Abbas, et al. v.

Senate
166 SCRA 651 (1988)

Facts:
The petitioners filed before the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) an election
contest against 22 candidates of the LABAN coalition, among them are the
senators-member of the SET, who were proclaimed senators-elect in the May 11,
1987 elections.
The petitioners filed with the respondent Tribunal a Motion for Disqualification
or Inhibition of the Senators-Members thereof from the hearing and resolution of the
said contest on the ground that all of them are interested parties in the said case,
as respondents therein.
The petitioners argue that considerations of public policy and the norms of
fair play and due process imperatively require the mass disqualification from the
hearing leaving only the three judges as Members of the Tribunal.
The proposed amendment to the Tribunals Rules; (Section 24) requiring the
concurrence of five (5) members the adoption of resolutions of whatever nature;
where more than four (4) members are disqualified, the remaining members shall
constitute a quorum, if not less than three (3) including one (1) Justice, and may not
adopt resolutions by majority vote with no abstentions.

Issue:
WON resolution of the contest can be left to the three (3) remaining Tribunal
Members (Supreme Court Judges), whose disqualification is not sought.

Held:
No, the Supreme Court do not agree on the petitioners thesis that the
suggested device is neither unfeasible nor repugnant to the Constitution. In fact, the
most fundamental objection to the proposal lies in the plain terms and intent of the
Constitution itself which, in its Article VI, Section 17, creates the SET, ordains its
composition and defines its jurisdiction and powers.
It is a Clear intention of the Constitution that both Judicial and Legislative
components commonly share the duty and authority of deciding all contests relating
to the election, returns and qualifications of Senators. The said invent is even more
clearly signalled by the fact that the proportion of Senators and Justices in the
Electoral Tribunal is 2:1; an indication that the legislative component cannot be
excluded from participation in the resolution of senatorial contests, without doing
violence to the SPIRIT and INTENT of the Constitution.

Enn Arr Angeles Tapoc

Thus, the Tribunal be not prevented from discharging a duty which it alone
has the power to perform, the performance of which is in the highest public interest
as evidenced by its being expressly imposed by no less than the fundamental law.
Bondoc v. Pineda
GR No. 97710, September 26, 1991

Facts:
In the Local and Congressional Elections held in May 1987, Mariano M. Pineda of the
Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) and Dr. Emigdio A. Bondoc of the
Nacionalista Party (NP) were rival candidates for the position of Representative for
the Fourth District of Pampanga. In the canvass made, Pineda was proclaimed
winner, Bondoc then filed a protest in the House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal (HRET), in which Congressman Camasura of the LDP was a member.
Bondocs protest was submitted for decision in July 1989. The re-examination and
re-appreciation of the Ballots resulted to Bondocs lead over Pineda. Congressman
Camasura voted to proclaim Bondoc the winner of the contest.
Congressman Camasura revealed to his Chief, Congressman Jose S. Cojuangco, Jr.,
LDP Secretary General that he voted for the proclamation of Bondoc. LDP expelled
Congressman Camasura therefrom because his act, according to them, constitute
a complete betrayal to the cause and objectives, and loyalty to the LDP.
On the basis of the letter from LDP with regard to the expulsion of Congressman
Camasura, the House of Representatives (HOR) decided to withdraw the nomination
and rescind the election of the latter in the HRET.
Due to this distressing development, the 3 Justices ask the Chief Justice for them to
be relieved of their assignments in the HRET.
Tribunal then issued a resolution cancelling the promulgation of its decision
regarding the Bondoc case.
The Court Resolved:
a) Decline the request of 3 Justices to be relieved to be relieved from their
membership in the HRET and instead direct them to resume their duties in
the Tribunal.
b) Express concern over the intrusion of non-judicial factors on the proceedings
of the HRET.
c) Note the view that view that term of all members of the HRET, including
those from legislature, is co-extensive with the corresponding legislative term
and cannot be terminated at will but only by valid legal cause.
Hence, a petition for certiorari.
Issues:

