Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FERNANDO V. GONZALEZ v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 211140 2016-01-12	LORD ALLAN JAY Q. VELASCO v. SPEAKER FELICIANO R. BELMONTE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Given the foregoing, Reyes concludes that this Court is "devoid of original jurisdiction to annul [her] proclamation"[31] But she hastens to point out that (i) "[e]ven granting for the sake of argument that the proclamation was validly nullified, [Velasco] as second placer cannot be declared the winner x x x" as he was not the choice of the people of the Province of Marinduque; and (ii) Velasco is estopped from asserting the jurisdiction of this Court over her (Reyes) election because he (Velasco) filed an Election Protest Ad Cautelam in the HRET on May 31, 2014.
	GR No. 207264 2013-10-22	REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES v. COMELEC PEREZ, J.
(3) The Court's June 25, 2013 Resolution is contrary to prevailing jurisprudence on the validity of the proclamation of a winning candidate. Reyes cites the cases of Planas v. Commission on Elections,[27] Limkaichong v. Commission on Elections[28] and Gonzalez v. Commission on Elections[29] where the Court upheld the validity of the proclamations made considering that the cancellation of their CoCs at that time had not attained finality. Even so, such questions on the validity of Reyes' proclamation are better addressed by the HRET which now has jurisdiction over the present case, citing Lazatin v. The Commission on Elections.[30]
	GR No. 207264 2013-10-22	REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES v. COMELEC PEREZ, J.
In the same motion, Reyes also alleges that there are now two (2) pending cases filed against her in the HRET: (1) Election Protest Ad Cautelam filed on May 31, 2013, entitled Lord Allan Velasco v. Regina Ongsiako Reyes, docketed as Case No. 13-028;[31] and (2) Petition for Quo Warranto Ad Cautelam filed on May 31, 2013, entitled Christopher P. Matienzo v. Regina Ongsiako Reyes, docketed as Case No. 13-027.[32]
	GR No. 207264 2013-06-25	REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES v. COMELEC PEREZ, J.
This was again affirmed in Gonzalez v. COMELEC,[26] to wit: After proclamation, taking of oath and assumption of office by Gonzalez, jurisdiction over the matter of his qualifications, as well as questions regarding the conduct of election and contested returns were transferred to the HRET as the constitutional body created to pass upon the same. (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 193237 2012-10-09	DOMINADOR G. JALOSJOS v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
Lest it be misunderstood, the denial of due course to or the cancellation of the CoC is not based on the lack of qualifications but on a finding that the candidate made a material representation that is false, which may relate to the qualifications required of the public office he/she is running for. It is noted that the candidate states in his/her CoC that he/she is eligible for the office he/she seeks. Section 78 of the OEC, therefore, is to be read in relation to the constitutional and statutory provisions on qualifications or eligibility for public office. If the candidate subsequently states a material representation in the CoC that is false, the COMELEC, following the law, is empowered to deny due course to or cancel such certificate. Indeed, the Court has already likened a proceeding under Section 78 to a quo warranto proceeding under Section 253 of the OEC since they both deal with the eligibility or qualification of a candidate, with the distinction mainly in the fact that a "Section 78" petition is filed before proclamation, while a petition for quo warranto is filed after proclamation of the winning candidate.[18] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 196804 2012-10-09	MAYOR BARBARA RUBY C. TALAGA v. COMELEC BERSAMIN, J.
Indeed, Castillo could not assume the office for he was only a second placer. Labo, Jr. should be applied. There, the Court emphasized that the candidate obtaining the second highest number of votes for the contested office could not assume the office despite the disqualification of the first placer because the second placer was "not the choice of the sovereign will."[60] Surely, the Court explained, a minority or defeated candidate could not be deemed elected to the office.[61] There was to be no question that the second placer lost in the election, was repudiated by the electorate, and could not assume the vacated position.[62] No law imposed upon and compelled the people of Lucena City to accept a loser to be their political leader or their representative.[63]
	GR No. 195229 2012-10-09	EFREN RACEL ARATEA v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
The COMELEC Second Division rendered a Resolution[7] on 18 February 20)0 cancelling Lonzanida's certificate of candidacy. Pertinent portions of the 18 February 2010 Resolution read: Respondent Lonzanida never denied having held the office of mayor of San Antonio, Zambales for more than nine consecutive years. Instead he raised arguments to forestall or dismiss the petition on the grounds other man the main issue itself. We find such arguments as wanting. Respondent Lonzanida, for holding the office of mayor for more than three consecutive terms, went against the three-term limit rule; therefore, he could not be allowed lo run anew in the 2010 elections. It is time to infuse new blood in the political arena of San Antonio.