SC ruling on poll cases undermines House – lawmakers

MANILA, Philippines - The latest Supreme Court (SC) ruling on an election case involving a SC justice’s defeated congressman-son undermines the powers of the House of Representatives and its electoral tribunal, congressmen said yesterday.

“This ruling is ridiculous. It undercuts the authority of the House and the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET), a constitutional body like the SC. It even questioned the validity of the oaths of office administered by Speaker (Feliciano) Belmonte and even by President Aquino,” Cagayan de Oro City Rep. Rufus Rodriguez said.

“It violates the Constitution and jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court itself in a string of previous election cases,” he said.

Rodriguez, who sits in the HRET, is referring to the case of Marinduque Rep. Regina Reyes, who defeated then incumbent Rep. Lord Allan Jay Velasco, son of SC Justice Presbitero Velasco.

The Commission on Elections (Comelec) had disqualified Reyes, but the provincial board of canvassers proclaimed her before her disqualification became final. The SC later upheld her disqualification.

In the ruling written by Justice Jose Reyes, the SC said the Comelec has jurisdiction over election cases involving elected members of Congress until noon of June 30, when the legislators’ term starts and when such jurisdiction is transferred to the HRET provided that two conditions are met.

These conditions are the members must have been validly proclaimed and that they have validly taken their oath of office.

The SC rules that for an oath to be valid, it must be administered by the Speaker in a plenary session of the House.

Rodriguez said the decision penned by Reyes effectively questions the oaths of office administered by Belmonte in the sense that these were not made in plenary session and the oaths were taken before June 30.

It also invalidated the oaths given by Aquino to several senators and House members, he said.

“This is crazy. How can one question the oath administered by the President, the highest official of the land, the Senate president and the Speaker? We can take our oath even before a barangay chairman,” he said.

Rep. Reyes took her oath of office before Belmonte three weeks ago.

Rodriguez, a former San Beda law dean, said the latest ruling runs counter to previous SC decisions, which held that the HRET acquires jurisdiction over elected House members’ election cases once they were proclaimed.

“It also violates the Constitution, which provides that the HRET has ‘exclusive and original jurisdiction’ over such cases. I, for one, will insist on the Constitution and jurisprudence,” he said.

Former Aurora congressman and now Sen. Juan Edgardo Angara said if only the Senate president and the Speaker can validly administer the lawmakers’ oath and it has to be done in plenary session, this would put members in limbo for three weeks.

He said under the Constitution, the legislators’ term of office begins on June 30, while the convening of a new Congress is set for the fourth Monday of July, which in the case of the present 16th Congress, is July 22.

“Between June 30 and the fourth Monday of July, there is no session where the Senate president and the Speaker can administer the oath of members,” he said.

Angara, who won his Senate seat under the administration Team PNoy coalition, is among several senators who have taken their oath before the President in Malacañang.

For his part, Eastern Samar Rep. Ben Evardone said the SC ruling places them in an absurd situation.

“Our term of office started noon of last Sunday. But if we follow this ruling, we cannot assume office yet until July 22, when Congress convenes and the Speaker administers our oath in open session,” he said.

“What will that make of us in the meantime? Can we do our job as members of Congress or can we not? If we do our job, are we subject to lawsuits?” he asked.