ARTICLE VI - LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

SECTION 17
TANADA v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
G.R. No. 217012, March 1, 2016,
FACTS: Wigberto Tanada filed twin petitions before the COMELEC to cancel
the COC of Alvin John Tanada for false representations and to declare him as a
nuisance candidate. They were both candidates for the position of Congress
Representative. A COMELEC division denied both his petitions, but on
reconsideration, the COMELEC en banc on April 13, 2013 granted to cancel
the COC of Alvin John for false representations. The petition to declare him as
nuisance candidate however was denied. Wigberto again sought
reconsideration of the denial of his petition on the basis of a newly discovered
evidence. Comes election day and the name of Alvin John remained in the
ballots, whichafter Angelica Tan was the winning candidate, and Wigberto only
second.
Wigberto filed before the PBOC a petition to correct manifest mistakes
concerning the cancelled candidacy of Alvin John and a motion to consolidate
Alvin John’s votes with the votes he garnered. The PBOC denied the motion to
consolidate the votes because Alvin John was not a nuisance candidate. PBOC
then proclaimed Angelica as the winner.
On May 21, 2013, Wigberto filed a supplemental petition before the
COMELEC to annul the proclamation of Tan, which was granted and affirmed
by the COMELEC en banc. However, Angelica had by then taken her oath and
assumed office past noon time of June 30, 2013, thereby rendering the adverse
resolution on her proclamation moot.
On May 27, 2013, before the SC, Wigberto filed a certiorari assailing the
April 25, 2013 COMELEC en banc’s ruling declaring Alvin John not a nuisance
candidate and an election protest claiming that fraud has been perpetrated.
The SC, noting that the proclaimed candidate has already assumed office,
dismissed the election protest and directed Wigberto to file the protest before
the proper tribunal which is the HRET. The certiorari was also dismissed for
being filed beyond the 5-day reglementary period.Before the HRET, the election
protest was dismissed for being insufficient in form and substance and for lack
of jurisdiction over John Alvin who was not a member of the House of
Representatives.
ISSUES: 1. Are the votes for Alvin John should be credited in favor of Wigberto
as a result of the cancellation of Alvin John’s candidacy
2. the filing of a motion for reconsideration of the COMELEC en banc’s
ruling is proper
 3. Does SC has jurisdiction to resolve issues on the conduct of
canvassing after the proclamation of a winning candidate

RULING: 1. No, the votes cast for Alvin John whose COC was cancelled are
stray votes only. A COC cancelled on ground of false representations under Sec
78 of the Omnibus Election Code, unlike in being a nuisance candidate in Sec
69, does not have the effect of crediting the votes in favor of another candidate.
2. No, the motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading. Rule 13
Sec 1(d) of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure specifically prohibits the filing of
a motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling, resolution, order or decision
except in election offense cases. Consequently, when a COMELEC en banc
ruling become final and executory, it precludes a party from raising again in
any other forum the nuisance candidacy as an issue.
3. No. The SC no longer has jurisdiction over questions involving the
elections, returns and qualifications of candidates who have already assumed
their office as members of House of Representatives. Issues concerning the
conduct of the canvass and the resulting proclamation of candidates are
matters which fall under the scope of the terms “election” and “returns” and
hence, properly fall under the HRET’s sole jurisdiction.