This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-06-25 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| This pronouncement was reiterated in the case of Limkaichong v. COMELEC,[25] wherein the Court, referring to the jurisdiction of the COMELEC vis-a-vis the HRET, held that: The Court has invariably held that once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a Member of the House of Representatives, the COMELEC's jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications ends, and the HRET's own jurisdiction begins. (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2013-04-16 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| When Arnado used his US passport on 14 April 2009, or just eleven days after he renounced his American citizenship, he recanted his Oath of Renunciation[36] that he "absolutely and perpetually renounce(s) all allegiance and fidelity to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"[37] and that he "divest(s) [him]self of full employment of all civil and political rights and privileges of the United States of America."[38] | |||||
|
2008-12-18 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Having thus determined that the Dilangalen petition is one under Section 78 of the OEC, the Court now declares that the same has to comply with the 25-day statutory period for its filing. Aznar v. Commission on Elections[50] and Loong v. Commission on Elections[51] give ascendancy to the express mandate of the law that "the petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy." Construed in relation to reglementary periods and the principles of prescription, the dismissal of "Section 78" petitions filed beyond the 25-day period must come as a matter of course. | |||||