Professional Documents
Culture Documents
, concurring:
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
all members of the Senate and House that approved it on
ANNOTATED 301 Constitutional law; Increase of compensation of Senators
Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs. VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 301 and Congressmen: Equal compensation was intended.—The
sense of the Members of the Second National Assembly that
Mathay 1966 302
No. L-25554. October 4, 1966. Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. 302 SUPREME COURT
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION, INC., vs. Mathay REPORTS ANNOTATED
petitioner, vs. ISMAEL MATHAY and JOSE VELASCO,
June 20, 1964 will have expired. Insofar as Republic Act
respondents. Philippine Constitution Association, Inc.
No. 4642 (1965-1966 Appropriations Act) authorizes the
Constitutional law; Taxpayers may bring action to
disbursement of the increased compensation prior to the date vs. Mathay
restrain officials from wasting public funds.—Taxpayers may
aforesaid, it also violates the Constitution and must be held null approved the constitutional amendment in 1940 was to
bring an action to restrain officials from wasting public funds
and void, provide for equal compensation for the Members of the Senate
through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law
(Cf. Philippine Constitution Association vs. Gimenez, L-23326, and the House of Representatives at all times, not only in
December 18, 1966 and other cases). BENGZON, J.P., J., concurring: amount but also at the same time within their respective terms
Same; Where joinder of Congressmen was not of office.
necessary.—As the acts sought to be enjoined were the Constitutional law; Legislative department; Increase in Same; Senators and Congressmen are considered
respondents' passing in audit and the approval of the payment compensation of Senators and Congressmen; Why word collectively as far as effectivity of salary increase is concerned;
of the Representatives' increased salaries, and not the "Congress" was not used in the proviso.—The terms "the When increase would take effect.—Section 14, Article VI of the
collection or receipt thereof, the members of the House of Senate" and "the House"instead of the word "Congress," were Constitution talks of the "expiration of the full term of all the
Representatives need not be joined as defendants in the present used in the provision of the Constitution relating to increase in Members" then followed by the words "of the Senate and of the
action. Only the respondent auditors are the indispensable or compensation of Senators and Members of the House of House of Representatives approving the increase/' This proviso
proper parties def endant. Representatives, obviously because after every four years the contemplates the Senate and the House of Representatives as a
Same; Legislative Department;Purpose of limitation on Congress is dissolved, and while the term of the Members of the body that approved the increase. In referring to the
increase in compensation of Senators and Congressmen.—The House of Representatives coincides with the lifetime of compensation to be received by each of them, Senators and
purpose of Section 14, Article VI of the Constitution, which Congress, the term of a member of the Senate, being six years, Members of the House of Representatives are considered by
provides that no increase in the compensation of Senators and goes beyond the duration of one Congress and extends to that Section 14 individually. But in the matter of determining the
Members of the House of Representatives "shall take effect until of the next. time when the increase is to take effect they are considered as
after the full term of all the Members of the Senate and of the Same; Prohibition against effectivity continues even after collective by the use of the phrase "all the Members of the
House of Representatives approving such increase," is to place the end of term of Congress which approved the measure.—The Senate and of the House of Representatives approving such
a "legal bar to the legislators "yielding to the natural temptation use in the Constitution of the words "Senate" and "House of increase." The use of the word allincludes every Member of the
to increase their salaries. Not that the power to provide for Representatives" and of the word "all" before "the Members," Senate and of the House of Representatives, regardless of
higher compensation is lacking, but with the length of time that clearly indicates the intention not to allow an increase in the whether or not he or she voted affirmatively for the increase.
has to elapse before an increase becomes effective, there is a compensation therein provided until after the expiration of the Since there were members of the Senate whose term of office
deterrent factor to any such measure unless the need for it is term. of the most junior among the members of the Senate at was longer than that of the House of Representatives when the
clearly felt" (Tañada and Fernando, Constitution of the" the time the increase was approved. . Precisely because the increase was approved, it is the term of the Senators which was
Philippines, Vol. 2, p. 867). Constitution speaks of "Senate" and"House of the longest that should first expire before the increase should
Same; To whom restriction applies; Phrase "Expiration of Representatives" instead of "Congress," the prohibition against take effect.
