LAZATIN VS.

HOUSE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL Code was misplaced for it had ceased to be effective under the 1987 Constitution;
G.R. No. L-84297/ December 8, 1988/ Cortes, J./ Constitutional Law
Doctrine:
The HRET is the sole judge of all contests relaation to the elections, returns and qualifications of
the members of the House of Representatives.
Emergency Recitation:
Lazatin and Timbol were candidates for the first district of Pampanga. During the canvassing of
votes, Timbol objected to the inclusion of certain election returns, moving to suspend the
proclamation of the winner. The winner was however proclaimed by the COMELEC and Lazatin
assumed his place as representative. He brought the issue to the HRET which resolved it in his
favor. In protest to the decision of the HRET, Lazatin filed a case in the Courts claiming that HRET
had no jurisdiction to decide on Timbol’s petitions for he had filed the case late. The Supreme
Court Ruled that the HRET did have jurisdiction of the case because firstly, it is the sole judge of
all election protests and also, the counting of days should have started when the proclamation was
reinstated.
 That the HRET is the sole judge of all contests relation to the elections, 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.
 The matter of whether or not to issue a restraining order or a writ of preliminary
injunction during the pendency of a protest lies within the sound discretion of the HRET
as sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the
Members of the House of Representatives. Necessarily, the determination of whether or
not there are indubitable grounds to support the prayer for the aforementioned ancillary
remedies also lies within the HRETs sound judgment.
 However, the Court declined to take cognizance of Timbol’s electoral protest on the
grounds that his prayer was premature it being that HRET had not yet taken any final
action with regards to Timbol’s prayer.

I. Facts:

 Lazatin and Timbol respondent were candidates for Representative of the first district of
Pampanga during the 1987 elections.
 During the canvassing of votes, Timbol objected to the inclusion of certain election returns but
since the Board of Canvassers did not rule on his objections, he brought the case to the
COMELEC.
 The COMELEC ordered the Board to suspend the proclamation of the winning candidate but
rekoved the order later on. The winner, Lazatin, was announced on May 27, 1987.
 Timbol, under the COMELEC, moved to declare the results void and to prohibit Lazatin from
assuming office. However, Lazatin managed to assume office.
 Lazatin’s appointment, while he was already assuming office, was declared void ab initio by the
COMELEC
 The issue was raised by Lazatin to the courts which was later resolved in his favor.
 Timbol then filed for election protest in the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal on
 Lazatin moved to dismiss Timbol’s protest on the ground that it had be filed late, invoking Sec
250 of the Omnibus Election Code as basis.
 However the HRET declared that the protest had been filed on time. Lazatin’s motion for
reconsideration was also denied hence the issue has reached this court.

II. Issue: Whether or not the HRET has jurisdiction over the protest filed by private
respondent.

III. Held: Yes. Under Section 9 of its rules, it allows for 15 days for election contests to be
filed. HOWEVER, the COMELEC declared the proclamation void ab initio and hence
nullified the proclamation. The proclamation was reinstated on January 29, 1988 and hence
the 15-day countdown should start from there.

 The SC also ruled that the courts invocation of Section 250 of the Omnibus Election