15 ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL CASES.docx

8/16/2019 15 ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL CASES.docx

1/35


2/35


3/35

On ;a //, /331, in a""ordan"e with the #art-6ist Sstem +"t, national

ele"tions were held whi"h in"luded, for the rst time, the ele"tion through

popular vote of part-list groups and organiations whose nominees would

be"ome members of the $ouse. #ro"laimed winners were /4 part-list

representatives from / organiations, in"luding petitioners from part-list

groups +sso"iation of #hilippine Ele"tri" Cooperatives9 '+#EC), +lansang

Baanihan ng mga ;agsasa5a, ;anggagawang Bu5id at ;angingisda '+B+),

N+&CO Networ5 #art 'COO#-N+&CCO), +5baan= Citiens +"tion #art

'+>B+?+N), and +banse= #ina '+B+NSE). Due to the votes it garnered, +#EC

was able to send * representatives to the $ouse, while the /* other part-list

groups had one representative ea"h. +lso ele"ted were distri"t

representatives belonging to various politi"al parties.

Subse@uentl, the $ouse "onstituted its $%E& and C+ "ontingentA b ele"ting

its representatives to these two "onstitutional bodies. In pra"ti"e, thepro"edure involves the nomination b the politi"al parties of $ouse members

who are to o""up seats in the $%E& and the C+.0 8rom available re"ords, it

does not appear that after the ;a //, /331 ele"tions the part-list groups in

the $ouse nominated an of their representatives to the $%E& or the C+. +s

of the date of ling of the instant petitions, the $ouse "ontingents to the

$%E& and the C+ were "omposed solel of distri"t representatives belonging

to the di


4/35

against the C+, its Chairman and ;embers./ #etitioners "ontend that, under

the Constitution and the #art-6ist Sstem +"t, part-list representatives

should have /.* or at least / seat in the $%E&,/4 and *.4 seats in the

C+./9#etitioners "harge that respondents "ommitted grave abuse of

dis"retion in refusing to a"t positivel on the letter of Senator #imentel. In its

%esolution of 8ebruar 1, *,/A the Court en ban" dire"ted the

"onsolidation of F.%. No. /4/43 with F.%. No. /4/413.

On 8ebruar //, *, petitioners led in both "ases a motion/0 to amend

their petitions to implead then Spea5er ;anuel B. 2illar, r. as an additional

respondent, in his "apa"it as Spea5er of the $ouse and as one of the

members of the C+. &he Court granted both motions and admitted the

amended petitions.

Senator #imentel led the instant petitions on the strength of his oath toprote"t, defend and uphold the Constitution and in his "apa"it as ta7paer

Gand as a member of the C+. $e was !oined b 9 part-list representatives

from +#EC, +B+, +B+NSE, +>B+?+N and COO#-N+&CCO as "o-petitioners.

#etitioners "ite as basis Se"tions /0 and /1, +rti"le 2I of the /310

Constitution, to wit:

(Se". /0. &he Senate and the $ouse of %epresentatives shall ea"h have an

Ele"toral &ribunal whi"h shall be the sole !udge of all "ontests relating to the

ele"tion, returns and @uali"ations of their respe"tive ;embers. Ea"hEle"toral &ribunal shall be "omposed of nine ;embers, three of whom shall

be usti"es of the Supreme Court to be designated b the Chief usti"e, and

the remaining si7 shall be ;embers of the Senate or the $ouse of

%epresentatives, as the "ase ma be, who shall be "hosen on the basis of

proportional representation from the politi"al parties and the parties or

organiations registered under the part-list sstem represented therein. &he

senior usti"e in the Ele"toral &ribunal shall be its Chairman.(

(Se". /1. &here shall be a Commission on +ppointments "onsisting of the

#resident of the Senate, as e7 oH"io Chairman, twelve Senators and twelve

;embers of the $ouse of %epresentatives, ele"ted b ea"h $ouse on the

basis of proportional representation from the politi"al parties and parties or

organiations registered under the part-list sstem represented therein. &he

Chairman of the Commission shall not vote, e7"ept in "ase of a tie. &he

Commission shall a"t on all appointments submitted to it within thirt


5/35

session das of the Congress from their submission. &he Commission shall

rule b a ma!orit vote of all the ;embers,(/1 'Emphasis supplied)

#etitioners also invo5e the following provision of Se"tion // of %epubli" +"t

No. 034/:

(Se". //. Number of #art-6ist %epresentatives. - &he part-list

representatives shall "onstitute twent per "entum '*) of the total

number of the members of the $ouse of %epresentatives in"luding those

under the part-list. 777(/3

+""ording to the Soli"itor Fenerals Consolidated Comment,* at the time

petitioners led the instant petitions the $ouse had ** members, /4 of

whom were part-list representatives, "onstituting A.AA of the $ouse. Of

the remaining *A distri"t representatives aHliated with diB6, #D%6;, +5son Demo5rati5o, %eporma and #%O;DI, and /

representative was an independent.

In their %epl to Consolidated Comment,*/ petitioners alleged that, following

the Soli"itor Fenerals "omputation, the 6# and 6+>+S were over-represented

in the $%E& and the C+. #etitioners parti"ularl assail the presen"e of one 6#

representative ea"h in the $%E& and the C+, and maintain that the 6#

representatives should be ousted and repla"ed with nominees of the /4part-list representatives.

The Issues

#etitioners raise the following issues:

/. J$E&$E% &$E #%ESEN& CO;#OSI&ION O8 &$E $OKSE E6EC&O%+6

&%IBKN+6 2IO6+&ES &$E CONS&I&K&ION+6 %EKI%E;EN& O8

#%O#O%&ION+6 %E#%ESEN&+&ION BEC+KSE &$E%E +%E NO #+%&?-6IS&

%E#%ESEN&+&I2ES IN &$E $%E&.

*. J$E&$E% &$E #%ESEN& ;E;BE%S$I# O8 &$E $OKSE IN &$E

CO;;ISSION ON +##OIN&;EN&S 2IO6+&ES &$E CONS&I&K&ION+6

%EKI%E;EN& O8 #%O#O%&ION+6 %E#%ESEN&+&ION BEC+KSE &$E%E

+%E NO #+%&?-6IS& %E#%ESEN&+&I2ES IN &$E C+.


6/35

. J$E&$E% &$E %E8KS+6 O8 &$E $%E& +ND &$E C+ &O

%ECONS&I&K&E &$E;SE62ES &O INC6KDE #+%&?-6IS&

%E#%ESEN&+&I2ES CONS&I&K&ES F%+2E +BKSE O8 DISC%E&ION.

On the other hand, the Soli"itor Feneral argues that the instant petitions are

pro"edurall defe"tive and substantiall la"5ing in merit for having been

led prematurel, thus:

(It is a generall a""epted prin"iple that the averments in the pleading

determine the e7isten"e of a "ause of a"tion. In the instant petitions,

petitioners failed to aver that the or an one of them was ele"ted b a part

or organiation registered under the part-list sstem as a ;ember of the

$%E& or C+ to represent said part or organiation under the part-list

sstem of the $ouse of %epresentatives.(**

&he %uling of the Court

#etitioners urge the Court to rule on the issues raised in the petitions under

review, "iting the following pronoun"ement in Fuingona r. v. Fonales :*

(Jhere "onstitutional issues are properl raised in the "onte7t of the alleged

fa"ts, pro"edural @uestions a"@uire a relativel minor signi"an"e, and the

trans"endental importan"e to the publi" of the "ase demands that the be

settled promptl and denitel brushing aside 777 te"hni"alities of

pro"edure.(

#etitioners relian"e on Fuingona, r. v. Fonales is mispla"ed. &he

(pro"edural @uestions( that petitioners want the Court to brush aside are not

mere te"hni"alities but substantive matters that are spe"i"all provided for

in the "onstitutional provisions "ited b petitioners.