the full term", construed.—In establishing a waiting period effectivity continues even after the end of the Congress which -
before the increased compensation for legislators becomes approved the measure and, which amounts to the same thing, CASTRO. J., concurring:
fully effective, the constitutional provision (Art. VI, Sec. IV) even after the term of the members of the House of
refers to "all the members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives approving the increase. Constitutional law; Prohibition against increase of
Repre-sentatives" in the same sentence, as a single unit, without Same; Word "term" was used in the general sense.—The salaries of Members of Congress, construed; Period of time during
distinction or separation between them. The fundamental word "term" in the provision of the Constitution in question is which prohibition operates.—Section 14, Article VI of the
consideration is that the terms of office of allmembers of the used in the general sense. For, otherwise, even in referring to Constitution provides in part that "No increase in said
Legislature that enacted the measure (whether Senators or members of the Senate alone, it should have used "terms"since compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the
Representatives) must have expired before the increase in the Senators had originally different terms of office (two, four full term of all the members of the Senate and of the House of
compensation can become operative. and six years), as provided for in Section '2 of Article VI of the Representatives approving such increase." The phrase "No
Same; Increased compensation under Republic Act No. Constitution, a provision contemporaneous with the one increase in said compensation shall take effect" establishes the
4134 is not operative until December 30, 1969—It follows that involved herein. Yet just the same, the Constitution uses the character of the provision as a prohibition or limitation, as can
the increased compensation provided by Republic Act No. 4134 word"term" to cover all these different terms of office. be seen from the unqualified words "no increase". The words
"until after the expiration of the full term" impart the period of
time during which the prohibition or limitation operates, after REYES, J.B.L., J.:
"2. One hundred three
which period the increase in compensation can take effect.
Same; Whose full term must expire first before increase The Philippine Constitution Association, a non-stock, non-profit Members of the House of
can take effect.—The immediate as well as the lasting impact of association duly incorporated and organized under the laws of
the words "of the members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives at P7,200
the Philippines, and whose members are Filipino citizens and
Representatives approving such increase" is that what must taxpayers, has filed in this Court from July 1, to December 29,
first expire is the full term of the members of both Houses of 304
Congress approving the increase. It cannot be the full 1965 and P32,000 from
303 304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS December 30, 1965 to June
VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 303 ANNOTATED 30, 1966 2,032,866.00"
1966 Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs. 305
Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. Mathay VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 305
a suit against the former Acting Auditor General of the Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs.
vs. Mathay Philippines and Jose Velasco, Auditor of the Congress of the
term of the members of eitherHouse, nor yet the full Philippines, duly assigned thereto by the Auditor General as his Mathay
term of the members of the Senate or that of the members of the representative, seeking to permanently enjoin the aforesaid while for the Senate the corresponding appropriation items
House of Representatives. The key word is the particle "and" As officials from authorizing or passing in audit the payment of the appear to be:
understood from the common and usual meaning of this word, increased salaries authorized by Republic Act No. 4134
the expiration of the 'f ull term of all the members of the Senate 1. The President of the Senate . P
(approved June 10, 1964) to the Speaker and members of the
is inseparable from the expiration of the full term of all the House of Representatives before December 30, 1969. 16,000.00
members of the House of Representatives. Subsequently, Ismael Mathay, present Auditor General, was
Same; When word "or" may be interchanged with 2. Twenty-three Senators at 165,600.00.
substituted for Amable M. Aguiluz, former Acting Auditor
"and";Application of rule to the provision under General. P7,200 ....
consideration.— There is a specific rule of interpretation that Section 1, paragraph 1, of Republic Act No. 4134 Thus showing that the 1965-1966 Budget (R.A. No. 4642)
would allow "or" to be interchanged with "and/" in which event provided,inter alia, that the annual salary of the President of the implemented the increase in salary of the Speaker and
a negation of the concept of joinder would ensue. But this is the Senate and of the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall members of the House of Representatives set by Republic Act
exception rather than the general rule. The exception is be P40,000.00 each; that of the Senators and members of the 4134, approved just the preceding year 1964.
