August 14, 2017 Transcription

Topics Covered:
e. Journal and Congressional Records
5. Sessions (regular, special, joint)
6. Electoral Tribunal

Now, Abakada v. Purisima, it involves this law RA 9335 Optimized revenue generation capability in
connection with BIR and BOC. There was a provision in RA9335 specifically in Section 12 which creates
this joint congressional oversight committee composed of the members of Senate and House of
Representatives. The function of this committee is to approve the IRR as already enacted by the
Executive. So this is the provision which was challenge, can an oversight committee of Congress approve
an IRR promulgated by the Executive. The court said that provision is unconstitutional, it violates the
Constitutional principles of bicameralism and the rules of presentment among other.

The concept of bicameralism, the legislative power, the power to propose, enact, and repeal laws is
vested in Congress as a body. It consists of two chambers, the Senate and House of Representatives.
And a valid exercise of legislative power requires the act of both chambers. Act cannot be done solely by
one of the chambers, or a committee of both chambers. Therefore, the validity of, assuming a legislative
veto is valid, both a single chamber veto and congressional veto, a legislative veto are both valid because
these are not acts of Congress as a body.

How about the law or a bill which was reconciled by the bicameral conference committee? Diba naa may
committee nga gicreate ning Congress and Senate to harmonize all their respective versions of the law.
Because the product of that discussion is presented to the Congress for approval. Dili pasabot nga pag-
approve ana sa bicameral conference committee that is the bill presented to the President, it is yet to be
approved by Congress as a body. Dili pareha ani nga provision, which gives the authority to veto an IRR
to a committee of a legislative. Wala man lay provision nga ipaagi pa ni sa Congress as a body.

What about the violation of rules of presentment, under Article 6 Section 27, "every bill passed by
Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President." This is when the President
approves the law or veto's it. Every bill passed therefore must be presented to the President for the
approval or veto. In the absence of presentment, no bill passed by Congress can become a law.
Therefore, it is because of the joint act of the legislature and executive that a bill becomes a law.
Assuming that the veto here under section 12 is valid, it cannot take effect without its presentment even if
approved by both chambers of Congress. Dili na makaparticipate si President insofar as the decision of
the committee is concerned, kay dili naman ipresent sa iyaha for approval or disapproval, or veto of that
committee so it violates the rules on presentment.

So take note, there are two steps before a bill becomes law, 1. must be approved both houses of
Congress, 2. presented to and approved by the President. Take note of the enumeration of the
procedure here as to how a bill becomes a law. Again, the President has a role in lawmaking.

What else does this provision violates?

It violates the doctrine of rule on separation of powers. What the Congress delegates the formulation of
rule to implement the law, the law must be complete in its essential terms when it leaves the hands of the
legislature. In other words, the law must be already effective when it leaves the Congress- its validity
cannot be held in suspension, condition upon the approval of the committee of the legislative itself. When
the law pass Congress therefore, Congress should have nothing to do with its implementation or
enforcement. From the moment the law becomes effective, any provision of the law that empowers
Congress or any of its members to take a role on its implementation or enforcement violates the
Constitutional principle on the separation of powers. Why? If a provision that allows that is a provision that
allows Congress or its members to overturn any directive or ruling made by the member of executive
branch, in-charged with the implementation of the law. So more on, apil-apil na pud ang legislative into
the implementation of the law by approving or disapproving whatever the IRR is, as promulgated by the
executive department.

Take note of the concept of the legislative veto, it is a veto done by the legislative department. It is a
statutory provision requiring the president or administrative agency to present the proposed IRR to the
congress to which by itself or through a committee retains a right or power to approve or disapprove the
IRR before the intended effect. This is a form of inward turning delegation designed to attached a
congressional wish to an agency in which Congress by law initially delegated the powers, it entrusts the
Congress on the direct role applying implementing its own laws. Dapat dili na siya makialam ana, in fact
it does not only violate the principle of separation of power in so as the executive is concern, this
provision also gives the power of congress to validate or invalidate a law passed upon its legality, this is
the duty not of the congress but of the courts. The congress in the guise of assuming the role of overseer
cannot passed upon the legality of an IRR by subjecting it to its stamp of approval in exercising the
discretion to approve or disapprove this IRR based on the determination whether or not it is consistent
with the law, it arrogates upon its self a judicial power which is exclusively vested by the Constitution on
the Supreme Court.

