Sei sulla pagina 1di 1

ATTY. ROMULO B. MACALINTAL V.

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL
TRIBUNAL
G.R. No. 191618, November !, "1"
Nachura, J.
#ACTS$
Atty. Romulo Macalintal questions the constitutionality of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal
(PET) on the rounds that it !iolates "ection #, Article $%% of the &onstitution. The 'etitioner
chafes the creation of the (se'arate tribunal) *hich *as com'lemented by a budet allocation, a
seal, a set of 'ersonnel and confidential em'loyees, to effect the constitutional mandate.
ISSUE$
+hether or not the creation of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal is &onstitutional.
%ELD$
,es. The e-'licit reference of the Members of the &onstitutional &ommission to a Presidential
Electoral Tribunal, *ith .r. Joaquin /ernas cateorically declarin that in craftin the last
'arara'h of "ec. #, Art $%% of the 0123 &onstitution, they (constitutionali4ed *hat *as
statutory.)
Judicial 'o*er ranted to the "u'reme &ourt by the same &onstitution is 'lenary. And under the
doctrine of necessary implication, the additional 5urisdiction besto*ed by the last 'arara'h of
"ection #, Article $%% of the &onstitution to decide 'residential and !ice6'residential elections
contests includes the means necessary to carry it into effect.
The 'etitioner does not 'ossess the locus standi in filin the instant 'etition as he *as
unmista7ably esto''ed in assailin the 5urisdiction of the PET before *hich tribunal he had
ubiquitously a''eared and had ac7no*lede its 5urisdiction in 899# therefore ma7in the
'etitioner:s standin still im'eriled by thee *hite ele'hant in the 'etition. Judicial inquiry
requires that the constitutional question be raised at the earliest 'ossible o''ortunity to challene
the constitutionality of the Tribunal:s constitution. The 0123 &onstitution introduces an
inno!ation about the "u'reme &ourt:s inde'endence as cited in "ection #, Article $%%. The
5udicial 'o*er e-'anded, but it remained absolute.
Atty. Romulo /. Macalintal is oin to to*n under the mis'laced assum'tion that the te-t
of the 'ro!ision itself *as the only basis for this &ourt to sustain the PET:s constitutionality.
The &ourt reiterates that the PET is authori4ed by the last 'arara'h of "ection #, Article
$%% of the &onstitution and as su''orted by the discussions of the Members of the &onstitutional
&ommission, *hich drafted the 'resent &onstitution.
The e-'licit reference by the framers of our &onstitution to constitutionali4in *hat *as
merely statutory before is not diluted by the absence of a 'hrase, line or *ord, mandatin the
"u'reme &ourt to create a Presidential Electoral Tribunal.