Regina Ongsiako Reyes vs. Comelec and Joseph Socorro Tan Facts Relevant Laws Issues and Ruling
Regina Ongsiako Reyes vs. Comelec and Joseph Socorro Tan Facts Relevant Laws Issues and Ruling
Regina Ongsiako Reyes vs. Comelec and Joseph Socorro Tan Facts Relevant Laws Issues and Ruling
Petitioner holds that she is a duly proclaimed winner and having taken her WoN COMELEC has jurisdiction over the petitioner who is
oath of office as a member of the HR, all questions now regarding her proclaimed as winner and who has already taken her oath of office
qualifications are outside the jurisdiction of the COMELEC and are within the for the position of member of the House of Representative of
exclusive jurisdiction of the HRET. Marinduque. [YES]
However, on May 18, 2013, she was proclaimed winner of the May 13, 2013 Yes, COMELEC retains jurisdiction because the jurisdiction of the House of
Elections. On June 5, 2013, COMELEC declared the May 14, 2013 Representative Electoral Tribunal (HRET) begins only after the candidate is
Resolution final and Executory. On the same day, petitioner took her oath of considered a Member of the House of Representatives, as stated in Section 17,
office before Feliciano Belmonte, the Speaker of the House of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. For one to be considered a Member of the
Representatives. She has yet to assume office at that time, as her term House of Representatives, there must be a concurrence of these requisites: (1)
officially starts at noon of June 30, 2013. According to petitioner, the valid proclamation; (2) proper oath, and (3) assumption of office.
COMELEC was ousted of its jurisdiction when she was duly
proclaimed because pursuant to Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Thus the petitioner cannot be considered a member of the HR yet as she has not
Constitution, the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) has assumed office yet. Also, the 2nd requirement was not validly complied with as a
the exclusive jurisdiction to be the “sole judge of all contests relating to the valid oath must be made (1) before the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
election, returns and qualifications” of the Members of the House of and (2) in open session. Here, although she made the oath before Speaker
Representatives. Belmonte, there is no indication that it was made during plenary or in open
session and, thus, it remains unclear whether the required oath of office was
indeed complied.
Furthermore, petition for certiorari will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is
alleged and proved to exist. For an act to be struck down as having been done
with grave abuse of discretion, the abuse of discretion must be patent and gross.
Here, this Court finds that petitioner failed to adequately and substantially show
that grave abuse of discretion exists.