We now go to the probative value of the journal. When do we follow the journal, when do we follow the
enrolled bill. There is a conflict.

Here, in US v PONS, PONS was charged with illegal importation of opium that violates the law of Act of
2381. Now, the law itself was duly enacted and approved shows that it was approved in the 28th of
February, mao tung date na nagclose ang legislature nga nahuman na ilahang session. But PONS
wanted to prove that the law was not enacted on that day but on the date na after na, which is on March
1. If magprevail iyahang theory, it would appear that the law would be void because it was passed by
Congress while it was not in session. Iyahang kalaban karun kay ang journals which states that the law
was approved on 28th of February. So who do we believe? PONS and his extrinsic evidence or the
journals. The court said that follow the journals. May courts take judicial notice of legislative journals? The
court said yes, these journals show, this is based on jurisprudence, these journals are not ambigous. And
here it is shown that the legislature adjourned on February 28, 1940. We cannot rely, as a general rule on
the memory of witnesses, the object of the records of the legislature is part as important of that of
judiciary- and to inquire upon the veracity of journals of the legislature using the extrinsic evidence would
be to violate the Constitution as it would invade upon the independent department of government. So
karun, mag weight ka kung nag journal o ang imuhang evidence diri nga naa kay affidavit diri gikan sa
someone na "yes, March 31 gyud nag-unsa." It will not be so effective versus the entries in the journal.

There are instances under the Constitution where the matter or the content must be entered in the
journal, it must in learned form if it is one which is required by the Constitution, it is conclusive insofar as
that matter is concern. What are these concerns? What are these matters which have to be entered into
journal, under the Constitution.
The yes and nays in the third and final reading of the bill, Article 6 Section 26. The votes there on, upon
the last reading of the bill, no amendment therein shall be allowed and the vote there on shall be taken
immediately thereafter and the yes and nays entered in the journal.

We also put in the journal the veto message of the president as well as the yes in the passing of a bill
being vetoed by the president, that is under Article 6 Section 27.

We also put in the journal the yes and nays of any question, on the request of 1/5 of the members of the
Congress present. The yes and nays of any question, on the request of the members present shall be
entered in the journal, that is under Article 6, Section 16 paragraph 4. We also into the journal the
summary of the proceedings.

Now, what if there is a conflict between the journal entry and the enrolled bill? What do you follow?

So we have the case of ASTORGA v. VILLEGAS.

The issue was about the passage of RA 4065, precisely because there was a House Bill 9266, a bill
of Local Application passed in the House of Representative. There was an amendment by Senator
Roxas, the committee had recommended the approval with minor amendments suggested by Senator
Roxas. Instead of the City Engineer to be president of temporary of the municipal board which will
succeed the Vice Mayor in case of the latter's incapacity to act as mayor. However, on May 20, 1964,
there were substantial amendments which was introduced by Senator Antonio Tolentino, and those
amendments were approved in the Senate. So the amendment recommended by senator Roxas which
appeared in the journal of the senate proceeding which later was acted upon.

Sir: But when the law was passed, or when the beadle submitted to the president, what amendments
were attached? Amendments of Senator Roxas or Senator Tolentino?

So there was this bill, there were amendments introduced by Senator Roxas but these amendments do
not appear in the journal, but during the deliberations in the senate, there were also amendments
introduced by Tolentino and these were the amendments approved by the senate.

When the bill was submitted, the amendments of Roxas which did not appear in the journals were the
ones attached in the letter as attested and certified by the senate. It was passed and signed as to law by
the president. Now it is argued that the law was the wrong version of the bill because it did not embody
the amendments introduced by senator Tolentino which was approved by the senate.

Was the law validly enacted?

No. Precisely because it was the wrong version signed by the president.

Now, take note of the rational of the enrolled bill, it is a declaration by the two houses through their
assigned officers to the president that the bill was attested as received due form the standards of a
legislative branch and it is delivered to the president in obedience to the Constitutional requirement upon
it is passed in the Congress. That is the enrolled bill which in our rule is conclusive, as deemed to be
enrolled it is conclusive as to its due enactment.

Was that theory followed in this case?

No, because the Supreme Court followed the journals. It did not follow the enrolled bill precisely because
the Senate President declared that his signature in the bill to be invalid, subsequently issued statement of
clarification of invalidation of his signature that the bill submitted was never been approved by the
senate.