resorted to only when a literal interpretation would pervert the House of Representatives, P32,000.00 each (thereby increasing The petitioners contend that such implementation is
plain intention of the writer or draftsman as gleaned from the their present compensation of P16,000.00 and P7,200.00 per violative of Article VI, Section 14, of the Constitution, as
overall context of the writing and/or from external factors. This annum for the Presiding officers and members, respectively, as amended in 1940, that provides as follows:
does not obtain in the provision under discussion. Indeed, a set in the Constitution), The section expressly provides that "SEC. 14. The Senators and the Members of the House of
departure from the general rule and a resort to the exception "the salary increases herein fixed shall take effect in accordance Representatives shall, unless otherwise provided by law,
would pervert Section 14 of Article VI. with the provisions of the Constitution". Section 7, of the same receive an annual compensation of seven thousand two
Same; Disparity of compensation between Senators and Act provides "that the salary increase of the President of the hundred pesos each, including per diems and other
Representatives was not intended.—If the expiration of the full Senate and of the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall emoluments or allowances, and exclusive only of traveling
term of the members of the Senate would be considered as take effect on the effectivity of the salary increase of expenses to and from their respective districts in the case of
separable from the expiration of the full term of the members Congressmen and Senators. Members of the House of Representatives, and to and from their
of the House of Representatives, despite the conjunction "and," The Appropriation Act (Budget) for the Fiscal Year July 1, places of residence in the case of Senators, when attending
then the result would be to allow members of the House of 1965, to June 30, 1966 (Republic Act No. 4642) contained the sessions of the Congress. No increase in said compensation shall
Representatives to enjoy the Increase in compensation ahead of following items for the House of Representatives: take effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the
the Senators, thereby producing a disparity of compensation. Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives
Furthermore, if the framers of the provision were concerned "SPEAKER
approving such increase. Until otherwise provided by law, the
with the realities of the term of office of the Senators and that "1. The Speaker of the House of President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
of the Representatives, more than with the reality of the parity Representatives shall each receive an annual compensation of
of compensation, then they should have staggered the Representatives at 'f 16,000
sixteen thousand pesos." (Italics supplied)
effectivity of entitlement to the increased salary and allowed from July 1, to December 29, The reason given being that the term of the eight senators
the first group of Senators, elected after the approval of the elected in 1963, and who took part in the approval of Republic
increase, to enjoy such increase. 1965 and P40,000 from Act No. 4134, will expire only on December 30, 1969; while the
ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court Prohibition. term of the members of the House who participated in the
December 30, 1965 to June
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. approval of said Act expired on December 30, 1965.
Roman Ozaeta andFelixberto Serrano for petitioner. 30, 1966 ... P29,129.00 From the record we also glean that upon receipt of a
Solicitor General for respondents. written protest from petitioners (Petition, Annex "A"), along the
"MEMBERS
lines summarized above, the then Auditor General requested whole, accords in turn with the fact that the enactment of laws
VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 307
the Solicitor General to secure a judicial construction of the law rests on the shoulders of the entire Legislative body;
involved (Annex "B"); but the Solicitor General evaded the issue Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs. responsibility therefor is not apportionable between the two
by suggesting that an opinion on the matter be sought from the chambers.
Secretary of Justice (Annex "C", Petition). Conformably to the Mathay It is also highly relevant, in the Court's opinion, to note that,
suggestion, the former Acting Auditor General endorsed the were indispensable or proper parties defendant to this action. as reported by Aruego (Framing of the Constitution, Vol. 1, p.