&he Constitution e7pressl grants to the $ouse of %epresentatives the

prerogative, within "onstitutionall dened limits, to "hoose from among its

distri"t and part-list representatives those who ma o""up the seats

allotted to the $ouse in the $%E& and the C+. Se"tion /1, +rti"le 2I of theConstitution*4 e7pli"itl "onfers on the Senate and on the $ouse the authorit

to ele"t among their members those who would ll the /* seats for Senators

and /* seats for $ouse members in the Commission on +ppointments. Knder

Se"tion /0, +rti"le 2I of the Constitution,*9ea"h "hamber of Congress

e7er"ises the power to "hoose, within "onstitutionall dened limits, who


7/35

among their members would o""up the allotted A seats of ea"h "hambers

respe"tive ele"toral tribunal.

&hese "onstitutional provisions are reiterated in %ules and 4 'a) of the /331

%ules of the $ouse of %epresentatives Ele"toral &ribunal, to wit:

(%ule . Composition. - &he &ribunal shall be "omposed of nine

;embers, three of whom shall be usti"es of the Supreme Court to be

designated b the Chief usti"e, and the remaining si7 shall be

;embers of the $ouse of %epresentatives who shall be "hosen on the

basis of proportional representation from the politi"al parties and the

parties or organiations registered under the part-list sstem

represented therein. &he Senior usti"e in the &ribunal shall be its

Chairman.

%ule 4. Organiation. - 'a) Kpon the designation of the usti"es of the

Supreme Court and the ele"tion of the ;embers of the $ouse of

%epresentatives who are to "ompose the $ouse of %epresentatives

Ele"toral &ribunal pursuant to Se"tions /0 and /3 of +rti"le 2I of the

Constitution, the &ribunal shall meet for its organiation and adoption

of su"h resolutions as it ma deem proper.( 'Emphasis supplied)

6i5ewise, Se"tion / of the %ules of the Commission on +ppointments

provides:

(Se"tion /. Composition of the Commission On +ppointments. Jithin

thirt ') das after both $ouses of Congress shall have organied

themselves with the ele"tion of the Senate #resident and the Spea5er

of the $ouse of %epresentatives, the Commission on +ppointments

shall be "onstituted. It shall be "omposed of twelve '/*) Senators and

twelve '/*) members of the $ouse of %epresentatives, ele"ted b ea"h

$ouse on the basis of proportional representation from the politi"al

parties and parties or organiations registered under the part-list

sstem represented herein.

'Emphasis supplied)

&hus, even assuming that part-list representatives "omprise a suH"ient

number and have agreed to designate "ommon nominees to the $%E& and

the C+, their primar re"ourse "learl rests with the $ouse of

%epresentatives and not with this Court. Knder Se"tions /0 and /1, +rti"le 2I


8/35

of the Constitution, part-list representatives must rst show to the $ouse

that the possess the re@uired numeri"al strength to be entitled to seats in

the $%E& and the C+. Onl if the $ouse fails to "ompl with the dire"tive of

the Constitution on proportional representation of politi"al parties in the

$%E& and the C+ "an the part-list representatives see5 re"ourse to this

Court under its power of !udi"ial review. Knder the do"trine of primar

!urisdi"tion, prior re"ourse to the $ouse is ne"essar before petitioners ma

bring the instant "ase to the "ourt. Conse@uentl, petitioners dire"t re"ourse

to this Court is premature.

&he dis"retion of the $ouse to "hoose its members to the $%E& and the C+ is

not absolute, being sub!e"t to the mandator "onstitutional rule on

proportional representation.*A $owever, under the do"trine of separation of

powers, the Court ma not interfere with the e7er"ise b the $ouse of this

"onstitutionall mandated dut, absent a "lear violation of the Constitutionor grave abuse of dis"retion amounting to la"5 or e7"ess of

!urisdi"tion.*0Otherwise, Gthe do"trine of separation of powers "alls for ea"h

bran"h of government to be left alone to dis"harge its duties as it sees

t.*1 Neither "an the Court spe"ulate on what a"tion the $ouse ma ta5e if

part-list representatives are dul nominated for membership in the $%E&

and the C+.

&he instant petitions are bereft of an allegation that respondents prevented

the part-list groups in the $ouse from parti"ipating in the ele"tion of

members of the $%E& and the C+. Neither does it appear that after the ;a//, /331 ele"tions, the $ouse barred the part-list representatives from

see5ing membership in the $%E& or the C+. %ather, it appears from the

available fa"ts that the part-list groups in the $ouse at that time simpl

refrained from parti"ipating in the ele"tion pro"ess. &he part-list

representatives did not designate their nominees even up to the time the

led the instant petitions, with the predi"table result that the $ouse did not

"onsider an part-list representative for ele"tion to the $%E& or the C+. +s

the primar re"ourse of the part-list representatives lies with the $ouse of

%epresentatives, Gthe Court "annot resolve the issues presented bpetitioners at this time.

;oreover, it is a well-settled rule that a "onstitutional @uestion will not be

heard and resolved b the "ourts unless the following re@uirements of

!udi"ial in@uir "on"ur: '/) there must be an a"tual "ontroversL '*) the

person or part raising the "onstitutional issue must have a personal and


9/35

substantial interest in the resolution of the "ontroversL ') the "ontrovers

must be raised at the earliest reasonable opportunitL and '4) the resolution

of the "onstitutional issue must be indispensable to the nal determination of

the "ontrovers.*3

&he ve part-list representatives who are petitioners in the instant "ase

have not alleged that the are entitled to, and have been unlawfull deprived

of, seats in the $%E& or the C+. Neither have the "laimed that the have

been nominated b the part-list groups in the $ouse to the $%E& or the C+.

+s su"h, the do not possess the personal and substantial interest re@uired

to "onfer them with lo"us standi. &he part raising the "onstitutional issue

must have (su"h personal sta5e in the out"ome of the "ontrovers as to

assure that "on"rete adverseness whi"h sharpens the presentation of issues

upon whi"h the "ourt depends for illumination of diH"ult "onstitutional

@uestions.(

Je li5ewise nd no grave abuse in the a"tion or la"5 of a"tion b the $%E&

and the C+ in response to the letters of Senator #imentel. Knder Se"tions /0

and /1 of +rti"le 2I of the /310 Constitution and their internal rules, the

$%E& and the C+ are bereft of an power to re"onstitute themselves.

8inall, the issues raised in the petitions have been rendered a"ademi" b

subse@uent events. On ;a /4, */, a new set of distri"t and part-list

representatives were ele"ted to the $ouse. &he Court "annot now resolve the

issue of proportional representation in the $%E& and the C+ based on the(present "omposition( of the $ouse of %epresentatives as presented b

petitioners and the Soli"itor Feneral. Jith the ;a /4, */ ele"tions, it is

"ertain that the "omposition of the $ouse has "hanged. In the absen"e of a

proper petition assailing the present "omposition of the $%E& and the C+,

the instant petitions must fail. Otherwise, for the Court to rule on the instant

petitions at this time would be tantamount to rendering an advisor opinion,

whi"h is outside our !urisdi"tion./

3(ERE)ORE, the "onsolidated petitions for prohibition and mandamus areDIS;ISSED.

SO O%DE%ED.

