‘Latest SC ruling on poll cases clips powers of HRET’

MANILA, Philippines - The newest Supreme Court (SC) ruling on election protests against lawmakers clipped the powers of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET), according to four justices.

The four – Arturo Brion, Antonio Carpio, Martin Villarama Jr., and Marvic Leonen – dissented from the majority opinion penned by Justice Jose Portugal Reyes. It was Brion who wrote the dissent.

Six court members, including Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, joined the majority ruling on election protests, which was handed down in the controversial case of Marinduque Rep. Regina Ongsiako Reyes, who beat Lord Allan Jay Velasco, son of Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr.

Justice Velasco did not participate in the decision, along with two other justices, while another justice was absent.

The court ruled that the issue of Reyes’ disqualification was still within the jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections (Comelec), and not the HRET, as the elected congresswoman had argued.

It said there are three requisites that must all be met for the HRET to acquire jurisdiction: a House member must have been proclaimed, must have taken her oath of office and his or her term must have already started.

The term of office of members of Congress begin on June 30 following their election, as the Constitution provides.

The SC ruled that for an oath to be valid, it must be administered by no less than the Speaker of the House and in plenary session. The present Congress will convene only on July 22. Before such date, no plenary session can be held.

Reyes was proclaimed on May 18, took her oath of office before Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. on June 5 and questioned Comelec’s jurisdiction over her on the same day before the SC.

In their dissent, Brion and the three other SC justices said the “majority effectively emasculates the HRET of its jurisdiction as it allows the filing of an election protest…only after the assumption to office by the candidate (on June 30).”

They said the majority opinion runs in conflict with the rules of the HRET, which hold that the “proclamation of the winner in the congressional elections serves as the reckoning point as well as the trigger that brings any contests relating to his or her election, return and qualifications within its sole and exclusive jurisdiction.”

They said the proclamation of the winning candidate should be the “operative fact” that triggers the jurisdiction of the HRET and divests the Comelec of its own jurisdiction over election-related issues involving elected House members.