G.R NO. 86649 July 12, 1990 (CASE NO.

58)

ANNA DOMINIQUE M.L COSETENG AND KABABAIHAN PARA SA INANG BAYAN, petitioners,

vs.

HON. RAMON V. MITRA, JR., as speaker of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the Philippines; HON.
FRANCISCO SUMULONG, as Majority Floor Leader of the House of Representative of the Congress of the Philippines;
HON. JOVITO SALONGA, as Ex-Oficio Chairman of the Commission on Appointments; HON. ROQUE R. ABLAN, JR.,
HON. LORNA L. VERANO-YAP, HON. MIGUEL ROMERO, HON. ANTONIO V. CUENCO, HON. ROGACIANO M. MERCADO,
HON. ALAWADIN T. BANDON, JR., HON. JOSE L. CAOCHAN, HON. CARLOS R. IMPERIAL, HON. MA. CLARA L.
LOBREGAT, HON. NATLINO M. BELTRAN, JR., HON. CARMELO J. LOCSIN AND HON. LUIS C. SINGSON, as Members of
the Commission on Appointments for the House of Representatives of the CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondents.

FACTS:

The petitioner filed a petition of quo warranto and injunction to declare null and void the election of the
respondents as members of Commission on Appointments on the ground that their election thereof is violative of the
constitutional mandate of proportional representation where the new majority (LDP) is entitled to only 9 seats and
members must be nominated and elected by their parties. Thus, the court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the election of the respondents is unconstitutional considering the contention of the
petitioners that Rep. Coseteng (KAIBA) is qualified for the position for she was supported by 9 other congressmen;
considering further that the respondents contended that the election was a political question, hence, outside the
jurisdiction of the court.

HELD:

Yes, the election of the respondents to the Commission on Appointments is constitutional.

Section 18, Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that: “There shall be a Commission on
Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex-oficio Chairman, twelve Senators, and twelve Members of
the House of Representatives elected by each House on the bass of proportional representation from the political parties
and parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The chairman of the commission
shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session
days of the Congress from their submission. The commission shall rule by a majority vote of all members.”

In this case, the court dismissed the case not because it is contended to be political question, but, because the
house representation in the Commission on Appointments is based on proportional representation of the political
parties therein provided in Section 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. Thus, in order to be qualified, the political
party should have at least reached 8.4% of the House membership; that in the case of the petitioner, her political party
only represents 0.4% of the House membership while the respondents have highest percentage of House membership
and the principal opposition of the house on the part of respondent Roque Ablan.
G.R NO. 106971 October 20, 1992 (CASE NO. 59)

TEFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., AND LAKAS-NATIONAL UNION OF CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATS (LAKAS-NUCD), petitioners,

vs.

NEPTALI A. GONZALES, ALBERTO ROMULO and WIGEBERTO E. TAÑADA, respondents.

FACTS:

The petition was filed by the petitioner against the respondents for the issuance of writ of prohibition to
prohibit the respondent Gonzales, ex-oficio chairman of Commission on Appointments from recognizing the
respondents, Romulo and Taῆada, from sitting and assuming the position of the members of the Commission when
the LDP majority in the Senate converted a fractional half membership into whole membership of one senator; that
by adding one-half or .5 and 7.5 to be able to elect respondent Senator Romulo base on the mathematical
representation of each of the political parties represented in the Senate for the Commission on Appointments as
follows: LDP-7.5;LP-PDP-LABAN-0.5; NPC-2.5; and LAKAS-NUCD-1.5. Hence the court granted the petition due to the
election being violative of the Constitutional provision on proportional representation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the election of the respondents, Romulo and Taῆada, is constitutional considering that the
petitioners claim that the respondents’ party unduly increase their membership and petitioners were unlawfully
excluded and reduced their membership correspondingly in the Commission.

HELD:

No, the election of the respondents is unconstitutional.

Section 18, Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that: “There shall be a Commission on
Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex-oficio Chairman, twelve Senators, and twelve Members of
the House of Representatives elected by each House on the bass of proportional representation from the political parties
and parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The chairman of the commission
shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session
days of the Congress from their submission. The commission shall rule by a majority vote of all members.”