G.R. No. 15675 J%&%r 25, 200


10/35


11/35

In a ;emorandum dated une 1, *4, Commissioner ;ehol >. Sadain,

"ommissioner in-"harge for %egions II and III, approved the pro"lamation of

the remaining winning "andidates for the provin"e of Isabela.//

On une 3, *4, the CO;E6EC En Ban" issued %esolution No. 0* li5ewise

dire"ting the pro"lamation of the remaining winning "andidates in

Isabela./* On the same da, petitioner led with the CO;E6EC an Krgent

;otion to Set Aside the Notice of Proclamation with Prayer for the Issuance

of a Temporary estraining !rder ./

On une /4, *4, ;iranda was pro"laimed as the dul ele"ted Congressman

for the 4th Distri"t of Isabela./4

&wo das after the pro"lamation, +ggabao led this petition assailing

%esolution No. 0*. $e "laimed that the CO;E6EC En Ban" a"ted without

!urisdi"tion when it ordered ;irandas pro"lamation "onsidering that the

Se"ond Division has not et resolved the appeal.

In his Comment,/9 ;iranda moved for the dismissal of the petition

"onsidering that the issue raised b +ggabao is best addressed to the $ouse

of %epresentatives Ele"toral &ribunal "#$T%&/A

On +ugust *0, *4, the petitioner led a Consolidated Motion for $arly

esolution' Manifestation that the C!M$($C Second )i*ision Issued a

esolution Sustaining the Appeal of the Petitioner' and eply to theComment ./0 $e manifested that on +ugust /A, *4, the CO;E6EC Se"ond

Division gave due "ourse to his pending appeal./1 +t the same time, he

bewailed the failure of the CO;E6EC Se"ond Division to annul the

pro"lamation./3

&he basi" issue for resolution is whether we "an ta5e "ognian"e of this

petition.

Certiorari as a spe"ial "ivil a"tion "an be availed of onl if there is

"on"urren"e of the essential re@uisites, to wit: 'a) the tribunal, board oroH"er e7er"ising !udi"ial fun"tions has a"ted without or in e7"ess of

!urisdi"tion or with grave abuse of dis"retion amounting to la"5 of

!urisdi"tion, and 'b) there is no appeal, nor an plain, speed and ade@uate

remed in the ordinar "ourse of law for the purpose of annulling or

modifing the pro"eeding. &here must be "apri"ious, arbitrar and whimsi"al

e7er"ise of power for it to prosper.*

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt20


12/35

+rti"le 2I, Se"tion /0 of the /310 Constitution provides:

Se". /0. &he Senate and the $ouse of %epresentatives shall ea"h have an

Ele"toral &ribunal whi"h shall be the sole !udge of all "ontests relating to the

ele"tion, returns, and @uali"ations of their respe"tive ;embers. Ea"h

Ele"toral &ribunal shall be "omposed of nine ;embers, three of whom shall

be usti"es of the Supreme Court to be designated b the Chief usti"e, and

the remaining si7 shall be ;embers of the Senate or the $ouse of

%epresentatives, as the "ase ma be, who shall be "hosen on the basis of

proportional representation from the politi"al parties and the parties or

organiation registered under the part-list sstem represented therein. &he

senior usti"e in the Ele"toral &ribunal shall be its Chairman.

In Pangilinan *& Commission on $lections*/ we ruled that:

&he Senate and the $ouse of %epresentatives now have their respe"tive

Ele"toral &ribunals whi"h are the (sole !udge of all "ontests relating to the

ele"tion, returns, and @uali"ations of their respe"tive ;embers, thereb

divesting the Commission on Ele"tions of its !urisdi"tion under the /30

Constitution over ele"tion "ases pertaining to the ele"tion of the ;embers of

the Batasang #ambansa 'Congress). It follows that the CO;E6EC is now

bereft of !urisdi"tion to hear and de"ide pre-pro"lamation "ontroversies

against members of the $ouse of %epresentatives as well as of the Senate.

&he $%E& has sole and e7"lusive !urisdi"tion over all "ontests relative to theele"tion, returns, and @uali"ations of members of the $ouse of

%epresentatives. &hus, on"e a winning "andidate has been pro"laimed, ta5en

his oath, and assumed oH"e as a ;ember of the $ouse of %epresentatives,

CO;E6ECs !urisdi"tion over ele"tion "ontests relating to his ele"tion, returns,

and @uali"ations ends, and the $%E&s own !urisdi"tion begins.**

It is undisputed that ;iranda has alread been pro"laimed, ta5en his oath

and assumed oH"e on une /4, *4. +s su"h, petitioners re"ourse would

have been to le an ele"toral protest before the $%E&. $is remed is not this

petition for "ertiorari. &hus:

8inall, the private respondent 8eli"iano Belmonte, r. has alread been

pro"laimed as the winner in the "ongressional ele"tions in the fourth distri"t

of ueon Cit. $e has ta5en his oath of oH"e and assumed his duties as

representativeL hen"e, the remed open to the petitioner was to have led

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt22


13/35

an ele"toral protest with the Ele"toral &ribunal of the $ouse of

%epresentatives.*

&he allegation that ;irandas pro"lamation is null and void ab initio does not

divest the $%E& of its !urisdi"tion. &hus:

'I)n an ele"toral "ontest where the validit of the pro"lamation of a winning

"andidate who has ta5en his oath of oH"e and assumed his post as

Congressman is raised, that issue is best addressed to the $%E&. &he reason

for this ruling is self-evident, for it avoids dupli"it of pro"eedings and a "lash

of !urisdi"tion between "onstitutional bodies, with due regard to the peoples

mandate.*4

In (a+atin *& Commission on $lections*9 we ruled that, upon pro"lamation of

the winning "andidate and despite its alleged invalidit, the CO;E6EC is

divested of its !urisdi"tion to hear the protest. &hus:

&he petition is impressed with merit be"ause the petitioner has been

pro"laimed winner of the Congressional ele"tions in the rst distri"t of

#ampanga, has ta5en his oath of oH"e as su"h, and assumed his duties as

Congressman. 8or this Court to ta5e "ognian"e of the ele"toral protest

against him would be to usurp the fun"tions of the $ouse Ele"toral

&ribunal.l,**phi-&net &he alleged invalidit of the pro"lamation 'whi"h has

been previousl ordered b the CO;E6EC itself) despite alleged irregularities

in "onne"tion therewith, and despite the penden" of the protests of the rival"andidates, is a matter that is also addressed, "onsidering the premises, to

the sound !udgment of the Ele"toral &ribunal.

In this "ase, certiorari will not lie "onsidering that there is an available and

ade@uate remed in the ordinar "ourse of law for the purpose of annulling

or modifing the pro"eedings before the CO;E6EC. +fter the pro"lamation,

petitioners remed was an ele"toral protest before the $%E&. &he resolution

of the issues presented in this petition is best addressed to the sound

!udgment and dis"retion of the ele"toral tribunal.

3(ERE)ORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant #etition for Certiorari isDIS;ISSED for la"5 of merit. No pronoun"ement as to "osts.

SO O%DE%ED.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_163756_2005.html#fnt25


14/35

!ARL GRA#E J. A"AON, G.R. No. 189455#etitioner,#resent:

#uno, C. ..,Carpio,Corona,

Carpio ;orales,2elas"o, r.,

Na"hura,- versus - 6eonardo-De Castro,

Brion,#eralta,Bersamin,Del Castillo,+bad,2illarama, r.,#ere, and;endoa, ...

T(E (ONORA"LE (OUSE O)REPRESENTATIVES ELE#TORALTRI"UNAL, PER)E#TO #. LU#A"AN,

JR., RONL S. !E LA #RU$%&' AGUSTIN #. !OROGA,%espondents. 7 ---------------------------------------------- 7 #ONGRESSMAN JOVITO S. G.R. No. 18905PALPARAN, JR.,

#etitioner, - versus - (OUSE O) REPRESENTATIVESELE#TORAL TRI"UNAL ;(RET


15/35

JOSELITO USTARE$,%espondents. 8ebruar //, */7 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

DECISION

A"A!, J.:

&hese two "ases are about the authorit of the $ouse of %epresentatives Ele"toral &ribunal '$%E&) to pass upon the eligibilities of thenominees of the part-list groups that won seats in the lower house of Congress.

