Reyes v COMELEC

Doctrine: Jurisdiction of the HRET starts only when a candidate is already considered
a Member of the HOR. A candidate is already considered a member: a) after
proclamation; b) taking of oath before the House Speaker in an open
session; and c) assumption of office.
Facts: COC including: falsely stating her civil status, birthday, place of residence and
citizenship. COMELEC disqualified petitioner. Petitioner, in her MR, claimed that her
marriage to the Congressman Mandanas of Batangas was void and thus his place of
residence was not binding upon her. She never lost her domicile of origin in Boac,
Marinduque. With respect to her citizenship, she claimed that she has not lost her
status as a natural-born citizen, and her marriage to an American gives her, at most,
dual citizenship. Petitioners MR was denied. Petitioner was proclaimed winner in May
2013 elections. She took her oath but has not assumed office as of promulgation of
this decision. Petitioner prays for a SQ ante order and questions the jurisdiction of the
COMELEC over the case.
Held and Ratio: The SC held that COMELEC retains jurisdiction. First, HRET does not
assume jurisdiction until a petition is duly filed with the tribunal. No such petition has
been filed. More importantly, HRET jurisdiction begins only when candidate is
considered a member of the HOR. The Court discussed at what point a congressmanelect is considered a Member of the HOR: It is after proclamation, taking of oath, AND
assumption of office. In some cases, the Court has made the pronouncement that
once a proclamation has been made, COMELECs jurisdiction is already lost and, thus,
its jurisdiction over contests relating to elections, returns, and qualifications ends,
and the HRETs own jurisdiction begins. However, it must be noted that in these
cases, the doctrinal pronouncement was made in the context of a proclaimed
candidate who had not only taken an oath of office, but who had also assumed office.
These cases arose after the candidate had already assumed office unlike in the case
at bar where she has not yet assumed office. Until June 30th, 12nn, COMELEC retains
its jurisdiction. Finally, the oath contemplated must be taken before the House
Speaker in open session. Petitioners oath taking in front of HOR Speaker Belmonte
but not in open session is invalid. Affirmed.
Constitutional Amendment Cases

Bengzon v Drilon
Facts:
Retired Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Justices are petitioning the validity of
the veto by the President of provisions in the GAA for the year 1992 relating to the
payment of the petitioners adjusted pensions.
In 1953, RA 910 was enacted to provide pensions for members of the judiciary who
have rendered at least twenty years of service and having attained the age of 70 or
who resign by reason of incapacity to fulfill his duties of office. It was later on
amended by RA 1797 which allowed adjustments in pensions according to the
increase and decrease of the current salaries of Justices.
In Nov 1974, Marcos extended the same retirement benefits to members of the AFP.
Two months later, he repealed the RAs that authorized the adjustment of pensions for
the justices and the members of the AFP. Afterwards, he restored the automatic
readjustment of pensions to members of the AFP, but not to the judiciary.
Congress, in 1990, realized the unfairness and discrimination that happened against
the judiciary, and so decided to reenact the previously repealed RAs to restore the
justices right to adjusted pensions and privileges. However, this was vetoed by the
President, saying that it would erode the very foundation of the Government's