In the present case, the proposed compromise of respondent Tolento for the election on Respondents
Romulo and Taῆada is clearly a violation of Section 18 because it is no longer in compliance with its mandate that
membership in commission be based on the proportional representation of the political parties. Thus, adding together
two halves to make a whole is a breach of the rule on proportional representation because it will give LDP an added
member in the Commission by utilizing the fractional membership of the minority political party, who is deprived of
half a representation.
GR. NO. 86344 (CASE NO. 60)

REP. RAUL A. DAZA, petitioner

vs.

REP. LUIS SINGSON AND HON. RAOUL V. VICTORINO IN THE LATTER’S CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE
COMMISSION ON AOPPOINTMENTS, respondents

FACTS:

The House of Representatives proportionally apportioned its twelve seats in the Commission on
Appointments among the several political parties represented in the chamber, including the Liberal Party where the
petitioner was among those chosen representative thereof. On the following year, Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino
was reorganized, resulting in a political realignment in the House of Representatives. On the basis of this
development, the House of Representatives revised its representation in the Commission on Appointments by
withdrawing the seat occupied by the petitioner and giving this to the newly-formed LDP including therein respondent
Luis C. Singson as the additional member from the LDP. The petitioner came to this Court to challenge his removal
from the Commission.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the removal of the petitioner from the Commission constitutional considering petitioner’s
contention that he cannot be removed from the Commission on Appointments because his election thereto is
permanent under the doctrine announced in Cunanan v. Tan and the reorganization of the House representation in
the said body is not based on permanent political realignment because the LDP is not a duly registered political party
and has not yet attained political stability. And on the contrary, the respondent contended that he has been
improperly impleaded, the real party respondent being the House of Representative which changed its representation
in the Commission on Appointments and removed the petitioner; and, that nowhere in the constitution is it required
that the political party be registered to be entitled to proportional representation in the Commission on
Appointments.

HELD:

Yes, the removal of the petitioner from the Commission is constitutional.

Section 18, Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that: “There shall be a Commission on
Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex-oficio Chairman, twelve Senators, and twelve Members of
the House of Representatives elected by each House on the bass of proportional representation from the political parties
and parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The chairman of the commission
shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session
days of the Congress from their submission. The commission shall rule by a majority vote of all members.”

In this case, the clear intent behind Section 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, is to give the right of
representation in the Commission on Appointments only to political parties who are duly registered with the COMELEC
in which case, the COMELEC affirmed and granted the resolution and petition of the LDP for registration as a political
party. In addition, the provision also connotes the authority of the House of Congress to see to it that the requirement
is duly complied with. Therefore, it may take appropriate measures, not only upon the initial organization of the
Commission but subsequent thereto not the court.
G.R NO. L-19721 MAY 10, 1962 (CASE NO. 61)

CARLOS CUNANAN, petitioner,

vs.

JORGE TAN, JR., respondent.

FACTS:

Petitioner sought to nullify the ad interim appointment of the respondent as an Acting Deputy Administration
of the Reforestation Administration. The petitioner was formerly appointed in the same position but was later rejected
by the commission on Appointments prompting the president to replace him without consent. Thus, the petition was
dismissed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent’s appointment was valid considering the petitioner’s contention that the rejection of his
ad interim appointment is invalid since there was irregularities as to the numbers comprising the Commission on
Appointment.

HELD:

No, his appointment is invalid.

Section 12, Article VI of the 1935 Philippine Constitution in part provides: [t]here shall be Commission on
Appointments consisting of 12 Senators and 12 members of the House of Representatives elected by each House,
respectively, on the basis of proportional representation of political parties therein.

In this case, the shifting of votes at a given time, even if due to arrangement of a more or less temporary
nature, like the one that has led to the formation of the so-called “Allied Majority,” does not suffice to authorize a
reorganization of the membership of the Commission of the House. Thus, the resolution of the House of
Representative declining vacant seats of the 12 members of the House of Representatives in the Commission on
Appointment and appointing others in lieu of some of them, as well as the rejection of ad interim appointment of
petitioner by alleged members of the Commission as recognized and the designation of respondent when the said
office was not vacant, are null and void.