Te )%=- %&' e #%-e

In G.R. 189455, petitioner Darl Fra"e . +baon is the rst nominee

of the Aangat Tayo part-list organiation that won a seat in the $ouse of %epresentatives during the *0 ele"tions.

%espondents #erfe"to C. 6u"aban, r., %onl S. Dela Cru, and +gustin

C. Doroga, all registered voters, led a petition for /uo warranto withrespondent $%E& against Aangat Tayo and its nominee, petitioner +baon, in$%E& Case 0-4/. &he "laimed that Aangat Tayo was not eligible for apart-list seat in the $ouse of %epresentatives, sin"e it did not represent themarginalied and underrepresented se"tors.

%espondent 6u"aban and the others with him further pointed out that

petitioner +baon herself was not @ualied to sit in the $ouse as a part-listnominee sin"e she did not belong to the marginalied and underrepresentedse"tors, she being the wife of an in"umbent "ongressional distri"trepresentative. She moreover lost her bid as part-list representative of thepart-list organiation "alled An 0aray in the immediatel pre"edingele"tions of ;a /, *4. #etitioner +baon "ountered that the Commission on Ele"tions 'CO;E6EC)had alread "onrmed the status of Aangat Tayo as a national multi-se"toralpart-list organiation representing the wor5ers, women, outh, urban poor,and elderl and that she belonged to the women se"tor. +baon also "laimed

that although she was the se"ond nominee of An 0aray part-listorganiation during the *4 ele"tions, she "ould not be regarded as havinglost a bid for an ele"tive oH"e.

8inall, petitioner +baon pointed out that respondent $%E& had no !urisdi"tion over the petition for /uo warranto sin"e respondent 6u"aban andthe others with him "ollaterall atta"5ed the registration of Aangat Tayo as apart-list organiation, a matter that fell within the !urisdi"tion of the


16/35

CO;E6EC. It was Aangat Tayo that was ta5ing a seat in the $ouse of %epresentatives, and not +baon who was !ust its nominee. +ll @uestionsinvolving her eligibilit as rst nominee, said +baon, were internal "on"ernsof Aangat Tayo.

On ul /A, *3 respondent $%E& issued an order, dismissing the petition asagainst Aangat Tayo but upholding its !urisdi"tion over the @uali"ations of petitioner +baon.M/ &he latter moved for re"onsideration but the $%E&denied the same on September /0, *3,M* prompting +baon to le thepresent petition for spe"ial "ivil a"tion of certiorari.

In G.R. 18905, petitioner ovito S. #alparan, r. is the rst nominee of the Bantay part-list group that won a seat in the *0 ele"tions for themembers of the $ouse of %epresentatives. %espondents %enaldo 6esa"a, r.,Cristina #alaba, %enato ;. %ees, r., Erlinda Cadapan, +ntonio 8lores, and oselito Kstare are members of some other part-list groups.

Shortl after the ele"tions, respondent 6esa"a and the others with him ledwith respondent $%E& a petition for /uo warranto against Bantay and itsnominee, petitioner #alparan, in $%E& Case 0-4. 6esa"a and the othersalleged that #alparan was ineligible to sit in the $ouse of %epresentatives aspart-list nominee be"ause he did not belong to the marginalied andunderrepresented se"tors that Bantay represented, namel, the vi"tims of "ommunist rebels, Civilian +rmed 8or"es Feographi"al Knits 'C+8FKs),former rebels, and se"urit guards. 6esa"a and the others said that #alparan"ommitted gross human rights violations against marginalied andunderrepresented se"tors and organiations.

#etitioner #alparan "ountered that the $%E& had no !urisdi"tion over hisperson sin"e it was a"tuall the part-list Bantay , not he, that was ele"ted toand assumed membership in the $ouse of %epresentatives. #alparan "laimedthat he was !ust Bantay s nominee. Conse@uentl, an @uestion involving hiseligibilit as rst nominee was an internal "on"ern of Bantay . Su"h @uestionmust be brought, he said, before that part-list group, not before the $%E&.

On ul *, *3 respondent $%E& issued an order dismissing thepetition against Bantay for the reason that the issue of the ineligibilit or@uali"ation of the part-list group fell within the !urisdi"tion of the CO;E6EC

pursuant to the #art-6ist Sstem +"t. $%E&, however, defended its !urisdi"tion over the @uestion of petitioner #alparans @uali"ations.M #alparan moved for re"onsideration but the $%E& denied it b a resolutiondated September /, *3,M4 hen"e, the re"ourse to this Court through thispetition for spe"ial "ivil a"tion of certiorari and prohibition. Sin"e the two "ases raise a "ommon issue, the Court has "aused their"onsolidation.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189466.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189466.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189466.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189466.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189466.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189466.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189466.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189466.htm#_ftn4


17/35


18/35

Clearl, the members of the $ouse of %epresentatives are of two 5inds:

members 7 7 7 who shall be ele"ted from legislative distri"ts and o-e @oB B B -%// be e/e=e' ro> % ?%r/+- --em o: re>+-ere'&%+o&%/, re>+o&%/, %&' -e=or%/ ?%r+e- or or>%&+C%+o&-. &his means

that, from the Constitutions point of view, it is the part-list representativeswho are ele"ted into oH"e, not their parties or organiations. &heserepresentatives are ele"ted, however, through that pe"uliar part-list sstemthat the Constitution authoried and that Congress b law established wherethe voters "ast their votes for the organiations or parties to whi"h su"hpart-list representatives belong.

On"e ele"ted, both the distri"t representatives and the part-list

representatives are treated in li5e manner. &he have the same deliberativerights, salaries, and emoluments. &he "an parti"ipate in the ma5ing of lawsthat will dire"tl benet their legislative distri"ts or se"tors. &he are also

sub!e"t to the same term limitation of three ears for a ma7imum of three"onse"utive terms.

It ma not be amiss to point out that the #art-6ist Sstem +"t itself

re"ognies part-list nominees as members of the $ouse of %epresentatives,thus:

Se=. 2. !e=/%r%+o& o: Po/+=. Te S%e -%//

?romoe ?ro?or+o&%/ re?re-e&%+o& +& e e/e=+o& o: re?re-e&%+ve- o e (o-e o: Re?re-e&%+ve- ro>% ?%r/+- --em o: re>+-ere' &%+o&%/, re>+o&%/ %&'

-e=or%/ ?%r+e- or or>%&+C%+o&- or =o%/++o&-ereo:, @+= @+// e&%b/e )+/+?+&o =++Ce&- be/o&>+&> oe m%r>+&%/+Ce' %&' &'erre?re-e&e' -e=or-,or>%&+C%+o&- %&' ?%r+e-, %&' @o /%=D @e//'e&e'?o/++=%/ =o&-+e&=+e- b @o =o/' =o&r+be o e:orm/%+o& %&' e&%=me& o: %??ro?r+%e /e>+-/%+o& %@+// be&e e &%+o& %- % @o/e, o be=ome member- o: e (o-e o: Re?re-e&%+ve-. To@%r'- +- e&', eS%e -%// 'eve/o? %&' >%r%&ee % ://, :ree %&' o?e&?%r --em +& or'er o %%+& e bro%'e- ?o--+b/ere?re-e&%+o& o: ?%r, -e=or%/ or >ro? +&ere-- +& e

(o-e o: Re?re-e&%+ve- b e&%&=+&> e+r =%&=e- o=om?ee :or %&' @+& -e%- +& e /e>+-/%re, %&' -%//?rov+'e e -+m?/e- -=eme ?o--+b/e. 'Knders"oringsupplied) +s this Court also held in Bantay epu1lic Act or BA2A 345- *&

Commission on $lections,MA a part-list representative is in ever sense anele"ted member of the $ouse of %epresentatives. +lthough the vote "ast in a

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189466.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189466.htm#_ftn6


19/35

part-list ele"tion is a vote for a part, su"h vote, in the end, would be a votefor its nominees, who, in appropriate "ases, would eventuall sit in the $ouseof %epresentatives.

