2002


G.R. No. 150605           December 10, 2002
EUFROCINO M. CODILLA, SR. vs. HON. JOSE DE VENECIA, ROBERTO P. NAZARENO, in their official capacities as Speaker  and Secretary-General of the House of Representatives, respectively, 
and MA. VICTORIA L. LOCSIN


Facts:
Petitioner garnered the highest votes in the election for representative in the 4th district of Leyte as against respondent Locsin. Petitioner won while a disqualification suit was pending. Respondent moved for the suspension of petitioner’s proclamation. By virtue of the Comelec ex parte order, petitioner’s proclamation was suspended. Comelec later on resolved that petitioner was guilty of soliciting votes and consequently disqualified him. Respondent Locsin was proclaimed winner. Upon motion by petitioner, the resolution was however reversed and a new resolution declared respondent’s proclamation as null and void. Respondent made his defiance and disobedience to subsequent resolution publicly known while petitioner asserted his right to the office he won.

Issues:
1.     Whether or not respondent’s proclamation was valid.
2.     Whether or not the Comelec had jurisdiction in the instant case.
3.     Whether or not proclamation of the winner is a ministerial duty.

RULING: See: Codilla vs.De Venecia RULING

Follow our community for more updates : FACEBOOK PAGE and  WORDPRESS

1. 

Case Digest: Codilla vs. de Venecia

Posted on

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Category

,

,

,

,


G.R. No. 150605           December 10, 2002

EUFROCINO M. CODILLA, SR. vs

HON. JOSE DE VENECIA, ROBERTO P. NAZARENO, in their official capacities as Speaker 
and Secretary-General of the House of Representatives, respectively, 
and MA. VICTORIA L. LOCSIN

Facts:

Petitioner garnered the highest votes in the election for representative in the 4th district of Leyte as against respondent Locsin. Petitioner won while a disqualification suit was pending. Respondent moved for the suspension of petitioner’s proclamation. By virtue of the Comelec ex parte order, petitioner’s proclamation was suspended. Comelec later on resolved that petitioner was guilty of soliciting votes and consequently disqualified him. Respondent Locsin was proclaimed winner. Upon motion by petitioner, the resolution was however reversed and a new resolution declared respondent’s proclamation as null and void. Respondent made his defiance and disobedience to subsequent resolution publicly known while petitioner asserted his right to the office he won.

Issues:
1.     Whether or not respondent’s proclamation was valid.
2.     Whether or not the Comelec had jurisdiction in the instant case.
3.     Whether or not proclamation of the winner is a ministerial duty.


Follow our community for more updates : FACEBOOK PAGE and  WORDPRESS

Case Digest: Codilla vs. de Venecia

Posted on

Monday, November 26, 2012

Category

,

,

,


Ampatuan, et al. vs. COMELEC
G. R. No. 149803.  January 31, 2002

The petitioners were proclaimed victorious in the May 14, 2001 Maguindanao Provincial election after the order suspending such proclamation was lifted by the COMELEC, which issued the same.  Respondents petitioned, before the Supreme Court, the suspension of  the effects of  the said proclamation and insisted that there had been a “failure of election”. The COMELEC  ordered the consolidation of respondents’ petitions and  a random technical examination on several precincts.

Petitioners contended that by virtue of their proclamation, the proper remedy available to respondents was not a petition for declaration of failure of elections but an election protest.

Issue:
Whether or not COMELEC had jurisdiction to act on respondents’ petitions even after proclamation of petitioners as winners

Ruling: see: AMPATUAN VS. COMELEC RULING

Case Digest: Ampatuan, et al. vs. COMELEC

Posted on

Thursday, November 22, 2012

Category

,

,

,

,