Barbers v. COMELECFacts:Robert Z. Barbers and Rodolfo Biazon were candidates for re-election to the Senateof the Philippines in the 10 May 2004 Synchronized National and Local Elections.COMELEC sitting
en banc
as the NBC for the election of Senators promulgated aresolution proclaiming the first 11 duly elected Senators in the elections. The COMELECdeclared that it would proclaim the remaining 12
th
winning candidate for Senator aftercanvassing the remaining unsubmitted COCs.On 2 June 2004, the COMELEC promulgated another resolution proclaiming Biazonas “the 12
th
ranking duly elected 12
th
Senator. According to COMELEC, Biazon obtained10,685 more votes than Barbers. The COMELEC stated that this difference will notmaterially be affected by the votes in certain precincts where there was failure of elections.Barbers filed a
petition to annul the proclamation of Biazon
as Senatorclaiming that the latter’s proclamation was void, illegal and premature being based onan incomplete canvass. Barbers asserted that the remaining uncanvassed COCs andvotes and the results of the special elections, which were still to be conducted, wouldundoubtedly affect the results of the elections.On the other hand, Biazon asserts that the COMELEC 1
st
Division has no jurisdictionto review, reverse or modify the actuations of COMELEC en banc sitting as NationalBoard of Canvassers for Senators and that because he already took his oath, it shouldnot entertain Barbers’ petition. It also argued that considering his lead over Barbers, theremaining votes in the uncanvassed COCs would not substantially affect the results as tothe 12
th
senator. On the other hand, Barbers countered by saying that there could be novalid proclamation based on an incomplete canvass. COMELEC denied Barbers’ petition.It ruled that Barbers’ petition cannot be categorized as a pre-proclamation controversysince the issues cited are not proper for such nor it can be categorized as an electionprotest since the ground cited also does not make it as such. Besides, the COMELEC alsofound out that considering Biazon’s lead over that of Barbers, even if those unincludedvotes would be counted in favor of Barbers still it would not affect the results. MR deniedby COMELEC en banc. Hence, this petition.Issue:Whether the Supreme Court can take cognizance of the petitionHeld:No. It is the Senate Electoral Tribunal that has the exclusive jurisdiction toentertain this kind of petition in light of Sec. 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution aswell as Rule 12 of the Revised Rules of Senate Electoral Tribunal as well as the ruling in
Pangilinan v. COMELEC
. In
Javier v. COMELEC
, it was held that the phrase “election,returns and qualifications” should be interpreted in its totality as referring to all mattersaffecting the validity of the contestee’s title. But if it is necessary to specify, we can saythat “election” referred to the conduct of the polls, including the listing of voters, theholding of the electoral campaign, and the casting and counting of the votes;
“returns”to the canvass of the returns and the proclamation of the winners, includingquestions concerning the composition of the board of canvassers and theauthenticity of the election returns
; and “qualifications” to matters that could beraised in a
quo warranto
proceeding against the proclaimed winner, such as hisdisloyalty or ineligibility or the inadequacy of his certificate of candidacy. The word“sole” in Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Rule 12 of the Revised Rulesof the Senate Electoral Tribunal underscores the exclusivity of the SET’s jurisdiction over
Leave a Comment