Both the Constitution and the #art-6ist Sstem +"t set the

@uali"ations and grounds for dis@uali"ation of part-list nominees. Se"tion3 of %.+. 034/, e"hoing the Constitution, states:

Se=. 9. Qualifcation o Party-List Nominees. No?er-o& -%// be &om+&%e' %- ?%r/+- re?re-e&%+ve&/e-- e +- % &%r%/bor& =++Ce& o: e P+/+??+&e-, %re>+-ere' voer, % re-+'e& o: e P+/+??+&e- :or % ?er+o'o: &o /e-- %& o&e ;1< e%r +mme'+%e/ ?re=e'+&> e'% o: e e/e=+o&, %b/e o re%' %&' @r+e, bo&% 'emember o: e ?%r or or>%&+C%+o& @+= e -eeD- ore?re-e& :or % /e%- &+&e ;90< '%- ?re=e'+&> e '%

o: e e/e=+o&, %&' +- % /e%- @e&ve ;2< e%r- o: %>e o& e '% o: e e/e=+o&. I& =%-e o: % &om+&ee o: e o -e=or, e m- %

/e%- be @e&ve ;2< b &o more %& +r ;60<e%r- o: %>e o& e '% o: e e/e=+o&. A& o-e=or%/ re?re-e&%+ve @o %%+&- e %>e o: +r ;60<'r+&> +- erm -%// be %//o@e' o =o&+&e &+/ eeB?+r%+o& o: +- erm. In the "ases before the Court, those who "hallenged the @uali"ations

of petitioners +baon and #alparan "laim that the two do not belong to themarginalied and underrepresented se"tors that the ought to represent. &he#art-6ist Sstem +"t provides that a nominee must be a 1ona 6de memberof the part or organiation whi"h he see5s to represent.M0

It is for the $%E& to interpret the meaning of this parti"ular

@uali"ation of a nominee the need for him or her to be a 1ona 6de memberor a representative of his part-list organiation in the "onte7t of the fa"tsthat "hara"terie petitioners +baon and #alparans relation to Aangat Tayo and Bantay , respe"tivel, and the marginalied and underrepresentedinterests that the presumabl embod.

#etitioners +baon and #alparan of "ourse point out that the authorit

to determine the @uali"ations of a part-list nominee belongs to the part ororganiation that nominated him. &his is true, initiall. &he right to e7aminethe tness of aspiring nominees and, eventuall, to "hoose ve from amongthem after all belongs to the part or organiation that nominates them.M1 But where an allegation is made that the part or organiation had "hosenand allowed a dis@ualied nominee to be"ome its part-list representative in

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189466.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189466.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189466.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189466.htm#_ftn8


20/35

the lower $ouse and en!o the se"ured tenure that goes with the position,the resolution of the dispute is ta5en out of its hand.

#arentheti"all, although the #art-6ist Sstem +"t does not so state,

the CO;E6EC seems to believe, when it resolved the "hallenge to petitioner

+baon, that it has the power to do so as an in"ident of its authorit toapprove the registration of part-list organiations. But the Court need notresolve this @uestion sin"e it is not raised here and has not been argued bthe parties.

Jhat is inevitable is that Se"tion /0, +rti"le 2I of the

ConstitutionM3 provides that the $%E& shall be the sole !udge of all "ontestsrelating to, among other things, the @uali"ations of the members of the$ouse of %epresentatives. Sin"e, as pointed out above, part-list nomineesare e/e=e' memberof the $ouse of %epresentatives no less than thedistri"t representatives are, the $%E& has !urisdi"tion to hear and pass upon

their @uali"ations. B analog with the "ases of distri"t representatives,on"e the part or organiation of the part-list nominee has been pro"laimedand the nominee has ta5en his oath and assumed oH"e as member of the$ouse of %epresentatives, the CO;E6ECs !urisdi"tion over ele"tion "ontestsrelating to his @uali"ations ends and the $%E&s own !urisdi"tion begins.M/

&he Court holds that respondent $%E& did not gravel abuse its

dis"retion when it dismissed the petitions for /uo warranto against Aangat Tayo part-list and Bantay part-list but upheld its !urisdi"tion over the@uestion of the @uali"ations of petitioners +baon and #alparan.

3(ERE)ORE, the Court !ISMISSES the "onsolidated petitionsand A))IRMS the Order dated ul /A, *3 and %esolution 3-/1 datedSeptember /0, *3 in $%E& Case 0-4/ of the $ouse of %epresentativesEle"toral &ribunal as well as its Order dated ul *, *3 and %esolution 3-/01 dated September /, *3 in $%E& Case 0-4.

SO OR!ERE!.

Re?b/+= o: e P+/+??+&e-

S?reme #or

M%&+/%

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189466.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189466.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189466.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189466.htm#_ftn10


21/35

EN B+NC

(ENR JUN !UEAS, JR.,

#etitioner,

2*ersus2

(OUSE O) REPRESENTATIVESELE#TORAL

G.R. No. 1910

Pre-e&

#KNO, C&.&7

C+%#IO,

CO%ON+,

C+%#IO ;O%+6ES,

2E6+SCO, %.,

N+C$K%+,

6EON+%DO-DE C+S&%O,

B%ION,

#E%+6&+,

BE%S+;IN,

DE6 C+S&I66O,

+B+D,

2I66+%+;+, %.,

#E%EP, and

;ENDOP+, ..&

Prom/>%e'

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/may2010/191550.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/may2010/191550.htm#_ftn1


22/35

TRI"UNAL %&'ANGELITO JETT P.REES,

%espondents.

;a 4, */

7-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7

D E C I S I O N

PERALTA, J.

&his resolves the #etition for Certiorari under %ule A9 of the %ules of Court

praing that the De"isionM/ of the $ouse of %epresentatives Ele"toral &ribunal

'$%E&) dated 8ebruar *9, */ and its %esolutionM* dated ;ar"h /1, */

be de"lared null and void a1 initio&

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/may2010/191550.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/may2010/191550.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/may2010/191550.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/may2010/191550.htm#_ftn3


23/35

#etitioner was pro"laimed as the Congressman for the Se"ond 6egislative

Distri"t of &aguig Cit. #rivate respondent led an ele"tion protest with the

$%E&. +fter revision of ballots in / of the protested pre"in"ts and *9 of

the "ounter-protested pre"in"ts, the "ase was submitted for resolution uponthe partiesQ submission of memoranda. $owever, in its OrderM dated

September *9, *1, the $%E& dire"ted the "ontinuation of the revision and

appre"iation of ballots for the remaining 09 of the "ounter-protested

pre"in"ts. #etitionerQs motion for re"onsideration of said Order was denied in

a $%E& %esolution dated O"tober */, *1 whi"h reiterated the Order to

"ontinue revision in the remaining 09 of the "ounter-protested

pre"in"ts. #etitioner then led a petition for certiorari with this Court

do"5eted as F.%. No. /194/, see5ing the nulli"ation of said order of

revision, alleging that it was issued with grave abuse of dis"retion. On ul*/, *3, the Court promulgated a De"ision dismissing the petition. Said

De"ision be"ame nal and e7e"utor and the $%E& "ontinued the pro"eeding

in the ele"toral protest "ase.

On 8ebruar *9, */, the $%E& promulgated its De"ision whi"h de"lared

private respondent as the winner with a margin of 0 votes.

