This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2002-07-03 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| That this Court may very well inquire into jurisdictional issues concerning the HRET may be inferred from Sec. 1, Art. VIII, of the Constitution which has expanded judicial power to include the determination of "whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government." Previously, we had taken cognizance of certiorari proceedings where the rules of procedure of the HRET, as in the instant case, were involved. Garcia v. Ang Ping[18] involved the requirement of cash deposit in addition to filing fees under Rule 32 of the 1998 HRET Rules. In Loyola v. HRET[19] we explained the import of a general denial under Rule 27 of the Revised Rules of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. Lazatin v. HRET[20] affirmed the power of the HRET to set its own prescriptive periods for filing election protests. We explored in Arroyo v. HRET[21] the suppletory applicability of the rules of evidence to the HRET rules to adjudge the correct number of votes for each of the two (2) competing congressional candidates. | |||||