Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    Velez Vs Poe

    Uploaded by

    Gillian Briones
    The Constitution designates the Supreme Court as the sole judge for contests relating to the election of the President or Vice President. However, the Court held that an "election contest" can only refer to a post-election scenario like an election protest or quo warranto filed to challenge the winner. Since this case was filed before the election took place, it was premature and the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear it. The primary jurisdiction of the Court over presidential elections can only be invoked after, not before, the actual elections.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Velez Vs Poe

    Uploaded by

    Gillian Briones
    33 views1 page
    The Constitution designates the Supreme Court as the sole judge for contests relating to the election of the President or Vice President. However, the Court held that an "election contest" can only refer to a post-election scenario like an election protest or quo warranto filed to challenge the winner. Since this case was filed before the election took place, it was premature and the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear it. The primary jurisdiction of the Court over presidential elections can only be invoked after, not before, the actual elections.

    Original Title

    Velez vs Poe.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Constitution designates the Supreme Court as the sole judge for contests relating to the election of the President or Vice President. However, the Court held that an "election contest" can only refer to a post-election scenario like an election protest or quo warranto filed to challenge the winner. Since this case was filed before the election took place, it was premature and the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear it. The primary jurisdiction of the Court over presidential elections can only be invoked after, not before, the actual elections.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    33 views1 page

    Velez Vs Poe

    Uploaded by

    Gillian Briones
    The Constitution designates the Supreme Court as the sole judge for contests relating to the election of the President or Vice President. However, the Court held that an "election contest" can only refer to a post-election scenario like an election protest or quo warranto filed to challenge the winner. Since this case was filed before the election took place, it was premature and the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear it. The primary jurisdiction of the Court over presidential elections can only be invoked after, not before, the actual elections.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Issue: Whether or not the Court acquires jurisdiction over the case upon filing of the petition for

    certiorari under Rule


    64 in relation to Rule 65, No.

    Ruling:

    The Supreme Court ruled in the negative because of prematurity, there being no election protest in this case.

    The Supreme Court held that, the case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and prematurity, petitions in the
    cases involved both having been directly elevated before the Supreme Court, in its capacity as the only tribunal to
    resolve a presidential and vice presidential election contest under the Constitution. Evidently, the primary jurisdiction
    of the Court can directly be invoked only after, not before, the elections are held.

    In the case at bar, the petitioners invoked the provisions of Art VII, Section 4, Par. 7 of the 1987 Constitution, wherein
    they assailed the jurisdiction of the COMELEC when it took cognizance of SPA No. 04-003 and thus urged the
    Supreme Court to instead take on the petitions they directly instituted before it.

    As provided for by the Constitution:

    "The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
    qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose."

    The Supreme Court stated that the provision herein provided is an innovation of the 1987 Constitution. That the
    omission in the 1935 and 1973 Constitution to designate any tribunal to be the sole judge of presidential and vice-
    presidential contests, has constrained this Court to declare in Lopez vs. Roxas, as not being justiciable controversies
    or disputes involving contests on the elections, returns and qualifications of the President or Vide President. Such
    lapse prompted the Congress to create RA 1793, “An Act Constituting an Independent Presidential Electoral Tribunal
    to Try, Hear and Decide Protests Contesting the Election of the President-Elect and Vice President Elect of the
    Philippines and Providing for the Manner of Hearing the Same”. Such act designated the Chief Justice and the
    Associate Justices os the Supreme Court to be the members of the tribunal.

    However, the Supreme Court contemplated that, the characterization of “contest” is in reference to post-election
    scenario. Election contests consists of either an election protest or a quo warranto which, although two distinct
    remedies, would have one objective in view, to dislodge the winning candidate from office. Such is supported in the
    premise, as provided for by the Rules of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal:

    Rule 12. Jurisdiction. - The Tribunal shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
    qualifications of the President or Vice-President of the Philippines.

    "Rule 13. How Initiated. - An election contest is initiated by the filing of an election protest or a petition for quo
    warranto against the President or Vice-President. An election protest shall not include a petition for quo warranto. A
    petition for quo warranto shall not include an election protest.

    "Rule 14. Election Protest. - Only the registered candidate for President or for Vice-President of the Philippines who
    received the second or third highest number of votes may contest the election of the President or the Vice-President,
    as the case may be, by filing a verified petition with the Clerk of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal within thirty (30)
    days after the proclamation of the winner.

    The rules categorically speak of the jurisdiction of the tribunal over contests relating to the election, returns and
    qualifications of the "President" or "Vice-President", of the Philippines, and not of "candidates" for President or Vice-
    President. A quo warranto proceeding is generally defined as being an action against a person who usurps, intrudes
    into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office. In such context, the election contest can only contemplate a post-
    election scenario. In Rule 14, only a registered candidate who would have received either the second or third highest
    number of votes could file an election protest. This rule again presupposes a post-election scenario.

    It is fair to conclude that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, defined by Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987
    Constitution, would not include cases directly brought before it, questioning the qualifications of a candidate for the
    presidency or vice-presidency before the elections are held.

    You might also like