SANTIAGO V GUINGONA

Senators Miriam Defensor Santiago and Francisco S. Tatad instituted an original petition for quo
warranto under Rule 66, Section 5, Rules of Court, seeking the ouster of Senator Teofisto T. Guingona Jr.
as minority leader of the Senate and the declaration of Senator Tatad as the rightful minority leader.

Senate Facts:
Sen. Fernan was nominated as Senate President and won
Sen. Tatad was nominated by Sen. Santiago for the same position but lost.

Senator Tatad thereafter manifested that, with the agreement of Senator Santiago, allegedly the only
other member of the minority, he was assuming the position of minority leader. He explained that those
who had voted for Senator Fernan comprised the majority, while only those who had voted for him, the
losing nominee, belonged to the minority.

During the discussion on who should constitute the Senate minority, Sen. Juan M. Flavier manifested
that the senators belonging to the Lakas-NUCD-UMDP Party -- numbering seven (7) and, thus, also a
minority -- had chosen Senator Guingona as the minority leader.

On July 30, 1998, the majority leader informed the body that he was in receipt of a letter signed by the
seven Lakas-NUCD-UMDP senators,9 stating that they had elected Senator Guingona as the minority
leader. By virtue thereof, the Senate President formally recognized Senator Guingona as the minority
leader of the Senate.

Thus the Quo Warranto Petition

How should the minority leader be elected

Ruling:

The term majority has been judicially defined a number of times. When referring to a certain number
out of a total or aggregate, it simply means the number greater than half or more than half of any
total.36 The plain and unambiguous words of the subject constitutional clause simply mean that the
Senate President must obtain the votes of more than one half of all the senators. Not by any construal
does it thereby delineate who comprise the majority, much less the minority, in the said body. And
there is no showing that the framers of our Constitution had in mind other than the usual meanings of
these terms.

In effect, while the Constitution mandates that the President of the Senate must be elected by a
number constituting more than one half of all the members thereof, it does not provide that the
members who will not vote for him shall ipso facto constitute the minority, who could thereby elect
the minority leader. Verily, no law or regulation states that the defeated candidate shall automatically
become the minority leader.

Other matters:
As to the Jurisdiction of the supreme court: Yes, Extended power of Judicial Review and Judicial
Supremacy

The early case Avelino v. Cuenco cautiously tackled the scope of the Courts power of judicial review;
that is, questions involving an interpretation or application of a provision of the Constitution or the law,
including the rules of either house of Congress. Within this scope falls the jurisdiction of the Court over
questions on the validity of legislative or executive acts that are political in nature, whenever the
tribunal finds constitutionally imposed limits on powers or functions conferred upon political bodies.

judicial supremacy, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, to see that no one branch or agency of
the government transcends the Constitution, not only in justiceable but political questions as well

in this case, the SC has jurisdiction as the allegations in the petition involve violation of the Constitution

as to the interpretation of the petitioners that the losing candidate for senate presidency is the leader of
the minority

To accede, then, to the interpretation of petitioners would practically amount to judicial legislation, a
clear breach of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.

Usurpation of office

Usurpation generally refers to unauthorized arbitrary assumption and exercise of power52 by one
without color of title or who is not entitled by law thereto.53

A quo warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy to determine the right or title to the contested
public office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment.5

The action may be brought by the solicitor general or a public prosecutor55 or any person claiming to
be entitled to the public office or position usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another.56 The
action shall be brought against the person who allegedly usurped, intruded into or is unlawfully holding
or exercising such office.57cräläwvirtualibräry

In order for a quo warranto proceeding to be successful, the person suing must show that

 he or she has a clear right to the contested office or to use or exercise the functions of the
office allegedly usurped or unlawfully held by the respondent.58

In this case, petitioners present no sufficient proof of a clear and indubitable franchise to the office of
the Senate minority leader.

HOW TO SELECT A MINORITY LEADER

BAGUILAT V ALVAREZ: perlas-bernabe

The petition alleges that prior to the opening of the 17th Congress on July 25, 2016, several news
articles surfaced about Rep. Suarez's announcement that he sought the adoption or anointment of
President Rodrigo Roa Duterte's Administration as the "Minority Leader" to lead a "cooperative
minority" in the House of Representatives.

Thereafter, the Elections for the Speakership were held, "[w]ith 252 Members voting for [Speaker]
Alvarez, eight [(8)] voting for Rep. Baguilat, seven [(7)] voting for Rep. Suarez, 21 abstaining and one [(l)]
registering a no vote,"4 thus, resulting in Speaker Alvarez being the duly elected Speaker of the House of
Representatives of the 17th Congress.

Petitioners hoped that as a "long-standing tradition" of the House - where the candidate who garnered
the second (2nd)-highest number of votes for Speakership automatically becomes the Minority Leader -
Rep. Baguilat would be declared and recognized as the Minority Leader. However, despite numerous
follow-ups from respondents, Rep. Baguilat was never recognized as such.

Ruling:

MANDAMUS CANNOT BE USED TO COMPEL RECOGNITION OF A REPRESENTATIVE AS MINORITY LEADER

the Court explained that the peremptory writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is issued
only in extreme necessity, and the ordinary course of procedure is powerless to afford an adequate and
speedy relief to one who has a clear legal right to the performance of the act to be compelled.

