Layug V Comelec - Req

ROLANDO D. LAYUG vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MARIANO VELARDE (alias "BROTHER

MIKE") and BUHAY PARTY-LIST
FACTS:
1. Rolando Layug filed pro se a Petition to Disqualify Buhay Party-List from participating in the May 10,
2010 elections, and Brother Mike from being its nominee. He argued that the said party-list was a mere
"extension of the El Shaddai," which is a religious sect. He further argued that Brother Mike does not
qualify as “one who belongs to the marginalized and underrepresented” as required party-list nominees
under Section 6 (7) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8807.
2. Buhay-Party List responded that it is not a religious sect but a political party possessing all the
qualifications of a party-list. It is composed of groups for the elderly, the women, the youth, the
handicapped, as well as the professionals, and Brother Mike belongs to the marginalized and
underrepresented elderly group.
3. Based on the records, Layug received a copy of the respondents answer only at the hearing conducted
on April 20, 2010. According to the liaison officer of the respondent, the address given by Layug was
inexistent.
4. Buhay Party-List was proclaimed as a winner, with two seats. Layug claimed that he was denied due
process since he was not sent a copy of said COMELEC resolution proclaiming such. He filed a petition
for mandamus to compel the COMELEC En Banc to rule on his Motion for Reconsideration. Furthermore,
respondent assails the jurisdiction of the Court to decide on the merit of the case since Buhay Party-List
has already been proclaimed.
ISSUES:
1. WON the Court has jurisdiction to decide the case. [YES]
2. WON the right to due process of Layug was violated. [NO]
3. WON can lie to compel the COMELEC En Banc to rule on Layug’s Motion for Reconsideration. [NO]
RULING:
1. NO, the Court not the HRET has jurisdiction over the present petition.
Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides that the House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal (HRET) shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications
of its Members. Section 5 (1) of the same Article identifies who the "members" of the House are:
Sec. 5. (1). The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and
fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned
among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their
respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided
by law, shall be elected through a party list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations. (Underscoring added).
Clearly, the members of the House of Representatives are of two kinds: (1) members who shall be
elected from legislative districts; and (2) those who shall be elected through a party-list system of
registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations. In this case, Buhay Party-List was
entitled to two seats in the House that went to its first two nominees, Mariano Michael DM. Velarde, Jr.
and William Irwin C. Tieng. On the other hand, Brother Mike, being the fifth nominee, did not get a seat
and thus had not become a member of the House of Representatives. Indubitably, the HRET has no
jurisdiction over the issue of Brother Mike's qualifications.
Neither does the HRET have jurisdiction over the qualifications of Buhay Party-List, as it is vested by law,
specifically, the Party-List System Act, upon the COMELEC. Section 6 of said Act states that "the
COMELEC may motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, remove or cancel, after
due notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition
xxx." Accordingly, in the case of Abayon vs. HRET. We ruled that the HRET did not gravely abuse its
discretion when it dismissed the petitions for quo warranto against Aangat Tayo party-list
and Bantay party-list insofar as they sought the disqualifications of said party-lists.
2. NO, Layug was not denied due process.
A party may sue or defend an action pro se.Under Section 3, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, "(e)very
pleading must be signed by the party or counsel representing him, stating in either case his address
which should not be a post office box."
From the fact alone that the address which Layug furnished the COMELEC was incorrect, his pretensions
regarding the validity of the proceedings and promulgation of the Resolution dated June 15, 2010 for
being in violation of his constitutional right to due process are doomed to fail. His refusal to rectify the
error despite knowledge thereof impels Us to conclude that he deliberately stated an inexistent address
with the end in view of delaying the proceedings upon the plea of lack of due process. As the COMELEC
aptly pointed out, Layug contemptuously made a mockery of election laws and procedure by appearing
before the Commission by himself or by different counsels when he wants to, and giving a fictitious
address to ensure that he does not receive mails addressed to him. He cannot thus be allowed to profit
from his own wrongdoing. To rule otherwise, considering the circumstances in the instant case, would
place the date of receipt of pleadings, judgments and processes within Layug's power to determine at his
pleasure.
3. NO, Mandamus does not lie to compel the COMELEC En Banc to rule on Layug’s Motion for
Reconsideration.
Mandamus, as a remedy, is available to compel the doing of an act specifically enjoined by law as a
duty.1âwphi1 It cannot compel the doing of an act involving the exercise of discretion one way or the
other. In this case, the COMELEC En Banc cannot be compelled to resolve Layug’s Motion for
Reconsideration of the Resolution dated June 15, 2010 that was filed on July 28, 2010 after said
Resolution had already attained finality. In fact, the COMELEC Second Division denied the same Motion
in its Order dated August 4, 2010 precisely for the reason that it was filed out of time.

Layug V Comelec - Req

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Layug V Comelec - Req

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Layug V Comelec - Req

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROLANDO D. LAYUG vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MARIANO VELARDE (alias "BROTHER

1. WON the Court has jurisdiction to decide the case. [YES]

2. WON the right to due process of Layug was violated. [NO]

2. NO, Layug was not denied due process.

You might also like