TITLE Vera v Avelino

FACTS SECTION 17
In May 1946 the Commission on Elections submitted to the President and the Congress of the Philippines a report regarding the national elections held the previous month. It stated that by reason of certain specified acts of terrorism and violence in the province of Pampanga, Nueva Ecija, Bulacan and Tarlac, the voting in said region did not reflect the true and free expression of the popular will. During the session, when the senate convened on May 25, 1946, a pendatum resolution was approved ordering that Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno and Jose E. Romero who had been included among the 16 candidates for senator receiving the highest number of votes, proclaimed by the Commissions on Elections shall not be sworn, nor seated, as members of the chamber, pending the termination of the of the protest lodged against their election. Petitioners thus immediately instituted an action against their colleagues responsible for the resolution, praying for an order to annul it and compelling respondents to permit them to occupy their seats and to exercise their senatorial prerogative. They also allege that only the Electoral Tribunal had jurisdiction over contests relating to their election, returns and qualifications. Respondents assert the validity of the pendatum resolution.

ISSUE
1. Whether the Commission on Elections has the jurisdiction to determine whether or not votes cast in the said provinces are valid. 2. Whether administration of oath and the sitting of Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno and Jose Romero should be deferred pending hearing and decision on the protests lodged against their elections.

HELD
The Supreme Court refused to intervene, under the concept of separation of powers, holding that the case was not a contest, and affirmed the inherent right of the legislature to determine who shall be admitted to its membership. Case dismissed. The authority of the ET is only over all contests relating to elections, returns and qualifications of its members; it does not extend to all matters and functions of the legislative on the subject. Congress still retains the authority to defer oath-taking of members pending an election contest. Congress, under parliamentary practice, has the power to inquire into the credentials of any of its members; the power of the ET, however, remains to be a limited power

Abbas v Senate Electoral Tribunal

Abbas filed an election contest before the SET against 22 candidates of LABAN who were earlier proclaimed as senators. Abbas moved for the DQ/ inhibition of some senators who were part of the SET on the ground that they

May the senators be DQd from the SET? Is the Abbas Proposal valid?

NO. In providing for the SET to be staffed by both SC justices and senators, the constitution intended that both these judicial and legislative components

are all interested parties to the case.

COMMONLY SHARE the duty and authority of deciding all contests relating to the ERQ of senators. In fact, the prescribed ratio of Senators to Justices is 2:1 a clear indication that the legislative component cannot be totally excluded from participation in the resolution of its contests. Of course a senator can inhibit or disqualify himself from participating in the SET as his conscience dictates. But the point is the SET cannot legally function as such absent its ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP OF SENATORS; no amendment of its rules can confer on the 3 remaining Justice-members alone the power of valid adjudication of a senatorial-election contest. WN Camasura may be taken out of the HRET, when he was expelled from the LDP? May the house request NO! The ET was created to function as a NONPARTISAN, INDEPENDENT COURT even if 2/3 of its members are politicians. It is a non-political body set solely for the determination of

Abbas wanted the MASS DQ of the 6 senators who comprised the SET (Enrile, Gonzales, Guingona, Lina, Tamano, Ziga) on the ground that the same is required by public policy, due process and fair play. Enrile voluntarily inhibited himself. In effect, Abbas was also proposing to amend the SETs rules so as to permit the contest being decided by only 3 members (the 3 justices- Yap, Narvasa and Gutz); Abbas proposes that when more than 4 members are DQd, the remaining shall constitute a quorum; and if not less than 3, it may adopt resolutions by majority vote without abstention.

Bondoc v Pineda

Pineda (LDP) and Bondoc (NP) were rival candidates for Representative for 4TH district of Pampanga. Pineda was proclaimed winner with a margin of 3,000 votes. Bondoc filed a protest at the House of Rep Electoral Tribunal (HRET). After review, HRET decided that

Bondoc won by 107 votes.

the dominant party to change the partys Cong. Camasura revealed to Cong. Cojuangco representation in the (LDP Sec. Gen) that he voted for Bondoc HRET? because he was consistent with truth, justice and self-respect and that they would abide by Can the house the results of the recounted votes where reorganize Bondoc was leading. representation in the HRET of the majority Due to this, Cong. Camasura was then party? expelled from his party (LDP) as it was deemed a complete betrayal of his party when he decided for Bondoc. HRET then ordered Camasura to withdraw and rescind his nomination from the tribunal. Bondoc filed for petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to HRET from its resolution. SECTION 18 Daza v Singson Daza was chosen to be part of the Commission of Appointments (CA) and was listed as representative of the Liberal Party. LDP was reorganized and 24 members from the Liberal Party transferred to LDP. Because of this re-alignment, the HOR revised its representation by withdrawing the seat given to Daza and giving it to the newly-formed LDP. Singson was chosen to replace Daza, in accordance with proportional representation. Does the SC have jurisdiction? May the LDP still be represented at the CA despite its being unregistered?

election contests. Disloyalty to a political party are not grounds to DQ a person from the tribunal. Members of the tribunal must be non-partisan; Camasura was merely discharging his role as a member of the HRET! Ultimately, to sanction the interference by the House would be tantamount to reducing the HRET as a tool for party aggrandizement. Camasura likewise has a right to security of tenure wc may not be revoked save for causes like

YES, SC has jurisdiction. What is involved here is not the wisdom of the act of the HOR but its legality. It is NOT a political question; it is a legal question. Assuming it were a political question, SC can still assess GADALEJ. The petitioner argues that LDP is

Daza assailed his removal, averring that his election to the CA is permanent and that reorganization in the HOR is not based on a permanent political realignment, LDP still not being a permanent political party.

not a permanent party and has not yet achieved stability. However, the LDP has already been in existence for a year. They command the biggest following. They not only survived but prevailed. Regarding being a duly registered party, the LDP was granted its registration as a political party by the COMELEC. Thus, shattering the argument of the petitioner that registration is required.