As we learned in the enrolled bill, kailangan ug signature by the speaker of the house and the president of
the senate, and attestation of both secretaries of both houses. Yet in this case, one of the parties who
acted, that he retracted his signature. He said that the signature in the bill was invalid and therefore the
bill that was signed was not the one approved by the senate. This retraction neutralized this enrolled bill
theory. As a result, they resorted to the journals instead of the enrolled bill theory, since one of the
attestations of the parties then they cannot apply the enrolled bill theory and resorts to the journal as to
the due process of passage of the law.

So what did these journals revealed in this case?

The journal disposes that substantial amendments introduced from the floor turned out that it was not
incorporated with the bill sent to the president.

In Field vs. Clark, a US case. Someone here was assessed of his duess as established by the tariff act,
now he alleged that the basis of how he was assessed by his dues by the law, specific section of Section
30 did not exist. His evidence were congressional records of proceedings and reports of committees in
each house and of bicamera conferences of committees. The law as approved, or the enrolled bill, naa
siya'y section 30. So which do we follow?

The congressional records and reports, or the enrolled bill? The court said here that the enrolled act
should be followed. Again, the enrolled bill carry the signatures of the officers of both houses and
approved by their governor in their state, were conclusive proof of the enactment of the bill and contents
thereof. This could not be contradicted by legislative journals or any other record.

Take note of the earlier case, the Astorga v. Villegas, wala ni apply ang enrolled bill kay wala'y enrolled
bill to speak of in the first place. One of those nga nagpirma didto retracted his signature. Again, the
enrolled bill theory, is when a bill was already signed and attested, the bill had duly passed the congress.

Why is this theory so persuasive? It is because if we do not believe the enrolled bill, we would be thinking
that there would be a conspiracy between the presiding officers of the houses, secretaries of both
houses, if the common purpose to defeat an expression of the popular will as prescribed in the
Constitution. In other words, we will be speculating as to the validity of the law on amorphous grounds,
when in fact the law itself as an enrolled bill was duly passed in the Congress.

What is the effect of this theory? It is a conclusive proof of the enactment of contents of statute, and that it
cannot be contradicted by the legislative journals or any other mode, as a general rule.

Now, the Congress also has sessions: regular sessions and special session. What is a special
session? Regular sessions are provided for under Article 6 Section 15 & 16. When do these regular
sessions commence? Congress shall convened once every year, on the 4th Monday of July fort its
regular session unless a different date fixed by law. Each shall continue this regular session for such
number of days as it may be determined until 30 days before the opening of the next regular session.

Now, the contest as to what session is involved, regular ba or special is determined in the case
of Guevarra v. Inocentes. Here, Guevarra was extended in an ad interim appointment as an
Undersecretary of Labor on November 1965. Now, the new chief executive issued a memorandum, two
months later on January 1966, declaring that all ad interim appointments including Guevarra's
appointment, lapsed with the adjournment of the special session of Congress on January 22, 1966. So,
because of that, terminated na tanan ad interim appointments. The new president or executive extended
an ad interim appointment to another person of the same position, that is Inocentes. So Guevarra
contested that appointment, arguing that wala na terminate iyang ad interim appoint because it was not
one of the grounds for an ad interim appointment may terminated under the Constitution.

What are the grounds under the Constitution? That is an ad interim appointment shall be effective only
until one disapproval by the Commission of Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress.

Now, it is the argument of Guevarra here. That the term adjournment here refers to a regular session and
not a special session, as in this case where the special session of the senate was adjourned. So since
there no Commission of Appointments and there was no adjournment of regular session, wala na
terminate ang iyahang ad interim appointment. Is he correct?

The court said that he is wrong. Again, there are two modes of terminating an ad interim appointment
insofar as the 1935 Constitution is concern: 1) disapproval of the Commission of Appointments, 2) next
adjournment of the congress. What is the applicable mode here? Definitely it is the second kay wala man
gyud CA here. Why wala'y CA? Because it is an ad interim appointment. Anyway, we follow the
termination until the next adjournment of the congress. Guevarra wants to make a distinction, that this
adjournment refers to a regular session not a special session. The court said that these two modes are
different from each other. Is Guevarra correct in making a distinction as to what kind of session is involved
here.

The court said that he is incorrect, because the Constitution itself does not distinguish as to what type of
session which is adjourned, so it follow the latin maxim "where the law does not distinguish, we should
not distinguish." So it is therefore safe to conclude that the framers of the Constitution used the word
adjournment as a mode of terminating an ad interim and the framers had in mind either a regular or
special session without any distinction- not just the regular session as argued by Guevarra.

