4/20/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly jurisdiction. The HRET did not violate the Constitution or the law or any settled judicial doctrine. It was definitely acting within its exclusive domain. Be it remembered that our Constitution vests upon the HRET the power to be the sole judge of the qualifications of members of the House of Representatives, one of which is citizenship. Absent any clear showing of a manifest violation of the Constitution or the law or any judicial decision, this Court cannot impute grave abuse of discretion to the HRET in the latter's actions on matters over which full discretionary authority is lodged upon it by our fundamental law.[20] Even assuming that we disagree with the conclusions of public respondent, we cannot ipso facto attribute to it "grave abuse of discretion." Verily, there is a line between perceived error and grave abuse.[21] By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. "It must be grave abuse of discretion as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law."[22] That the HRET, after careful deliberation and purposeful study, voted 7 to 2 to issue its Decision upholding the qualifications of Congressman Cruz could not in any wise be condemned as gravely abusive. Neither can I find any "patent or gross" arbitrariness or despotism "by reason of passion or hostility" in such exercise. 4. In Case of Doubt, Popular Will Prevails Fourth, the Court has a solemn duty to uphold the clear and unmistakable mandate of the people. It cannot supplant the sovereign will of the Second District of Pangasinan with fractured legalism. The people of the District have clearly spoken. They overwhelmingly and unequivocally voted for private respondent to represent them in the House of Representatives. The votes that Cruz garnered (80,119) in the last elections were much more than those of all his opponents combined (66,182).[23] In such instances, all possible doubts should be resolved in favor of the winning candidate's eligibility; to rule otherwise would be to defeat the will of the people.[24] Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the doctrine that in case of doubt, political laws must be so construed as to give life and spirit to the popular mandate freely expressed through the ballot.[25] Public interest and the sovereign will should, at all times, be the paramount considerations in election controversies.[26] For it would be better to err in favor of the people's choice than to be right in complex but little understood legalisms. [27] "Indeed, this Court has repeatedly stressed the importance of giving effect to the sovereign will in order to ensure the survival of our democracy. In any action involving the possibility of a reversal of the popular electoral choice, this Court must exert utmost effort to resolve the issues in a manner that would give effect to the will of the majority, for it is merely sound public policy to cause elective offices to be filled by those who are the choice of the majority. To successfully challenge a winning candidate's qualifications, the petitioner must clearly demonstrate that the ineligibility https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/58613 13/25