collective effort to adhere faithfully to and enforce strictly the policy on

standardization of compensation as articulated in Republic Act No. 6758 known as
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989
Afterwards, but prior to the case at bar, the Court granted the request of retired
justices asking for a readjustment of their monthly pensions, on the grounds that PD
644 repealing RA 1797 did not become law, because there was no valid publication.
Pursuant to the resolution, Congress included in the GAA for fiscal year 1992 the
payment of adjusted pension rates due the retired justices.
President subsequently vetoed provisions relating to the adjustment of pension rates
of justices, citing the same grounds it used in 1990.
Issue: WoN the President has the power to veto a law and a Supreme Court
resolution?
Held:
1. She cannot. What were really vetoed were the methods placed by Congress to ensure
that the obligations to pay the adjusted pensions of the retired justices were paid
when due. Moreover, what the President vetoed were provisions, and not any specific
item*. No specific appropriation of money was involved.
It should also be obvious that no President can veto the provisions of a law,
nor can she reverse a Supreme Court decision through the exercise of veto
power. (Separation of power)
[Remember that the President cannot, in general, veto any specific item of
any bill; but the GAA is an exception. *An item is the particulars, the details,
the distinct and severable parts of the bill]
2. PD 644 never became law. Because of this, RA 1797 could not have been repealed,
and should continue to take effect up to the present.
3. Judiciarys fiscal autonomy is a constitutional grant that is threatened by the attempt
to use the veto power to set aside the resolution by the court and to deprive the
benefits provided for by RA1797.
Fiscal autonomy means that there is a guarantee on full flexibility to allocate
and utilize their resources with the wisdom and dispatch that their needs
require. It means freedom from outside control.
The veto of the provisions in the GAA is tantamount to dictating to the
judiciary how its funds should be utilized, violating the latters grant to fiscal
autonomy.
Note: Read the last part of the case. Sobrang burat nung Court sa executive. HAHA.
Paglaum v COMELEC
54 petitions for certiorari and prohibition were filed by 52 party-list groups assailing
the COMELECs Resolutions disqualifying them from participating in the 13 May 2013
elections.
First issue: Grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC
The Court held that COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
disqualifying petitioners. However, since the Court adopted new parameters in the
qualification of national, regional, and sectoral parties, the cases were remanded
back to COMELEC.
Is the party-list system open only to sectoral parties?

NO. The unmistakable intent of the Framers is to include in the party-list system both
sectoral and non-sectoral parties (see Sec. 5(1), Art. VI). Thus, the party-list system is
composed of three different groups:
1. National parties or organizations;
2. Regional parties or organizations;
3. Sectoral parties or organizations.
Does a party have to represent the marginalized and underrepresented to be able to
participate in the party-list elections?
NO. Neither the Constitution nor RA 7941 requires it. In fact, RA 7941 provides a
definition of a political party (advocating an ideology or platform) and a sectoral party
(principal advocacy pertains to the special interest of their sector). They are not the
same. A political party need not be organized as a sectoral party and need not
represent any particular sector.
The sectors mentioned in Sec. 5 of RA 7941 are not all necessarily marginalized and
underrepresented. Moreover, Sec. 6 does not list non-representation of a
marginalized and underrepresented sector as a ground to refuse or cancel
registration under the party-list system.
Finally, the phrase marginalized and underrepresented appears only once in RA
7941, in its declaration of policy.
Second issue: Application of Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT rulings
Both rulings are inapplicable. Ang Bagong Bayani listed the 8-point guidelines which
specifically require that a party represent the marginalized and underrepresented. In
BANAT, the Court specifically declared that political parties are not allowed to
participate in the party-list system.
Thus, we remand all the present petitions to the COMELEC. In determining who may
participate in the coming 13 May 2013 and subsequent party-list elections, the
COMELEC shall adhere to the following parameters:
1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1) national parties
or organizations, (2) regional parties or organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or
organizations;
2. National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do not need
to organize along sectoral lines and do not need to represent any marginalized and
underrepresented sector;
3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under
the party-list system and do not field candidates in legislative district elections. A
political party, whether major or not, that fields candidates in legislative district
elections can participate in party-list elections only through its sectoral wing that can
separately register under the party-list system. The sectoral wing is by itself an
independent sectoral party, and is linked to a political party through a coalition;
4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be marginalized and
underrepresented or lacking in well-defined political constituencies. It is enough
that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their
sector. The sectors that are marginalized and underrepresented include labor,
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped,
veterans, and overseas workers. The sectors that lack well-defined political
constituencies include professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth;
5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the
marginalized and underrepresented must belong to the marginalized and
underrepresented sector they represent. Similarly, a majority of the members of
sectoral parties or organizations that lack well-defined political constituencies must
belong to the sector they represent. The nominees of sectoral parties or
organizations that represent the marginalized and underrepresented, or that

represent those who lack well- defined political constituencies, either must belong
to their respective sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy for their
respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional parties or organizations
must be bona-fide members of such parties or organizations;
6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if
some of their nominees are disqualified, provided that they have at least one
nominee who remains qualified.