What about the fact that it was only the senate, that it was only a special adjournment of the Senate. The
court said that it is of legal contemplation of adjournment of the Congress itself because the Congress
cannot operate by merely on one house, dapat apil ang senate because that it how the Congress works.
on two houses. Thus, his ad interim appointment is terminated.

What about the special sessions- also provided for under Article 6 Section 15, the president may call a
special session anytime. Also when there is a vacany, under Article 7 Section 10 & 11 in the offices of
both the President and the Vice-President. The Congress, if there is that vacancy shall convened in
accordance with its rules and within 7 days enact a law calling for a special election to elect a President
and Vice-President. Special session is also held insofar as the exercise of the President in the
involvement of Congress in the exercise of the President in calling out powers, suspension of the privilege
of writ of habeas corpus as well as declaration of martial law, under Article 7 Section 18.

Under the said Article, the President has a calling out power which involves the calling out of the armed
forces for a specific purpose of preventing or suppressing lawless violence, or invasion, this is separate
and distinct from martial law. The President has also the power to suspend the privilege of writ of habeas
corpus, and also place a part of Philippines under martial law. Anong pakialam ni Congress ani? The
Congress, voting jointly by a vote of at least a majority of its members, in a regular or special session,
may revoke the proclamation or in the same manner, extend for a period it may determined.

Now, we already learned about the regular session, special session, and now joint sessions done by
Congress. We have joint sessions where the both houses vote separately, but the session is together.
Naa pud joint session nga magvote sila as one, i-add ang number of senators with the number of house
of representatives.

When does a joint session where both houses had a session but they vote separately? One was under
Article 7 Section 4, in choosing the president and vice-president in case of a tie. It is provided in this
article, the person having the highest number of votes shall be deemed elected but in case of two or more
shall have an equal highest of votes, one of them shall be chosen by the majority of the members of both
houses, voting separately.

The Congress also has a joint session and they vote separately insofar as to determine the president's
temporary disability, under Article 7 Section 11. What are the instances contemplated under this article?
The first paragraph, "it is the president himself admits that he cannot discharge his duties anymore" so
when he transmits to the president of the senate and the speaker of the house of representative a written
declaration, that he cannot discharge his duties. Until he transmits a written declaration to the contrary,
his powers and duties will be discharged by the vice-president as acting president.

What if the president is already too weak but he is in denial that he is dying, it can be done through a
majority of all the members of the Cabinet. When the majority of all the members of the Cabinet
transmit to the president of the senate and speaker of the house of representative their written declaration
of that president is unable to discharge his powers and duties, the vice-president shall be deemed to
assume the powers and duties of the president.

If the president transmits to the president of the senate and speaker of the house of representatives, his
written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume immediately the power and duties of his office.
The members of his cabinet are just his alter ego, he can just substitute their discretion with his, so the
president can also retract what his cabinet did. But, if these members of the cabinet insist, should a
majority of the members of the cabinet transmit with 5 days to the president of the senate and speaker of
house of representative their written declaration that the president is unable to discharge the power and
duties of his office, kanang dili sila magkasinabot with the president ba, who will decide? The Congress
shall resolve the issue, for that purpose the congress shall convene within 48 hours. If the congress,
within 10 days of the receipt of the last written declaration, or if not in session, within 12 days. Determines
with 2/3 of votes of both houses voting separately that the president is unable to charge his functions and
duties.

Another instance is when there is a vacancy of the office of the vice-president, just what happened in the
term of Gloria when she ascended as president where she nominated Guingona as her vice-president.
The president shall nominate among the members of the senate and house or representatives who shall
assume office by confirmation of the majority vote of all the members of both houses voting separately.

Also joint session voting separately, a congress can do that if they want to declare a state of war.
Congress through 2/3 of both houses in joint session voting separately shall have the sole power to
declare a state of war as well as amendment and revision in the Constitution.

What is the instance in the Constitution wherein the congress votes jointly in a joint session? Meaning,
iadd lang ang 24 senators and 250 members of house of representatives. It happened recently, in the
extension or termination of the writ and proclamation of martial law.

Now we got to the electoral tribunals, we have 3: house of representatives electoral tribunal (HRET),
senate electoral tribunal (SET), and presidential electoral tribunal. The HRET and the SET are provided
under Article 6 Section 17 & 18. Section 17 provides that the senate and house of representative shall
each have an electoral tribunal.