After a judicious study of this case, the Court finds that petitioners have no clear legal right to the reliefs
sought. Records disclose that prior to the Speakership Election held on July 25, 2016, then-Acting Floor
Leader Rep. Farinas responded to a parliamentary inquiry from Rep. Atienza as to who would elect the
Minority Leader of the House of Representatives. Rep. Farinas then articulated that: (a) all those who
vote for the winning Speaker shall belong to the Majority and those who vote for other candidates
shall belong to the Minority; (b) those who abstain from voting shall likewise be considered part of
the Minority; and (c) the Minority Leader shall be elected by the members of the Minority

. As will be explained hereunder, the deviation by the Lower House from the aforesaid rules is not
averse to the Constitution.

Section 16 (1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution reads:

Section 16. (1) The Senate shall elect its President and the House of Representatives, its Speaker, by a
majority vote of all its respective Members.

Each house shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary.

Under this provision, the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall be elected by a majority vote of
its entire membership. Said provision also states that the House of Representatives may decide to have
officers other than the Speaker, and that the method and manner as to how these officers are chosen is
something within its sole control.

the method of choosing who will be such other officers is merely a derivative of the exercise of the
prerogative conferred by the aforequoted constitutional provision. Therefore, such method must be
prescribed by the [House of Representatives] itself, not by [the] Court. "
Corollary thereto, Section 16 (3), Article VI26 of the Constitution vests in the House of Representatives
the sole authority to, inter alia, "determine the rules of its proceedings." These "legislative rules, unlike
statutory laws, do not have the imprints of permanence and obligatoriness during their effectivity. In
fact, they 'are subject to revocation, modification or waiver at the pleasure of the body adopting them.'

MANDAMUS TO COMPEL RECOGNITION OF LAWFUL CONGRESSMAN

Velasco v Belmonte

Velasco principally alleges that he is the "legal and rightful winner during the May 13, 2013 elections in
accordance with final and executory resolutions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and [this]
Honorable Court;"

One of the candidates for representative of Marinduque is Reyes but his certificate of candidacy was
cancelled by COMELEC due to several misrepresentations. While his MR was pending, national and local
elections were held. After the elections, COMELEC affirmed its decision cancelling the COC of Reyes.

On May 18, 2013, despite its receipt of the May 14, 2013 COMELEC Resolution, the Marinduque
Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBOC) proclaimed Reyes as the winner of the May 13, 2013 elections for
the position of Representative of the Lone District of Marinduque.

On May 31, 2013, Velasco filed an Election Protest Ad Cautelam against Reyes in the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) docketed as HRET Case No. 13-028, entitled "Lord Allan Jay Q.
Velasco v. Regina Ongsiako Reyes."

On June 5, 2013, the COMELEC En Banc issued a Certificate of Finality8 in SPA No. 13-053 (DC), which
provides:

NOW, THEREFORE, considering that more than twenty-one (21) days have lapsed since the date of the
promulgation with no Order issued by the Supreme Court restraining its execution, the Resolution of the
Commission en banc promulgated on May 14, 2013 is hereby declared FINAL and EXECUTORY.9

On June 7, 2013, Speaker Belmonte, Jr. administered the oath of office to Reyes.

Velasco requested Speaker Belmonte that he be recognized as the lawful congressman.

On February 4, 2014, Velasco wrote another letter to Speaker Belmonte, Jr. reiterating the above-
mentioned request but to no avail.

On February 6, 2014, Velasco also wrote a letter to Sec. Gen. Barua-Yap reiterating his earlier requests
(July 12 and 18, 2013) to delete the name of Reyes from the Roll of Members and register his name in
her place as the duly elected Representative of the Lone District of Marinduque.

However, Velasco relates that his efforts proved futile. He alleges that despite all the letters and
requests to Speaker Belmonte, Jr. and Sec. Gen. Barua-Yap, they refused to recognize him as the duly
elected Representative of the Lone District of Marinduque. Likewise, in the face of numerous written
demands for Reyes to vacate the position and office of the Representative of the Lone District of
Marinduque, she continues to discharge the duties of said position.

Hence, the instant Petition for Mandamus with prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order
and/or injunction

Ruling:

Sc granted Mandamus

Speaker Belmonte, Jr. and Sec. Gen. Barua-Y ap have no discretion whether or not to administer the
oath of office to Velasco and to register the latter's name in the Roll of Members of the House of
Representatives, respectively. It is beyond cavil that there is in existence final and executory resolutions
of this Court in G.R. No. 207264 affirming the final and executory resolutions of the COMELEC in SPA No.
13-053 (DC) cancelling Reyes's Certificate of Candidacy. There is likewise a final and executory resolution
of the COMELEC in SPC No. 13-010 declaring null and void the proclamation of Reyes, and proclaiming
Velasco as the winning candidate for the position of Representative for the Lone District of the Province
of Marinduque.

The foregoing state of affairs collectively lead this Court to consider the facts as settled and beyond
dispute - Velasco is the proclaimed winning candidate for the Representative of the Lone District of the
Province of Marinduque.

Other matters:

The most crucial time is when Reyes's COC was cancelled due to her non-eligibility to run as
Representative of the Lone District of the Province of Marinduque - for without a valid COC, Reyes could
not be treated as a candidate in the election and much less as a duly proclaimed winner.