Enn Arr Angeles Tapoc

(1) WON the HOR, at the request of a political party, change the Partys
representation in the HRET.
(2) WON the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over Electoral Tribunals
Held:
(1) No, HORs action towards Congressman Camasura in violative Article VI, Sec. 17
of the Constitution.
The independence of the HRET, so zealously guarded by the framers of our
Constitution, would, however, be a myth and its proceedings a farce if the HOR, or
the Majority party therein, may shuffle and manipulate the political component of
the tribunal, to serve the interests of the party in power.
The resolution of the HOR in removing Congressman Camasura in HRET for
disloyalty in LDP, because he cast his vote to NPs Bondoc is a clear impairment of
the constitutional prerogative of the HRET to be the sole judge of the election
contest between Pineda and Bondoc.
To sanction such interference by the HOR in the work of the HRET would reduce the
tribunal to a mere tool for the aggrandizement of the party in power.
Disloyalty to a party and breach of party discipline are not valid grounds for the
expulsion of a member of the tribunal. Moreover, members of the HRET as sole
judge of congressional election contests, are entitled to security of tenure just as
members of the judiciary enjoy security of tenure under our Constitution. Therefore,
membership in the HRET may not be terminated except for a just cause, such as,
the expiration of the members congressional term of office, his death, permanent
disability, resignation from the political party he represents in the tribunal.
The HOR committed grave abuse of discretion, an injustice, and a violation of the
Constitution when it expelled Congressman Bondoc from the HRET for having cast a
conscience vote in favour of Bondoc.

(2) The Electoral Commission, a constitutional organ created for the specific
purpose of determining contests relating to election, returns and qualification of
members of the National Assembly may not be interfered with by the Judiciary when
and while acting within the limits of its authority, but the Supreme Court has
jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission for the purpose of determining the
character, scope and extent of the constitutional grant to the commission.

Wherefore, the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus is granted. The
decision of the HOR withdrawing the nomination and rescinding the election of
Congressman Camasura as member of HRET is hereby declared null and void ab
initio for being violative of the Constitution and Congressman Camasura is ordered
reinstated to his position as member of the HRET.

Enn Arr Angeles Tapoc

Guerrero v. Comelec
GR No. 137004, July 26, 2000

Facts:
In the Second Division of the COMELEC, Ruiz sought for the disqualification of
Farias as a candidate for the position of Congressman due to failure to file a
certificate of Candidacy. The COLELEC dismissed the petition due to lack of merit.
In the election held, Farias was declared the winner. Ruiz then filed a motion for
reconsideration, contending that Farias could not validly substitute for the Chevylle
V. Farias since the latter was an independent candidate; another person cannot
substitute for an independent candidate, rendering Farias certificate of candidacy
defective.
Farias took his oath as a member of the House of Representatives.
The COMELEC refused to rule on the case stating that HRET has jurisdiction over it.
Now the petioner contends that the COMELECs refusal to rule on the case is
tantamount to grave abuse of discretion on its part.

Issues:
WON the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion in holding that the
determination of the validity of the certificate of candidacy of respondent Farias is
already within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunal of the House of
Representatives.

Held:
The COMELEC did not comit grave abuse of discretion.

Enn Arr Angeles Tapoc

Article VI, Section 17 states that HRET has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all
contests relative to the election and qualifications of members of the HOR.
COMELECs jurisdiction over the case had ceased and HRETs jurisdiction begins
with assumption of office of the respondent Farias as Representative for the first
district of Ilocos Norte.
When the validity of the proclamation of a winning candidate who has taken his
oath is raised, the issue is best addressed to the HRET.
The jurisdiction of the HRET is not limited to qualifications prescribed under Article
VI section 6 of the constitution. The word qualifications cannot be read as
qualified by the term constitutional. Basic is the rule in statutory construction that
Ubi lex non distiguit noc nos distinguire; Where the new law does not distinguish,
the courts should not distinguish.

Enn Arr Angeles Tapoc