Regina Ongsiako Reyes House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

1. Reyes v.
HRET (Delos Reyes)

October 16, 2018 | J. Carpio | Article VI, HRET Rules Petitioner alleges that under Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution as well as
the 2011 Rules of the HRET, a petition may be filed within 15 days from the date of
the proclamation of the winner, making such proclamation the operative fact for the
Petitioner: REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES HRET to acquire jurisdiction. However, Rule 15 of the 2015 HRET Rules requires
Respondents: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL that to be considered a Member of the House of Representatives, there should be:
(1) a valid proclamation;
SUMMARY: (2) a proper oath; and
Reyes questions the constitutionality of several provisions of the HRET Rules, (3) assumption of office.
namely: a. the rule which requires the presence of at least one Justice of the
Supreme Court to constitute a quorum; b. the rule on constitution of a quorum; and Further, Rule 17 of the 2015 HRET Rules states that election protests should be filed
c. the requisites to be considered a member of the House of Representatives. within 15 days from June 30 of the election year or the date of actual assumption of
office, whichever is later, while Rule 18 provides that petitions for quo warranto shall
be filed within 15 days from June 30 of the election year or the date of actual
DOCTRINE: assumption of office, whichever is later. Petitioner alleges that this would allow the
COMELEC to determine whether there was a valid proclamation or a proper oath, as
well as give it opportunity to entertain cases between the time of the election and
The presence of the three Justices in the HRET is meant to tone down the political June 30 of the election year or actual assumption of office, whichever is later.
nature of the cases involved and do away with the impression that party interests
play a part in the decision-making process. On the other hand, the HRET maintains that it has the power to promulgate its own
rules that would govern the proceedings before it. The HRET points out that under
Rule 6 of the 2015 HRET Rules, a quorum requires the presence of at least one
Justice-member and four members of the Tribunal. The HRET argues that the
FACTS: requirement rests on substantial distinction because there are only three Justice-
members of the Tribunal as against six Legislator-members. The HRET further
Petitioner alleges that Rule 6 of the 2015 HRET Rules is unconstitutional as it gives argues that the requirement of four members assures the presence of at least two
the Justices, collectively, denial or veto powers over the proceedings by simply Legislator-members to constitute a quorum. The HRET adds that the requirement of
absenting themselves from any hearing. the presence of at least one Justice was incorporated in the Rules to maintain
judicial equilibrium in deciding election contests and because the duty to decide
In addition, petitioner alleges that the 2015 HRET Rules grant more powers to the election cases is a judicial function. The HRET states that petitioner's allegation that
Justices, individually, than the legislators by requiring the presence of at least one Rule 6 of the 2015 HRET Rules gives the Justices virtual veto power to stop the
Justice in order to constitute a quorum. proceedings by simply absenting themselves is not only speculative but also imputes
bad faith on the part of the Justices. The HRET states that it only has jurisdiction
Petitioner alleges that even when all six legislators are present, they cannot over a member of the House of Representatives. In order to be considered a
constitute themselves as a body and cannot act as an Executive Committee without member of the House of Representatives, there must be a concurrence of the
the presence of any of the Justices. following requisites: (1) a valid proclamation; (2) a proper oath; and (3) assumption of
office. Hence, the requirement of concurrence of these three requisites is within the
Petitioner alleges that the quorum requirement under the 2015 HRET Rules is power of the HRET to make.
ambiguous because it requires only the presence of at least one Justice and four
Members of the Tribunal. ISSUE/S:
WON the 2015 HRET Rules is unconstitutional..
Petitioner likewise alleges that Rule 15, in relation to Rules 17 and 18, of the 2015
HRET Rules unconstitutionally expanded the jurisdiction of the Commission on RATIO:
Elections (COMELEC). NO.
As to presence of at least one Justice-member to Constitute a Quorum, Rule 6
of the 2015 HRET Rules does not grant additional powers to the Justices but rather
maintains the balance of power between the members from the Judicial and
Legislative departments as envisioned by the framers of the 1935 and 1987
Constitutions. The presence of the three Justices is meant to tone down the political
nature of the cases involved and do away with the impression that party interests
play a part in the decision-making process. Rule 6(a) of the 2015 HRET Rules
requires the presence of at least one Justice and four members of the Tribunal to
constitute a quorum. This means that even when all the Justices are present, at least
two members of the House of Representatives need to be present to constitute a
quorum. Without this rule, it would be possible for five members of the House of
Representatives to convene and have a quorum even when no Justice is present.
This would render ineffective the rationale contemplated by the framers of the 1935
and 1987 Constitutions for placing the Justices as members of the HRET. Rule 6(a)
of the 2015 HRET Rules does not make the Justices indispensable members to
constitute a quorum but ensures that representatives from both the Judicial and
Legislative departments are present to constitute a quorum. Members from both the
Judicial and Legislative departments become indispensable to constitute a quorum.
The last sentence of Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution also provides that
"[t]he senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman." This means that
only a Justice can chair the Electoral Tribunal. As such, there should always be one
member of the Tribunal who is a Justice. If all three Justice-members inhibit
themselves in a case, the Supreme Court will designate another Justice to chair the
Electoral Tribunal in accordance with Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
As to the expanded jurisdiction of the Comelec, HRET's jurisdiction is provided

under Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which states that "[t]he Senate
and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall
be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of
their respective Members." There is no room for the COMELEC to assume
jurisdiction because HRET's jurisdiction is constitutionally mandated.

Regina Ongsiako Reyes House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Regina Ongsiako Reyes House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Regina Ongsiako Reyes House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1. Reyes v.

HRET (Delos Reyes)

As to the expanded jurisdiction of the Comelec, HRET's jurisdiction is provided

You might also like