In the instant petition, the main thrust of petitionerQs argument is that sin"e

private respondentQs margin of votes is merel 0, this shows that the

alleged reason for the $%E&Qs order of revision, i&e., that the pro"laimed

results of the "ongressional ele"tions in &aguig Cit have been substantiall

a


24/35

&he Court resolves to dismiss the petition for la"5 of merit.

It is hornboo5 prin"iple that this CourtQs !urisdi"tion to review de"isions and

orders of ele"toral tribunals is e7er"ised onl upon showing of grave abuse of dis"retion "ommitted b the tribunalL otherwise, the Court shall not interfere

with the ele"toral tribunals e7er"ise of its dis"retion or !urisdi"tion.M4 Frave

abuse of dis"retion has been dened as the "apri"ious and whimsi"al

e7er"ise of !udgment, the e7er"ise of power in an arbitrar manner, where

the abuse is so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive dut.M9

Su"h showing of grave abuse of dis"retion is sorel wanting in this"ase. #etitioner dwells on his theor that there was no !usti"ation for the

$%E&Qs Order to "ontinue the revision of ballots in 09 of the "ounter-

protested pre"in"ts. Sin"e it was eventuall determined that private

respondentQs margin of votes is onl 0, this allegedl shows that the results

of the initial revision of ballots reall had no substantial e


25/35

6i5ewise, the "ir"umstan"e that none of the three Supreme Court usti"es

too5 part in the De"ision, "annot be ta5en as proof of grave abuse of

dis"retion. %ule 13 of the *4 %ules of the $ouse of %epresentatives

Ele"toral &ribunal provides that Mfor rendition of de"isions and the adoption

of formal resolutions, the "on"urren"e of at least ve '9) ;embers shall bene"essar. &he $%E& De"ision dated 8ebruar *9, */ had the "on"urren"e

of si7 of its members. 2eril, the $%E& was a"ting in a""ordan"e with its rules

and "annot be said to have "ommitted an abuse of its dis"retion.

3(ERE)ORE, the petition is !ISMISSE! for la"5 of merit. &he De"isiondated 8ebruar *9, */ and the %esolution dated ;ar"h /1, */ of the

$ouse of %epresentatives Ele"toral &ribunal are A))IRME!.

SO OR!ERE!&

EN "AN#

G.R. No. 200, Se?ember 29, 201

ATT. ISI!RO Q. LI#O, RA)AEL A. PUENTESPINA, PRO#ULO T.SARMEN, AMELITO L. REVUELTA, 3ILLIAM #. "ANE$, SILVERIO J.SAN#(E$, GLORIA G. )UTALAN, (ILARIO !E GU$MAN, EUGENE M.

PA"UALAN, RO!OL)O E. PERE$, (IPOLITO R. QUILLAN, MARIOARENAS, TIRSO #. "UENAVENTURA, L!IA ". TU"ELLA, RENAL!O #.GOLO JONAT(AN !EQUINA IN T(EIR IN!IVI!UAL #APA#ITIES, AN!

AS LEGITIMATE MEM"ERS AN! O))I#ERS O) A!(I*AINGTINATAGUO! NG *OOPERATI"A ;ATING *OOP PART

LIST


26/35

&he instant "ase involves two rival fa"tions of the same part-listorganiation, the +dhi5aing &inataguod ng >ooperatiba '+ting >oop). Onegroup is headed b petitioner +tt. Isidro . 6i"o 'the 6i"o Froup), whorepresents the organiation in the $ouse of %epresentatives, and the othergroup b +mparo &. %imas 'respondents herein, or the %imas Froup).

T(E #ASE

Before Ks is a #etition for Certiorari under %ule A4/ in relation to %uleA9,* see5ing to annul the %esolutions in E.;. No. /*-3 dated /1 ul */*and / anuar */ of the CO;E6EC.

T(E ANTE#E!ENT )A#TS

+ting >oop is a multi-se"toral part-list organiation whi"h was registered on/A November *3 under %epubli" +"t '%.+.) No. 034/, also 5nown as the

#art-6ist Sstem +"t '#art-6ist 6aw).

Knder +ting >oopQs Constitution and B-6aws, its highest poli"ma5ing bodis the National Convention. &he Central Committee, however, ta5es overwhen the National Convention is not in session.

On November *3, +ting >oop led its ;anifestation of Intent to#arti"ipate in the #art-6ist Sstem of %epresentation for the / ;a */Ele"tions.4 On A ;ar"h */, it led with the CO;E6EC the list of itsnominees, with petitioner 6i"o as rst nominee and %oberto ;as"arina asse"ond nominee.

On 1 De"ember */, CO;E6EC pro"laimed +ting >oop as one of the winningpart-list groups.9Based on the pro"edure provided in BANAT Party2(ist *&C!M$($C,A +ting >oop earned a seat in the $ouse of %epresentatives.#etitioner 6i"o subse@uentl too5 his oath of oH"e on 3 De"ember */before the Se"retar-Feneral of the $ouse of %epresentatives,0 andthereafter assumed oH"e.

Several months prior to its pro"lamation as one of the winning part-listorganiations, or on 3 une */, +ting >oop issued Central Committee%esolution */-/, whi"h in"orporated a term-sharing agreement signed b

its nominees.1

Knder the agreement, petitioner 6i"o was to serve as #art-list%epresentative for the rst ear of the three-ear term.3

On /4 ;a *//, +ting >oop held its Se"ond National Convention, duringwhi"h it introdu"ed amendments to its Constitution and B-laws. +mong thesalient "hanges was the "omposition of the Central Committee,/ whi"hwould still be "omposed of /9 representatives but with 6*e each comingfrom (u+on7 Visayas and Mindanao '9-9-9 e@ual representation).// &he


27/35

amendments li5ewise mandated the holding of an ele"tion of CentralCommittee members within si7 months after the Se"ond NationalConvention./*

In eoop fordisloalt./4 +part from allegations of malversation and graft and "orruption,the Committee "ited petitioner 6i"oQs refusal to honor the term-sharingagreement as fa"tual basis for disloalt and as "ause for his e7pulsionunder +ting >oopQs +mended Constitution and B-laws./9

On 1 De"ember *//, Congressman 6i"o led a ;otion for %e"onsiderationwith the Interim Central Committee,/A whi"h subse@uentl denied the samein a %esolution dated *3 De"ember *//./0

Jhile petitioner 6i"oQs ;otion for %e"onsideration was pending, the 6i"oFroup held a spe"ial meeting in Cebu Cit 'the Cebu meeting) on /3De"ember *//. +t the said meeting, new members of the CentralCommittee, as well as a new set of oH"ers, were ele"ted./1 &he ele"tion waspurportedl held for the purpose of implementing the 9-9-9 e@ualrepresentation amendment made during the Se"ond National Convention./3

On */ anuar */*, the %imas Froup held a Spe"ial National Convention in#araRa@ue Cit* 'the #araRa@ue "onvention), at whi"h a new CentralCommittee and a new set of oH"ers were "onstituted.*/ ;embers of the%imas Froup won the ele"tion and o""upied all the "orresponding seats.

PRO#EE!INGS "E)ORE T(E #OMELE#SE#ON! !IVISION

On /A ;ar"h */*, the %imas Froup, "laiming to represent +ting >oop, ledwith CO;E6EC a #etition against petitioner 6i"o do"5eted as E.;. No. /*-3.** &he said #etition, whi"h was subse@uentl raed to the Se"ond

Division, praed that petitioner 6i"o be ordered to va"ate the oH"e of +ting>oop in the $ouse of %epresentatives, and for the su""ession of the se"ondnominee, %oberto ;as"arina as +ting >oopQs representative in the $ouse.

