Lazatin v Comelec 168 Scra 391 Lazatin v Comelec 157 Scra 337

Lazatin v. COMELEC, 157 SCRA 337 (1988) Topic: Electoral Tribunal FACTS: Petitioner questions the jurisdiction of the COMELEC in annulling the proclamation to assume office as Congressman of first district in Pampanga stating Electoral Tribunal has sole jurisdiction with the Solicitor General agreeing that proclamation was valid. COMELEC states proclamation of petitioner was illegal and void because the board simply corrected the returns contested by the petitioner without waiting for final resolutions ISSUE: WON COMELEC erred in annulling proclamation? RULING: YES Although the Court can t take cognizance in the case since it results in usurp of functions of the Electoral Tribunal, likewise the COMELEC despite mention irregularities is also only to be addressed to the sound judgment of the Electoral Tribunal. As such such to set aside aside revocation revocation of proclamation of of COMELEC 







’

Lazatin v. COMELEC, 168 SCRA 391 (1988) Topic: Electoral Tribunal

28 1988 while filing made to HRET on Feb 8 1988 while the 10 day limits is only until Feb 6 1988. Sec 9 of HRET on the other hand states filing within 15 days from date of proclamation. ISSUE: WON HRET erred in stating filing was made on time? Ruling: NO Sec 250 applies to only those that filed before the COMELEC on election of members of Batasang Pambansa as stated in Sec 249 and these elections of members has ceased upon the 1987 constitution being that the Batasang Pambansa has already been abolished and sole jurisdiction over election, returns, and qualification is vested to the Electoral Tribunal. Power of HRET includes promulgate rules and regulation on matters in h is jurisdiction such as period of election protests. The power grant to Electoral Tribunal is being the sole judge emphasizing the exclusive character. Unlike 1973, intent of 1987 constitutional framers like that of 1935 f ramers was to restore exclusive  jurisdiction of Electoral Tribunal with COMELEC retaining purely administrative powers except to decide in election case, which is vested to the Electoral Tribunal. 

Doctrine: Power of HRET: power of the HRET, as the sole  judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the Members of the House of Representatives, to promulgate rules and regulations relative to matters within its jurisdiction , including the period for filing election protests before it, is beyond dispute. Its rule-making power necessarily flows from the general power granted it by the Constitution. 



Facts: 







Petitioner and respondent was candidates for Rep. of 1st District of Pampanga. Respondent raised in Comelec the non-inclusion of certain returns resulting in suspending declaration of winning party however later comelec announced to proceed with the declaration resulting with petitioner proclaimed Congressman-elect. Resondent filed to prohibit petitioner from assuming office which Comelec grant stating proclamation of the petitioner void-ab-initio however petitioner filed challenging such grant with the Court and as such reversing Comelec decision Respondent then filed with the HRET which the petitioner filed motion for dismissal that such filing was late however HRET states it was filed on time in accordance with HRET rules in Sec 9 Petitioner relies on Sec 250 of Omnibus Election in determining time filed which is 10 days after proclamation and proclamation was made May 27 1987which was suspended and run again on January