PHILCONSA letter to the Secretary of Justice on Novem- These preliminary questions .out of the way, we now 296, et. seq.), the committee on legislative power in the
306 proceed to the main issue:. Does . Section 14, Art. VI, of the Constitutional Convention of 1934, before it was decided that
Constitution require that not only the term of all the members the Legislature should be unicameral in
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS of the House but also that of all the Senators who approved the form, initiallyrecommended that the increase in the
ANNOTATED increase must have fully expired before the increase becomes compensation of legislators should not take effect until the
effective? Or, on the contrary, as respondents contend, does it. expiration of the term of office ofall members of the Legislature
Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs. allow the payment of the Increased compensation to the that approved the increase. The report of the committee read as
members of the House of Representatives who were elected follows:
Mathay
after the expiration of the term of those House members who "The Senators and Representatives shall receive for their
ber 26, 1965; but on or before January, 1966, and before the
approved the increase, regardless of the non-expiration of the services an annual compensation of four thousand pesos
Justice Secretary could act, respondent Aguiluz, as former
terms of office of the Senators. who, likewise, participated in the including per diems and other emoluments or allowances and
Acting Auditor General, directed his representative in Congress,
approval of the increase? exclusive of travelling expenses to and from their respective
respondent Velasco, to pass in audit and approve the payment
It is admitted that the purpose of the provision is to place residences when attending sessions of the National Legislature,
of the increased salaries within the limits of the Appropriation
"a legal bar to the legislators yielding to the natural temptation unless otherwise fixed by law: Provided, That no increase in this
Act in force; hence the filing of the present action.
to Increase their salaries. Not that the power to provide for yearly compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of
The answer of respondents pleads first the alleged lack of
higher compensation is lacking, but with the length of time that the terms of office of all the Members of the Legislature that
personality of petitioners to institute the action, for lack of
has to elapse before an increase becomes effective, there is a approved such increase." (Italics supplied)
showing of injury; and that the Speaker and Members of the
deterrent factor to any such measure unless the need for it is The spirit of this restrictive proviso, modified to suit the final
House should be joined parties defendant. On the merits, the
clearly felt" (Taَñada & Fernando, Constitution of the choice of a unicameral legislature, was carried over and made
answer alleges that the protested action is in conformity with
Philippines, Vol. 2, p. 867). more rigid in the first draft of the constitutional provision,
the Constitutional provisions, insofar as present members of
Significantly, in establishing what might be termed a which read: "Provided; That any increase in said compensation
the Lower House are concerned, for they were, elected in 1965,
Waiting period before the increased compensation for shall not take effect until after the expiration of the term of
subsequent to the passage of Republic Act 4184. Their stand, in
legislators becomes fully effective, the constitutional provision office of the Members of the National Assembly who may be
short, is that the expiration of the term ...of the members of the
refers to "all the members of the Senate and of the House of electedsubsequent to the approval of such increase." (Aruego, 1,
House of Representatives who approved the increase suffices to
Representatives" in the same sentence, as a single unit, without p 297)
make the higher compensation effective for them, regardless of
distinction or separation between them. This unitary treatment As recorded by the Committee on Style, and as finally
the term of the members of the Senate.
is emphasized by the fact that the provision speaks of the approved and enacted, Article VI, section 5, of the Constitution
The procedural points raised by respondent, through the.
"expiration of the full term" ofthe Senators and Representatives of the Commonwealth, provided that:
Solicitor General, as their counsel, need not give pause. As
that approved the measure, using the singular form, and not the "No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after
taxpayers, the petitioners may bring an action to restrain
plural, despite the difference in the terms of office (six years for the expiration of the full term of the Members of the National
officials from wasting public funds through the enforcement of
Senators and four for Representatives thereby rendering more Assembly elected subsequent to the approval of such increase.”
an invalid or unconstitutional law (Cf. PHILCONSA vs.
evident the intent to consider both houses for the purpose as 309
Gimenez,L-28326, December 18, 1965;Tayabas vs. Perez, 56
indivisible components of one single Legislature. The use of. the
Phil. 257;Pascual vs. Secretary of Public ' Works, L-10405, VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 309
word "term" in the singular, when combined with the following
December 29, 1960; Pelaez vs. Auditor General, L-23825,
phrase "all the members of the Senate and of the House", Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs.