&he %imas Froup thereafter led an +mended #etition with the CO;E6EC on/4 ;a */*, this time impleading not onl petitioner 6i"o but the entire 6i"oFroup. &he +mended #etition also praed that the CO;E6EC nullif theele"tion "ondu"ted at the Cebu meeting and re"ognie the #arana@ue


28/35

"onvention.

In both the #etition and the +mended #etition, the %imas Froup alleged that+ting >oop had e7pelled Congressman 6i"o for a"ts inimi"al to the part-listgroup, su"h as malversation, graft and "orruption, and that he had (boldl

displaed his re"al"itran"e to honor part "ommitment to be upright and"onsistentl honest, thus violating basi" prin"iples of the +ting >oop.(* &he+mended #etition stated further that the Cebu meeting held b the 6i"oFroup violated noti"e and @uorum re@uirements.*4

In a %esolution dated /1 ul */*,*9 the CO;E6EC Se"ond Division upheldthe e7pulsion of petitioner 6i"o from +ting >oop and de"lared ;as"arina asthe dul @ualied nominee of the part-list group.*A &he Se"ond Division"hara"teried the issue of the validit of the e7pulsion of petitioner 6i"o from+ting >oop as an intra-part leadership dispute, whi"h it "ould resolve as anin"ident of its power to register politi"al parties.*0"hanroblesvirtuallawlibrar

PRO#EE!INGS "E)ORE T(E #OMELE#EN "AN#

Conse@uentl, the 6i"o Froup led a ;otion for %e"onsideration from theSe"ond DivisionQs %esolution, whi"h the CO;E6EC $n Banc denied on / anuar */. &he dispositive portion of its %esolution reads:"ralawlawlibrar

3(ERE)ORE, premises "onsidered, the Commission 'En Ban") RESOLVES,as it hereb RESOLVE!, to:a. !ISMISS the instant #etition to E7pel %espondent +tt. Isidro . 6i"o in the

$ouse of %epresentatives and to San"tion the Immediate Su""ession of theSe"ond Nominee of +&INF >OO# #art 6ist, ;r. %oberto C. ;as"arina as its#art %epresentative, for la"5 of !urisdi"tionLChan%obles2irtualawlibrar

b. UP(OL! the E7pulsion of %espondent +tt. Isidro 6i"o from +&INF >OO##art-list FroupL Mand

". UP(OL! the +&INF >OO# #art-list Froup represented b its #resident,+mparo &. %imas, as the legitimate #art-list Froup a""redited b theCommission on Ele"tions, to the e7"lusion of respondents +tt. Isidro . 6i"o,%afael +. #uentespina, #ro"ulo &. Sarmen, +melito 6. %evuelta, Jilliam C.

?bane, Silverio . San"he, Floria F. 8utalan, $ilario De Fuman, Eugene ;.#abualan, %odolfo E. #ere, $ipolito %. uillan, ;ario +renas, &irso C.Buenaventura, 6dia B. &ubella, and onathan De@uina.*1

"hanrobleslaw

In arriving at its %esolution, the CO;E6EC $n Banc held that it had no !urisdi"tion to e7pel Congressman 6i"o from the #ouse of epresentati*es,"onsidering that his e7pulsion from +ting >oop a


29/35

member of the $ouse, and therefore it was the $ouse of %epresentativesEle"toral &ribunal '$%E&) that had !urisdi"tion over the #etition.

+t the same time, the CO;E6EC upheld the validit of petitioner 6i"oQse7pulsion from +ting >oop, e7plaining that when the Interim Central

Committee ousted him from Ating 8oop, the said CommitteeQs membersremained in hold-over "apa"it even after their terms had e7piredL*3 and thatthe CO;E6EC was not in a position to substitute its !udgment for that of+ting >oop with respe"t to the "ause of the e7pulsion.

8inall, the CO;E6EC $n Banc re"ognied the %imas Froup as the legitimaterepresentative of +ting >oop "onsidering that: /) it found nothing in there"ords to show that the 6i"o Froup made a valid "all for the spe"ial ele"tionof Central Committee members as re@uired under the +mended Constitutionand B-6awsL/ *) there is nothing on re"ord indi"ating that a minimum of/ attended the Cebu meetingL* and ) the #araRa@ue "onvention was in

a""ordan"e with +ting >oopQs +mended Constitution and B-6aws.

$en"e, this #etition: the 6i"o Froup now "omes before Ks, praing for areview of the CO;E6EC %esolutions.

Te #orF- R/+&>

On the COELEC!s "uris#iction o$er the e%&ulsion o a em'er o the (ouseo )e&resentati$es rom his &arty-list

or*ani+ation

Je nd that while the CO;E6EC "orre"tl dismissed the #etition to e7pelpetitioner 6i"o from the $ouse of %epresentatives for being beond its !urisdi"tion, it nevertheless pro"eeded to rule upon the validit of hise7pulsion from +ting >oop - a matter beond its purview.

&he CO;E6EC notabl "hara"teried the #etition for e7pulsion of petitioner6i"o from the $ouse of %epresentatives and for the su""ession of the se"ondnominee as part-list representative as a dis@uali"ation "ase. 8or thisreason, the CO;E6EC dismissed the petition for la"5 of !urisdi"tion, insofar as

it relates to the @uestion of unseating petitioner 6i"o from the $ouse of%epresentatives.

Se"tion /0, +rti"le 2I of the /310 Constitution4 endows the $%E& with !urisdi"tion to resolve @uestions on the @uali"ations of members ofCongress. In the "ase of part-list representatives, the $%E& a"@uires !urisdi"tion over a dis@uali"ation "ase upon pro"lamation of the winningpart-list group, oath of the nominee, and assumption of oH"e as member of


30/35

the $ouse of %epresentatives.9In this "ase, the CO;E6EC pro"laimed +ting>oop as a winning part-list groupL petitioner 6i"o too5 his oathL and heassumed oH"e in the $ouse of %epresentatives. &hus, it is the $%E&, and notthe CO;E6EC, that has !urisdi"tion over the dis@uali"ation "ase.

Jhat Je nd to be without legal basis, however, is the a"tion of theCO;E6EC in upholding the validit of the e7pulsion of petitioner 6i"o from+ting >oop, despite its own ruling that the $%E& has !urisdi"tion over thedis@uali"ation issue. &hese ndings alread tou"h upon the @uali"ationre@uiring a part-list nominee to be a 1ona 6de member of the part-listgroup sought to be represented.

&he CO;E6EC !ustied its %esolution on the merits of the e7pulsion, breling on the rule that it "an de"ide intra-part matters as an in"ident of its"onstitutionall granted powers and fun"tions. It "ited(o9in *& C!M$($C,where Je held that when the resolution of an intra-part "ontrovers is

ne"essar or in"idental to the performan"e of the "onstitutionall-grantedfun"tions of the CO;E6EC, the latter "an step in and e7er"ise !urisdi"tionover the intra-part matter.A &he 6o5in "ase, however, involved nomineesand not in"umbent members of Congress. In the present "ase, the fa"t thatpetitioner 6i"o was a member of Congress at the time of his e7pulsion from+ting >oop removes the matter from the !urisdi"tion of the CO;E6EC.

