You are on page 1of 6

Search

SPONSORED ADS
Home
About UD
Full Texts
Legal English
Law Student Blog
Forum
Quizzes and Exams
LAW MEMES
2013 BAR EXAM RESULTS
Home Constitutional Law Jocelyn Limkaichong vs COMELEC
Jocelyn Limkaichong vs COMELEC
Political Law Jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunals
Limkaichong ran as a representative in the 1
st
District of Negros Oriental. Paras, her rival, and some
other concerned citizens led disqualication cases against Limkaichong. Limkaichong is allegedly not a
natural born citizen of the Philippines because when she was born her father was still a Chinese and that
her mom, though Filipino lost her citizenship by virtue of her marriage to Limkaichongs dad. During
the pendency of the case against Limkaichong before the COMELEC, Election day came and votes were
cast. Results came in and Limkaichong won over her rival Paras. COMELEC after due hearing declared
Limkaichong as disqualied. About 2 days after the counting of votes, COMELEC declared
Limkaichong as a disqualied candidate. On the following days however, notwithstanding their
proclamation disqualifying Limkaichong, the COMELEC issued a proclamation announcing
Limkaichong as the winner of the recently conducted elections. This is in compliance with Resolution
No. 8062 adopting the policy-guidelines of not suspending the proclamation of winning candidates
with pending disqualication cases which shall be without prejudice to the continuation of the hearing
and resolution of the involved cases. Paras countered the proclamation and she led a petition before the
COMELEC. Limkaichong asailed Paras petitioned arguing that since she is now the proclaimed winner,
the COMELEC can no longer exercise jurisdiction over the matter. It should be the HRET which should
exercise jurisdiction from then on. COMELEC agreed with Limkaichong.
! Election Results ! VS Jose ! Comelec ! GR VS
0 0 0 3 0 0 0
ISSUE: Whether or not the proclamation done by the COMELEC is valid. Whether or not COMELEC
should still exercise jurisdiction over the matter.
HELD: The proclamation of Limkaichong was valid. The COMELEC Second Division rendered its
Joint Resolution dated May 17, 2007. On May 20, 2007, Limkaichong timely led with the COMELEC
En Banc her motion for reconsideration as well as for the lifting of the incorporated directive suspending
her proclamation. The ling of the motion for reconsideration effectively suspended the execution
of the May 17, 2007 Joint Resolution. Since the execution of the May 17, 2007 Joint Resolution was
suspended, there was no impediment to the valid proclamation of Limkaichong as the winner. Section 2,
Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides:

Sec. 2. Period for Filing Motions for Reconsideration. A motion to reconsider a decision,
resolution, order or ruling of a Division shall be led within ve (5) days from the promulgation
thereof. Such motion, if not pro forma, suspends the execution for implementation of the
decision, resolution, order and ruling.
The HRET must exercise jurisdiction after Limkaichongs proclamation. The SC has invariably held that
once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed ofce as a Member of the
HOR, the COMELECs jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns, and
qualications ends, and the HRETs own jurisdiction begins. It follows then that the proclamation
of a winning candidate divests the COMELEC of its jurisdiction over matters pending before it at the
time of the proclamation. The party questioning his qualication should now present his case in a
proper proceeding before the HRET, the constitutionally mandated tribunal to hear and decide a case
involving a Member of the House of Representatives with respect to the latters election, returns and
qualications. The use of the word sole in Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution and in Section
250 of the OEC underscores the exclusivity of the Electoral Tribunals jurisdiction over election contests
relating to its members.

Read full text here.
SPONSORED ADS
Related Cases/Legal Resources
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required elds are marked *
Name *
Email *
Website
Comment
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title="">
<b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike>
<strong>
Lazatin vs
COMELEC
Firdausi Abbas et al
vs The Senate
Electoral Tribunal
Lorenzo Taada vs
Mariano Cuenco
Raul Daza vs Luis
Singson
Teosto Guingona
vs Neptali Gonzales
TAADA vs
CUENCO
DAZA vs
SINGSON
Facebook social plugin
Also post on Facebook
Posting as Josine Protasio (Change) Comment
Add a comment...
Submit Comment
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
Find Uber Digests on Facebook!
UberDigests
4,036 people like UberDigests.
Facebook social plugin
Like Like
Inside Uber Digests


Sponsored Ads

MCQ Online Quizzes
Digests and other resources within this site are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial-ShareAlike License unless otherwise indicated.
Recent Posts
CUAYCONG vs BENEDICTO
PLDT vs NLRC (1988)
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs National Labor Relations Commission (1988)
ACEBEDO vs ABESAMIS
PEOPLE vs DE GUZMAN (October 1993)
People of the Philippines vs Jose De Guzman
GALAY vs CA
UberLinks
ABOUT UBER DIGESTS
TERMS OF USE
PRIVACY POLICY
DISCLAIMER
THE LAWYERS OATH
FILIPINOLOSOPHY
PARTNERS
SITEMAP
Latest Law Memes
Lawyered!
Its like hangover
MCQ Issues
Can you relate?
Will this ever happen to law graduates??
Some weird American laws
Featured Articles
Best Jobs To Have
While Taking Up Law
How To Digest Cases
Miranda Rights in the
Philippines
SWA is a Scam!
The Toughest Bar
Exams in the World
Is Love Legally
Demandable?
Should the 2015 Bar
Exams Be Moved?