclamation as winner by June 30. In the same Comelec decision, the poll body tasked the Provincial Board of Canvassers to transfer the 7,038 votes of a certain Alvin Tañada to Toby because Alvin is disqualified from participating in the 2013 Congressional race.

Reyes, on the other hand, won against then incumbent Rep. Lord Allan Velasco of Marinduque, son of Supreme Court Justice Presbitero Velasco. But in June 25, the Supreme Court ruled that Reyes is a US citizen and therefore is not qualified to be a representative.

The High Court decision on Reyes’ case affirmed the earlier decision of the Comelec.

Rep. Neptali Gonzales 2nd of Mandaluyong, who is assured of retaining his House Majority Leader post in the 16th Congress, earlier stressed that Tan and Reyes remain the legitimate winners in the May elections because any nature of electoral protest or qualification questions will be under the jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) once the winners are proclaimed by the Provincial Board of Canvassers.

The Comelec ruling on Tan and Supreme Court decision on Reyes’ case both came after they were proclaimed winners.

“We will apply the principle of the HRET having the exclusive jurisdiction and sole judge once a member had been proclaimed by Comelec and had taken his/her oath before any officer authorized to administer an oath to all members, including party-list representatives who have been proclaimed by the Comelec,” Gonzales stressed in an interview.

“The Comelec and Supreme Court should back off from encroaching on the exclusive jurisdiction of HRET. They can’t take away the powers of HRET to hear electoral protests against lawmakers as guaranteed by the Constitution,” Gonzales added.

The HRET, whose members will be named after the 16th Congress opens its First Regular Session on July 22, can take as much as three years to resolve electoral protest cases.

Mababasa dito