&he rules on intra-part matters and on the !urisdi"tion of the $%E& are notparallel "on"epts that do not interse"t. %ather, the operation of the rule onintra-part matters is "ir"ums"ribed b Se"tion /0 of +rti"le 2I of the /310Constitution and !urispruden"e on the !urisdi"tion of ele"toral tribunals. &he

!urisdi"tion of the $%E& is eB=/-+ve. It is given full authorit to hear andde"ide the "ases on an matter tou"hing on the validit of the title of thepro"laimed winner.0

In the present "ase, the #etition for petitioner 6i"oQs e7pulsion from the$ouse of %epresentatives is an"hored on his e7pulsion from +ting >oop,whi"h ne"essaril a


31/35

representL as su"h, the "ould not be properl "onsidered 1ona6de members of their respe"tive part-list organiations. &he Court held thatit was for the $%E& to interpret the meaning of the re@uirement of 1ona6de membership in a part-list organiation. It reasoned that under Se"tion/0, +rti"le 2I of the Constitution, the $%E& is the -o/e '>e o: %// =o&e--

@e& + =ome- o H%/+=%+o&- o: e member- o: e (o-e o:Re?re-e&%+ve-.4/

Conse@uentl, the CO;E6EC failed to re"ognie that the issue on the validitof petitioner 6i"oQs e7pulsion from +ting >oop is integral to the issue of his@uali"ations to sit in Congress. &his is not merel an error of law but anerror of !urisdi"tion "orre"tible b a writ of "ertiorariL4* the CO;E6EC shouldnot have en"roa"hed into the e7pulsion issue, as it was outside its authoritto do so.

Distin*uishe# rom )eyes $. COELEC

Our ruling here must be distinguished from egina !ngsia9o eyes *&Commission on $lections&4 In that "ase, Je upheld the dis@uali"ation bthe CO;E6EC of petitioner %ees, even as she was alread pro"laimedwinner in the ele"tions at the time she led her petition with the $igh Court.In doing so, Je re!e"ted the argument that the "ase fell within the e7"lusive !urisdi"tion of the $%E&.

In eyes, the petitioner was pro"laimed winner of the / ;a */ Ele"tions,and too5 her oath of oH"e before the Spea5er of the $ouse of%epresentatives. $owever, the Court ruled on her @uali"ations sin"e she

was &o e a member of the $ouse of %epresentatives: petitioner %eeshad et to assume oH"e, the term of whi"h would oH"iall start at noon of une */, when she led a #etition for Certiorari with #raer for &emporar %estraining Order andTor #reliminar In!un"tion andTor Status uo+nte Order dated 0 une */ assailing the %esolutions ordering the"an"ellation of her Certi"ate of Candida". In the present "ase, all threere@uirements of pro"lamation, oath of oH"e, and assumption of oH"e weresatised.

;oreover, in eyes, the CO;E6EC $n Banc %esolution dis@ualifing petitioneron grounds of la"5 of 8ilipino "itienship and residen" had be"ome nal and

e7e"utor when petitioner elevated it to this Court.44 It should be mentionedthat when petitioner %ees led her petition with the Court, the CO;E6EC $nBanc had, as earl as 9 une */, alread issued a Certi"ate of 8inalitover its /4 ;a */ %esolution dis@ualifing her. &herefore, there was nolonger an pending "ase on the @uali"ations of petitioner %ees to spea5 of.$ere, the @uestion of whether petitioner 6i"o remains a member of the$ouse of %epresentatives in view of his e7pulsion from +ting >oop is asubsisting issue.


32/35

8inall, in eyes, Je found the @uestion of !urisdi"tion of the $%E& to be anon-issue, sin"e the re"ourse of the petitioner to the Court appeared to be amere attempt to prevent the CO;E6EC from implementing a nal ande7e"utor !udgment. Je said that the petitioner therein too5 an in"onsistent,

if not "onfusing, stan"e, "onsidering that she sought remed before theCourt, and et asserted that it is the $%E& whi"h had !urisdi"tion over the"ase.49 In this "ase, the @uestion on the validit of petitioner 6i"oQs e7pulsionfrom +ting >oop is a genuine issue that falls within the !urisdi"tion of the$%E&, as it unmista5abl aoop.

+t the outset, Je re!e"t the 6i"o FroupQs argument that the CO;E6EC has no !urisdi"tion to de"ide whi"h of the feuding groups is to be re"ognied, andthat it is the %egional &rial Court whi"h has !urisdi"tion over intra-"orporate"ontroversies. Indeed, the CO;E6ECs !urisdi"tion to settle the struggle forleadership within the part is well established. &his power to rule upon@uestions of part identit and leadership is e7er"ised b the CO;E6EC as anin"ident of its enfor"ement powers.4A

&hat being said, Je nd the CO;E6EC to have "ommitted grave abuse of

dis"retion in de"laring the %imas Froup as the legitimate set of +ting >oopoH"ers for the simple reason that the amendments to the Constitution andB-laws of +ting >oop were &o re>+-ere' @+ e #OMELE#. $en"e,neither of the ele"tions held during the Cebu meeting and the #arana@ue"onferen"e pursuant to the said amendments, were valid.

Both the 6i"o Froup and the %imas Froup indeed assert that their respe"tiveele"tions were "ondu"ted pursuant to the amendment introdu"ed in theSe"ond National Convention held on /4 ;a *//. In parti"ular, Se"tion / of+rti"le 2I of +ting >oopQs B-laws "alled for the "ondu"t of an ele"tion ofCentral Committee members within si7 months after the Se"ond National

Convention.40

&here is no showing, however, that the amendments were a"tuall led withthe CO;E6EC.

+ part-list organiation owes its e7isten"e to the State and the latterQsapproval must be obtained through its agent, the CO;E6EC. In the */ "aseof )ayao *& C!M$($C,41 Je de"lared that it is the State, a"ting through the


33/35

CO;E6EC, that breathes life to a part-list organiation. &he impli"ation,therefore, is that the State, through the CO;E6EC, is a part to the prin"ipal"ontra"ts entered into b the part-list organiation and its members - theConstitution and B-laws - su"h that an amendment to these "ontra"tswould "onstitute a novation re@uiring the "onsent of all the parties involved.

+n amendment to the blaws of a part-list organiation should be"omeeoop.

Even assuming arguendo that the amendment "alling for a spe"ial ele"tionwere e


34/35

the petition of the %imas Froup insofar as it sought to be de"lared thelegitimate group representing +ting >oop.

?et, the CO;E6EC held that the #arana@ue "onvention (appeared to be in"onformit( with +ting >oopQs +mended Constitution and B-6aws.9* It should

be stressed that the CO;E6EC did not even substantiate this "on"lusion.9

&he Court ordinaril refrains from reviewing the CO;E6EC s appre"iation andevaluation of the eviden"e.94 But when the CO;E6ECs assessment of theeviden"e is so grossl unreasonable that it turns into an error of !urisdi"tion,the Court is "ompelled to intervene and "orre"t the error.99

+s seen in the above dis"ussions, neither of the parties was able to establishits legitima". &he evaluation of the eviden"e b the CO;E6EC in de"idingthe issue of whi"h group legitimatel represents +ting >oop was thereforegrossl unreasonable, whi"h amounts to a !urisdi"tional error that ma be

remedied b "ertiorari under %ule A9.

&he nal, and most important @uestion to be addressed is: if neither of thetwo groups is the legitimate leadership of +ting >oop, then who isU

Je nd su"h legitimate leadership to be the Interim Central Committee,whose members remain as su"h in a hold-over "apa"it.

In Seneres *& C!M$($C79A the validit of the Certi"ate of Nomination led bBuha #art-6ist through its #resident, %oger %obles, was @uestioned on theground that his term had e7pired at the time it was led. &he Court applied

b analog the default rule in "orporation law to the e


35/35

of Congressman 6i"o from +ting >oop and it upholds the +&INF >OO# #art-list Froup represented b its #resident, +mparo &. %imas, as the legitimate#art-list Froup.

+ new one is entered !E#LARING that the legitimate Central Committee

and set of oH"ers legitimatel representing +ting >oop are the InterimCentral Committee and set of oH"ers prior to the split of +ting >oop.

SO OR!ERE!."hanroblesvirtua

Date post:	05-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	yul-torrefranca-mesa
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

15 ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL CASES.docx

Documents