What is the power of this tribunal? It shall be the sole judge of all contests related to election returns and
qualifications of their respective member. Dapat member kana para makaapil ka sa jurisdiction of the
tribunal.

What is the composition of this tribunal? Each tribunal shall be composed of 9 members: 3 of whom shall
be justices from the Supreme Court, the two being designated by the Chief Justice; the remaining 6 shall
be members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be chosen on the basis of
proportional representation from the political parties or parties under the partylist system.

When should shall it be constituted? It shall be constituted with 30 days after the senate and house of
representative shall have been elected.

In the case of BARBERS v COMELEC. Here, Barbers and Biazon is contesting the 12th seat as a
senator in the 2004 national elections. The COMELEC proclaimed Biazon on June 2, 2004 as the duly
elected senator. Now, Barbers who was the 13th went to the COMELEC to annul the decision and was
subsequently by the COMELEC so he went to the SC. Does the SC has a jurisdiction of the matter? The
Court said that it does not have, because Biazon was already proclaimed the winner therefore he became
a member of the Senate. The body who has the exclusive jurisdiction over his election qualifications and
returns will be the SET, and not the SC.

In Fernandez v. HRET, the court exercised the word "sole judge." Vicente sought the cancellation of
Fernandez here as representative of the first district of Laguna. He went to the COMELEC, where his
claim was dismissed and upheld that Fernandez was the duly elected representative, in fact, he was
proclaimed as such in June 2007. Now that Vicente knows that Fernandez was declared as a winner, he
went to the HRET for the same issue. In the HRET, gibaliktad niya ang COMELEC. HRET granted
Vicente's claim and disqualified Fernandez. Fernandez then went to the Supreme Court and challenged
the decision of the HRET, that it should have been guided or cautioned by the COMELEC's decision
earlier.
Is Fernandez correct? He argued that the HRET shall have respected the decision of the COMELEC. The
Court said that the HRET is not bound by the prior determination of the COMELEC as to qualifications of
the member. Again, Article 6 Section 17 says that the electoral tribunal shall be the sole judge of all
contests related the election returns and qualifications of their respective members. The court said that
the use of word "sole" emphasize the exclusivity of the jurisdiction of these tribunals which conferred by
the Constitution. Therefore, electoral tribunals are not bound by whatever findings of the COMELEC
were.

Now, is there forum shopping here? Kay after niya sa COMELEC, niadto siya ug HRET. The court said
that it cannot be considered as forum shopping even if the COMELEC already passed upon that
proceedings since there are requisites before you can conclude that the rules of court had been violated.

MENDOZA v. COMELEC, involves the contest Mendoza and Pandanganan for the gubernatorial position
in Bulacan filed in the COMELEC. The parties were duly heard in the proceedings there and had
presented their evidence. Now the ballots here were transmitted in the SET because there was a contest
between the senators here, between Pimentel and Zubiri. Now, Mendoza wanted to suspend the
proceeding in the SET because according to him, he should have been noticed by the transfer and he
should have been allowed in the proceeding in the SET since his contest was still pending in the
COMELEC. Ana siya, dapat gi-apil siya didto sa senate kay dapat ginotify siya and should have been
given thee chance to participate. He was not given chance to participate and now claims that his right for
due process was denied. Is he correct?

The court said that he is wrong, the Court emphasized that the COMELEC exercises quasi-judicial
powers. There are requirements for due process under quasi-judicial bodies or administrative bodies are
concerned as laid down in the case of ANG TIBAY v COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS. Lahi pud
ang due process insofar as judicial proceedings are concerned. So since quasi-judicial powers ang gina-
exercise ng COMELEC, then we follow the rules of Ang Tibay. One of the requirements here is
the requirement of notice, notified by the proceedings and given the chance to present his evidence, was
he denied of that when the ballots were transmitted in the SET? The court said no, because when the
ballot boxes were transferred, the case before the COMELEC was already submitted for resolution and
no need for presentation of evidence. It was like a judge deciding a case on his chambers, dili naman na
niya paadtuon ang mga parties kay human na ang trial. Here, they had fully been able to participate in the
proceedings until it was deemed submitted for the resolution. Now, he did not being notified of the
proceedings before the SET because proceedings there at no longer form part of the adversarial aspect
of the election protest that would require notice and hearing. In fact, the case between him and
Pandanganan was already submitted for resolution. There was MR in this case, just read that.