December 24, 1965; Iloilo Palay ,& Corn Planters Association
underscores that in the application
vs. Feliciano, L-24022, March. 3, 1965). Moreover, as stated in Mathay
308
52 Am. Jur., page 5:
Finally, with the return to bicameralism in the 1940
'"The rule that a taxpayer can not, in his individual capacity as 308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
amendments to our fundamental law, the limitation assumed
such, sue to enjoin an unlawful expenditure or waste of state
ANNOTATED its present form: "No increase in said compensation shall take
funds, is the minority doctrine."
effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the
On the alleged non-joinder of the members of the Lower House Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs. Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives
of Congress as parties defendants, suffice it to say that since the
Mathay approving such increase."
acts sought to be enjoined were the respondents' passing in
of Article VI, Section 14, the fundamental consideration is that It is apparent that throughout its changes of phraseology
audit and the approval of the payment of the Representatives'
the terms of office of allmembers of the Legislature that enacted the plain spirit of the restriction has not been altered. From the
increased salaries,, and not the collection or receipt thereof,
the measure (whether Senators or Representatives) must have first proposal of the committee on the legislative power of the
only respondent auditors
expired before the increase in compensation can become 1934 Convention down to the present, the intendment of the
307
operative. Such disregard of the separate houses, in favor of the clause has been to require expiration of the full term
of all members of the Legislature that approved the higher limitation or the present one, as amended, as maximum delay This coincidence of minimum and maximum delays under
compensation, whether the Legislature be unicameral or of six (6) years and a minimum of four (4) is necessary before the original and the amended constitution can not be just due
bicameral, in order to circumvent, as far as possible, the an increase of legislators' compensation can take effect. to accident, and is proof that the intent and spirit of the
influence of self-interest in its adoption. If that increase. were approved in. the session immediately Constitutional restriction on Congressional salaries has been
The Solicitor General argues on behalf of the respondents following '-an election, two assemblymen's terms, of '2 years maintained unaltered. ' But whether designed or not, it shows
that if the framers of the 1940 amendments to the Constitution each., had to elapse under the former limitation in order that how unfounded is the argument that by requiring members of
had intended to require the expiration of the terms not only of the increase could become operative, because the original the present House to await the expiration of the term of the
the Representatives but also of the Senators who approved the Constitution required that the new emolument should operate Senators, who concurred
increase, they would have just used the expression "term of all only after expiration of the term of assemblymen 312
the members of the Congress" instead of specifying "all the electedsubsequently to those who approved it (Art. VI, sec. 5),
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
members of the Senate and of the House". This is a distinction and an assemblyman's term was then '2 years only. Under the
without a difference, since the Senate and the House together Constitution, as amended. the same interval obtains, since ANNOTATED
constitute the Congress or Legislature. We think that the reason Senators hold office for six (6) years.
for specifying the component chambers was rather the desire On the other hand, if the increase of compensation were Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs.
to emphasize the transition from a unicameral to a bicameral approved by the legislature on its last session just prior to an Mathay
legislature as a result of the 1940 amendments to the election, the delay is. reduced to four (4) years under the in approving the increase in compensation, they are placed in a
Constitution. original restriction, because to the last year worse position than under the Constitution as originally
It is also contended that there is significance in the use of 311 written.
the words "of the" before "House" in the provision being The reason for the minimum interval of four years is
VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 311
considered, and in the use of the phrase "of the Senate and of plainly to discourage the approval of increases of compensation
the House” when it could have employed the shorter expression Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs. just before an election by legislators who can anticipate their
"of the Senateand the House", It was grammatically correct to reelection with more or less accuracy. This salutary precaution
refer to "the members of the Senate and (the members) of the Mathay
should not be nullified by resorting to technical and involved
House", because the members of the Senate are not members of of the term of the approving assemblymen the full 3-year term
interpretation of the constitutional mandate.
the House. To speak of ''members of the Senate and the House" of their successors must be added. Once again an identical
In resumé, the Court agrees with petitioners that the
would imply that the members of the Senate also held period must elapse under the 1940 amendment: because one-
increased compensation provided by Republic Act No. 4134 is
membership in the House. third of the Senators are elected every two years, so that just
not operative until December 30, 1969, when the full term of all
310 before a given election four of the approving Senators' 'f ull six-
members of the Senate and House that approved it on June 20,
year term still remain to run.