Coseteng v Mitra

Petitioner Anna Coseteng, the lone candidate elected to the House of Representatives under KAIBA, wrote to Speaker Ramon Mitra to appoint her as a member of the Commission on Appointments (CA) and House Tribunal a request backed by nine congressmen. Previously, the House elected from the Coalesced Majority parties 11 out 12 congressmen to the CA and later on, added Roque Ablan, Jr. as the twelfth member, representing the Coalesced Minority. Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) was also organized as a party, prompting the revision of the House majority membership in CA due to political realignments and the replacement of Rep. Daza (LP) with Rep. Singson (LDP). Congresswoman Anna Coseteng and her party KAIBA filed a Petition for Extraordinary Legal Writs (considered as petition for quo warranto and injunction)

Does the Court have jurisdiction? WN the Congressmen in the CA were chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties?

YES, Court has jurisdiction. This is not a political question; it involves the manner of filling the CA. YESCosetengs contention without merit. SC dismissed Cosetengs contention not because issue raised was a political question but because revision in House representation in CA was based on proportional representation. The composition of the House

praying that the Court declare the election of respondent Ablan, Singson and the rest of the CA members null and void on the theory that their election violated the constitutional mandate of proportional representation because the New Majority (LDP) is entitled to only 9 seats and members must be nominated and elected by their parties. She further alleged that she is qualified to sit in the CA because of the support of 9 other congressmen from the Minority. The respondent contends that the issue of CA reorganization was a political question, hence outside the jurisdiction of the Court, was in consonance with the proportional representation clause in Art VI of the Constitution and that petitioner was bound by the Majority decision since KAIBA was part of the Coalesced Majority.

membership shows that there are 160 LDP members in the House, comprising 79% of the House membership. This granted them a rounded-up 10 seats in the CA and left the remaining two to LP and KBL as the next largest parties. KAIBA, being a member of the Coalesced Majority, is bound by the majority choices. Even if KAIBA were an opposition party, its lone member Coseteng represents less than 1% of the House membership and, hence, does not entitle her a seat in the 12 House seats in CA. Her endorsements from 9 other congressmen are inconsequential because they are not members of her party and they signed identical endorsements for her rival, Cong. Verano-Yap. There is no merit in petitioners contention that CA members should have been nominated and elected by their parties because of members were nominated by their floor leaders and elected by the House. Jurisdiction issue over political

question was also settled in Daza vs Singson in that the Constitution conferred the Court with expanded jurisdiction to determine whether grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction has been committed by the other government branches. Guingona v Gonzales The mathematical representation of each of Whether or not there is a the political parties represented in the Senate violation of Art. VI, Sec. for the Commission on Appointments (CA) is 18 as follows: LDP7.5; LP-PDP-LABAN--.5; NPC2.5; LAKAS-NUCD1.5. The LDP majority in the Senate converted a fractional half membership into a whole membership of one Senator by adding one-half or .5 to 7.5 to be able to elect respondent Senator Romulo. In so doing, one other partys fractional membership was correspondingly reduced leaving the latters representation in the CA to less than their proportional representation in the Senate. The respondents claim to membership in the CA by nomination and election of the LDP majority in the Senate is not in accordance with Sec. 18 of Art. VI of the Constitution and therefore violative of the same because it is not in compliance with the requirement that 12 senators shall be elected on the basis of proportional representation of the political parties represented therein. To disturb the resulting fractional membership of the political parties in the CA by adding together 2 halves to make a whole is a breach of the rule on proportional representation because it will give the LDP an added member in the CA by utilizing the fractional membership of the minority

political party, who is deprived of half a representation. The provision of Sec. 18 on proportional representation is mandatory in character and does not leave any discretion to the majority party in the Senate to disobey or disregard the rule on proportional representation. The Constitution does not require that the full complement of 12 senators be elected to the membership in the CA before it can discharge its functions and that it is not mandatory to elect 12 senators to the CA. The overriding directive of Art. VI, Sec. 18 is that there must be a proportional representation of the political parties in the membership of the CA and that the specification of 12 members to constitute its membership is merely an indication of the maximum complement allowable under the Constitution. The act of filling up the membership thereof cannot disregard the mandate of proportional representation of the parties even if it results in fractional membership in unusual situations. Even if the

composition of the CA is fixed by the Constitution, it can perform its functions even if not fully constituted, so long as it has the required quorum. SECTION 21 Arnault v Nazareno Sabio v Gordon Senate v Ermita Neri v Senate 1 Neri v Senate 2