ABAYON v. HRET. Here, Abayon is a nominee of Aangat Tayo Partylist, and this partylist won the
election. Abayon the nominee was the one who was seated, the qualifications of Aangat Tayo as well as
Abayon were questioned by several people. According to them, this partylist does not represent the
marginalized and also the nominee is not from the under represented or marginalized. They filed a case
in the HRET, Abayon on the other hand countered that it should not been filed in the HRET since the
power to determine the legality of a partylist is within the COMELEC. And that the HRET has no
jurisdiction insofar as he is concerned even though he was already a member because this collateral
attack in the registration of Aangat Tayo as a partylist organization, and that power is within the
jurisdiction of the COMELEC. So who do we believe, does the HRET have the jurisdiction?

The Court said that it has. Althought the partylist organization is the one voted for in the election, it is not
the one who sits but the nominee, and s/he becomes a member of that house. S/he being a member
therefore means that s/he covered by the jurisdiction of the electoral tribunal, even if the matter involves
the determination of qualifications as well as the partylist that s/he is connected or a nominee of. If you
are already a member of the house of representative, then the HRET na ang naa'y jurisdiction sa imuha
and it does not matter if you are a district representative or a partylist representative, once elected, you
are treated in like manner. Thus, since the matter now involves the member of the House of
Representative, it is then the HRET that should interpret s/he qualifications.

LAYUG v. COMELEC where the qualifications of Mike Velarde as well as the partylist of Buhay Partylist
was questioned before the HRET. It was argued that HRET has no jurisdiction and in fact does not have,
since Mike Velarde was not the one seated in the House of Representative. He was not a member, so the
collateral attack and qualifications of his partylist is under the jurisdiction of the HRET. What tribunal has
the power over him and question of validity of the partylist? COMELEC has the jurisdiction because he
was not a member of the house of representative.

JALOSJOS V COMELEC: Jalosjos, the rapist, was a mayor of the Zamboanga Del Norte. After his term
as a mayor, he ran as a representative of the second district of Zamboanga Sibugay, while he was still a
mayor he had a house there. He filed a COC to run for as district representative which was contested by
his opponent, among others, he made a material misrepresentation in that COC insofar as his residency
is concerned. Prior to the determination of the results of the COMELEC, he was in the meantime
declared as a winner of the elections. It was found out that he did not made the residency requirements
so he was qualified. Now, which tribunal has jurisdiction?

The Court said that it was not the COMELEC but the HRET because it already involves a matter of an
election returns and qualifications of a member of house of representative. Take note, that in this case,
the proclamation of a congressional candidate divests the COMELEC of jurisdiction over disputes of
election returns and qualifications. The word here is proclamation, and then with the fact of this
proclamation and assumption of office, as ruled by the Supreme Court, any issue regarding his
disqualification should be filed before the HRET because it is the tribunal who has the sole authority to
consider the disqualification of its member.

ATONG PAGLAUM v COMELEC: Take note of the parameters.

When does magstart ang jurisdiction of the HRET? It is by mere proclamation? Assumption of office?
Oath of office? That question is answered in the case of REYES v. COMELEC, here Reyes filed a COC
for a seat in Congress. That COC was canceled by the COMELEC because it was found that she did not
comply with the requirements under RA 9225. Now, the COMELEC declared that in May 14, 2013 and
the finality of that decision, when the COMELEC issued a certificate thereof on June 5 2013. She took an
oath of office on the same date of June 5, 2013. She is challenging that the resolution of the COMELEC
disqualifying here was invalid because the moment that she was proclaimed on June 5, 2013 as a
member of house of representative, it was the HRET which has the jurisdiction and not the COMELEC. Is
she correct?

The Court that she is not correct, it is because she is yet to assume office, upon the promulgation of the
decision of the Supreme Court in this case. It officially starts under the Constitution at noon of June 30,
2013, it is upon that moment that you are considered a member of the house of representative or senator,
that is when the jurisdiction of the HRET or SET starts. Here, the COMELEC had the jurisdiction because
before she was declared, it was decided prior to her assumption of office. Again, there must be a
concurrence before you become a member of the HRET on the following requisites:
1. A valid proclamation, 2. Proper oath and 3. assumption of office.

Here, she was not considered a member of the HR because she has not yet assumed office.