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1964 will have expired. Consequently, appropriations for such
To illustrate: if under the original Constitution the
increased compensation may not be disbursed until December
ANNOTATED assemblymen elected in, say, 1935 were to approve an increase
30, 1969. In so far as Republic Act No. 4642 (1965-1966
of pay in the 1936 sessions, the new pay would not be effective
Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs. Appropriation Act) authorizes the disbursement of the
until after the expiration of the term of the succeeding
increased compensation prior to the date aforesaid, it also
assemblymen elected in 1938; i.e., the increase would not be
Mathay violates the Constitution and must be held null and void.
payable until December 30, 1941, six years after 1935. Under
The argument that if the intention was to require that the term In view of the foregoing, the writ of prohibition prayed for
the present Constitution, if the higher pay were approved in
of office of the Senators, as well as that of the Representatives, is hereby granted, and the items of the .Appropriation Act for
1964 with the participation of Senators elected in 1963, the
must all expire the Constitution would have spoken of the the fiscal year 1965-1966 (Republic Act No. 4642) purporting
same would not be collectible until December 30, 1969, since
"terms" (in the plural) "of the members of the Senate and of the to authorize the disbursement of the increased compensation
the said Senators' term would expire on the latter date.
House", instead of using "term" in the singular (as the to members of the Senate and the House of Representatives
But if the assemblymen elected in 1935 (under the original
Constitution does in section 14 of Article VI), has been already even prior to December 30, 1969 are declared void, as violative
Constitution) were to approve the increase in compensation,
considered. As previously observed, the use of the singular form of Article VI, section 14, of the Constitution of the 'Republic of
not in 1936 but in 1938 (the last of their 3-year term), the new
"term" precisely emphasizes that in the provision in question the Philippines; and the respondents, the Auditor General and
compensation would still operate on December 30, 1941, four
the Constitution envisaged both legislative chambers as one the Auditor of the Congress of the Philippines, are prohibited
years later, since the term of assemblymen elected in November
single unit, and this conclusion is reinforced by the expression and enjoined from approving and passing in audit any
of 1938 (subsequent to the approval of the increase) would end
employed, "until the expiration of the full term of ALL the disbursements of the increased compensation authorized by
in December 30, 1941.
members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives Republic Act No. 4134 for Senators and members of the House
Again, under the present Constitution, if the increase is
approving such increase". of Representatives, before December 30, 1969. No costs.
approved in the 1965 sessions immediately preceding the
It is finally urged that to require the expiration of the full We concur in the foregoing opinion and in the concurring
elections in November of that year, the higher compensation
term of the Senators before the effectivity of the increased opinions of Justices Bengzon, Zaldivar and Castro.
would be operative only on December 30, 1969, also four years
compensation would subject the present members of the House Concepcion, C.J., Barrera, Dizon, Regala,
later, because the most recently elected members of the Senate
of Representatives to the same restrictions as under the Makalintal andSanchez, JJ., concur.
would then be Senators chosen by the electors in November of
Constitution prior to its amendment. It may well be wondered 313
1963, and their term would not expire until December 30, 1969.
whether this was not, in fact, the design of the framers of the
VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 313
1940 constitutional amendments. For under either the original
Senate and of the House of Representatives approving such increases herein fixed shall take effect in accordance with the
Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs.
increase", the Constitution leaves no doubt that until after the provisions of the Constitution."
