University of the Philippines College of Law

Block F2022

Topic Electoral Tribunals

Case No. GR No. 150605 (December 10, 2002)
Case Name Codilla vs De Venecia
Ponente Puno, J.

FACTS

 May 14, 2001- Ma. Victoria Locsin lost to petitioner Eufrocino Codilla, Sr., in the elections as
Representative of the 4th Legislative District of Leyte
 May 8, 2001- Prior to the elections, a registered voter of Kananga, Leyte filed directly with the
COMELEC main office a Petition for Disqualification against Codilla for indirectly soliciting votes
from registered voters of Kananga and Matag-ob, Leyte, in violation of the Omnibus Election
Code, by using government owned facilities to distribute gravel and sand to the residents for the
purpose of inducing and corrupting them to vote for him.
 June 14, 2001- Codilla was found guilty by the Comelec Second Division of indirect solicitation
of votes and ordered his disqualification entailing the proclamation of his rival Locsin, being the
candidate with the highest number of votes, as the elected representative.
 Codilla filed for a Motion for Reconsideration and Petition for Declaration of Nullity of
Proclamation of Locsin. The COMELEC reversed the resolution of its Second Division and
declared the proclamation of Locsin as null and void.
 Locsin, however, did not appeal from the aforementioned decision but instead questioned the
procedure and manner by which the decision was issued. She contends that the COMELEC has
no jurisdiction to nullify her proclamation such case is within the House of the Representatives
Electoral Tribunals’ (HRET) power.
 September 12, 2001- Codilla was proclaimed by the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Leyte
as the duly-elected Representative of the 4th Legislative District of Leyte. Two days after, Codilla
wrote to the HoR, through Jose De Venecia, informing the House of the COMELEC resolution
annulling the proclamation of Locsin and proclaiming him as the duly-elected representative.
 De Venecia wrote a letter stating that the House recognizes the finality of the COMELEC
resolution but leaving the matter to be adjudicated by the Supreme Court and not by the House.
 Thus, Codilla filed for a petition of mandamus and quo warranto. De Venecia alleged that a
mandamus will not lie because it is not the duty of the HoR to implement a COMELEC decision
that unseats an incumbent house member.
 Locsin alleged that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction on the quo warranto petition because
the issue involved falls under the jurisdiction of the HRET under Article VI, Section 17 of the
Constitution. Her eligibility has been affirmed by the HRET when it dismissed the quo warranto
case file against her entitled Paciano vs Locsin.

ISSUES

● W/N the proclamation of Locsin was valid

● W/N the proclamation of Locsin divested the COMELEC en banc of jurisdiction to review its
validity and that HRET is the proper forum to question her membership
● W/N it is the ministerial duty of the HRET, through De Venecia, to recognize Codilla as the
legally elected Representative of the 4th Legislative District of Leyte

RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue
W/N the proclamation of
Locsin was valid (1) Codilla was denied due process during the entire proceedings
(2) Proclamation of the petitioner was suspended in gross violation of
(3) Codilla’s right was violated when he was disqualified to assume
(4) The votes cast in favor of Codilla cannot be considered stray and
W/N the proclamation of
Locsin divested the
COMELEC en banc of
jurisdiction to review its
validity and that HRET is
the proper forum to
question her membership
University of the Philippines College of Law
Block F2022
Ratio
No. The proclamation of Locsin was null and void.
leading to the proclamation of respondent Locsin.
 Under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, the COMELEC
is required, through the Regional Election Director, to issue
summons to any questioned election candidate together with a
copy of the petition and its enclosures within 3 days from the filing
of the petition for disqualification.
 The records of the case do not show that summons were served
to Codilla. The COMELEC do not have a copy of the summons
allegedly served on the petitioner and its corresponding proof of
service.
 Codilla claimed that he was never summoned nor furnished a
copy of the petition and that he received only a telegraphed order
from the COMELEC Second Division on May 22, 2001, clearly
past the 3-day requirement of issuing summons.
Section 72 of the Omnibus Election Code which requires that a final
judgment shall be rendered for disqualification of a candidate before
the election but if a judgment is not issued before the election, a
candidate’s violation should not preclude his proclamation and
assumption of office
 Codilla was not disqualified by final judgment when the elections
were conducted on May 14, 2001. In fact, a hearing was yet to be
scheduled.
office without any sufficient and substantial evidence.
Locsin cannot be validly proclaimed on that basis since the order of
disqualification of Codilla was not yet final.
No. It is the COMELEC which has the jurisdiction and not the
HRET.
 Even without this petition, the COMELEC en banc has the
jurisdiction and could still rule on the nullity of Locsin’s
proclamation because it was properly raised in the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by the petitioner.
 Article IX-C of the Constitution empowers the COMELEC en banc
to review, on motion for reconsideration, decisions or resolutions
decided by a division. Consequently, the same is also accorded
by the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
 Since Codilla seasonably filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
Order of the Second Division suspending his proclamation and
disqualifying him, the COMELEC en banc was not divested of its
jurisdiction to review the validity of the said order.
 The order was yet to be implemented and was not yet final since

W/N it is the ministerial
duty of the HRET, through
De Venecia, to recognize
Codilla as the legally
elected Representative of
the 4th Legislative District
of Leyte
The petition for mandamus was granted. Public Speaker of the HoR shall administer in the oath of the
petitioner as the Representative of the 4th Legislative District of Leyte and his name be registered in the
Roll of Members of the HoR.
University of the Philippines College of Law
Block F2022
the Motion for Reconsideration suspended its execution. Thus, it
cannot be used as the basis for Locsin to assume office.
 Locsin argued that a petition for quo warranto before the HRET is
the proper recourse but such a petition only applies against
someone who has been duly elected for having obtained the
highest number of votes but whose eligibility is in question
at the time of such proclamation. Locsin cannot be the subject
of quo warranto because she did not obtain the highest number of
votes.
Yes. It is a ministerial duty that may be compelled by mandamus.
 The administration of oath and the registration of Codilla in the
Roll of Members of the HoR is not a discretionary but a
ministerial duty by the facts that (1) Codilla garnered the highest
number of votes; and (2) the decision of the COMELEC en banc
has not been challenged before the Court by Locsin and has
become final and executory.
 The rule of law demands the decision of the COMELEC be
obeyed by all officials of the land.
RULING