Macalintal v PET

November 23, 2010 |NACHURA, J.

Case doctrine: the Supreme Courts constitutional mandate to act as sole judge of election contests involving our
countrys highest public officials, and its rule-making authority in connection therewith, is not restricted; it
includes all necessary powers implicit in the exercise thereof.
Case Summary: Atty. Macalintang assails the creation of the PET as unconstitutional, on the bases of Art. VII,
Sec. 4 (7), and Art. VIII, Sec. 12 of the constitution. The court dismissed his petition and ruled in favor of the
constitutionality of PET. The court reasoned that Art. VII, Sec. 4 actually gave SC the power to create the PET,
although not explicitly.

Facts:
Atty. Romulo Macalintang questions the constitutionality of the creation of the Presidential
Electoral Tribunal (PET). He bases his argument on CONST. Art. VII, Sec. 4 (7), which says:
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may
promulgate its rules for the purpose.
He also questions the constitutionality of designating members of SC as members of the PET. He
says that it contravenes Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution, which says,
The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall
not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.

Issue:
W/N the creation the creation of the PET is unconstitutional for violating Art. VII, Sec. 4 (7) of
1987 Constitution (No.)
W/N the designation of the members of SC as members of the PET is unconstitutional for
violating Art. VIII, Sec. 12 of 1987 Constitution (No.)

Ruling: Petition dismissed

I.
Contrary to petitioners assertion, the Supreme Courts constitutional mandate to act as sole judge
of election contests involving our countrys highest public officials, and its rule-making authority in
connection therewith, is not restricted; it includes all necessary powers implicit in the exercise thereof.
In Marcos v. Manglapus, the court ruled that the constitution grants plenary power to the three
branches of government. A grant of the legislative power means a grant of all legislative power; and a
grant of the judicial power means a grant of all the judicial power which may be exercised under the
government."
The conferment of additional jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, with the duty characterized
as an "awesome" task, includes the means necessary to carry it into effect under the doctrine of
necessary implication.
The establishment of the PET simply constitutionalized what was statutory before the 1987
Constitution.
Fr. Bernas: What we have done is to constitutionalize what was statutory but it
is not an infringement on the separation of powers because the power being given to the
Supreme Court is a judicial power.
II.

 A plain reading of Article VII, Section 4, paragraph 7, readily reveals a grant of authority to the
Supreme Court sitting en banc. Although the method by which the Supreme Court exercises this
authority is not specified in the provision, the grant of power does not contain any limitation on the
Supreme Court's exercise thereof. The Supreme Court's method of deciding presidential and vicepresidential election contests, through the PET, is actually a derivative of the exercise of the
prerogative conferred by this provision. This is the reason for the phrase directing SC to "promulgate its
rules for the purpose.
Besides, when the COMELEC, the HRET, and the SET decide election contests, their decisions
are still subject to judicial review via a petition for certiorari filed by the proper party if there is a
showing that the decision was rendered with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.