Mathay condition is met as to the Senate, no increase in the The pertinent provision of the Constitution as far as the
compensation laid down for Senators, and Representatives effectivity of any law increasing the compensation of the
BENGZON, J.P., J., concurring: shall take effect. Senators and Members of the House of Representatives is
It is also contended by respondents, that the Constitution concerned reads, as follows:
in using "term" instead of"terms" shows the clear intention to "x x x No increase in said compensation shall take effect until
Fully concurring- with theponencia of Justice J.B.L. Reyes, I, consider the "term" of the Senators independently from that of after the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the
should like only to mention a few thoughts related to some the Representatives, The contention is untenable. The Senate and of the House of Representatives approving such
points contained therein. provision clearly uses "term" in the general sense. For, increase. x x x" (Article VI, Section 14 of the Constitution) :
As stated in the majority opinion, it is argued by otherwise, even in referring to members of the Senate alone, it Inasmuch as House Bill No. 6190 was passed during the third
respondents that if it was intended that the increase should should have used "terms" since the Senators had originally regular session of the Fifth Congress of the Philippines, in 1964,
take effect at the same time, the provision of the Constitution different terms of office (two, four and six years), as provided said bill was approved by the House of Representatives whose
could have been phrased as follows: for in Section '2 of Article VI of the Constitution, a provision members were elected in the elections of November, 1961 and
"No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after contemporaneous with the one involved herein. Yet just the whose term of office would expire on December 29, 1965; and
the expiration of the full term of all the Members of 'same, the Constitution uses the word "term" (singular) to cover by the Senate whose membership was composed of: eight
the Congress approving such increase." all these different terms of office, Senators who were elected in November, 1959 and whose term
They maintain that in specifying"the Senate" and "the I, am of the opinion therefore that no other course is open would expire on December 29, 1965; eight Senators who were
House"instead of just using the words "the Congress" the body to the Supreme Court in this case but to apply the provision of elected in November, 1961 and whose term would expire on
obviously considered that inasmuch as the terms of the the Constitution restricting the increase of salaries of Senators December 29, 1967; and eight Senators who were elected in
Representatives and Senators under the legislature provided and Representatives by subjecting it to a period of waiting. To November, 1963 whose. term would expire on December 29,
for, would not necessarily coincide, the effective date of the forestall the view that the Supreme Court thereby offends 1969.
increased salary of theRepresentatives could also be different equity, because the other Constitutional officers—including the Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, writing the opinion of the Court in
from that of theSenators. members of said Court—are already receiving their increased the case now before Us, interpreting the effectivity clause in
The fact that "Congress" is not used in the provision in salaries under Republic Act No. 4134, suffice it to bear in mind paragraph A, Section 1) of Republic Act 4134 in relation to the
question, in my opinion, is rather an argument for the petitioner that it was within the hands of the legislators themselves if they pertinent provision of Article VI, Sec-
herein. "Congress" is not used, obviously because after every had so desired, to have provided that the salary increases of the 316
four years the Congress is dissolved. On the other hand, the aforesaid other Constitutional officers take effect at the same
term of a member of the Senate, being six years, goes beyond 316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
time as their own. In other words, if they had thought it would
the duration of one Congress and extends to that of the next be inequitable to grant salary increases to others before they ANNOTATED
Congress. In other words, while the term of the members of the could receive their own salary increase—an argument which, I,
House of Representatives coincides with the lifetime of the am glad to note, has not been advanced—they could have easily Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs.
Congress, the term of a member of the Senate goes beyond the provided that the salary increases therein given be effective Mathay
existence of one Congress, December 30, 1969, as in their case.
The Constitution, instead, uses (1) "Senate" and "House of tion 14, of the Constitution, herein-above quoted, says that the
I, consequently reiterate my concurrence. increased compensation provided by Republic Act 4134 for the
Representatives" and (2) adds"all" before "the Members", 315
clearly intending that no increase in the compensation therein Senators and Members of the House of Representatives will not
provided for shall take effect until after the expiration of the VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 315 take effect until December 30, 1969. I, concur with this opinion
term of the most junior among the members of the Senate at the because it will not be until December 29, 1969 when the full
Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs. term of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of
time the increase was approved. Precisely, therefore, because
the Constitution speaks of "Senate"and "House of Mathay Representatives that approved the increase in 1964 would
Representatives"instead of "Congress", the prohibition against expire. And I, also agree with the opinion that in so 'f ar as
effectivity continues even after the end of the Congress which Republic Act No. 4642 (Appropriation Law for the fiscal year
ZALDIVAR, J., concurring: 1965-1966) authorizes the disbursement of the increased
approved the measure and, which amounts to the same thing,
even after the end of the term of the members of the compensation for the Members of the House of Representatives
314 During the third regular session of the Fifth Congress of the prior to December 30, 1960 violates the Constitution and must
Republic of the Philippines House Bill No. 6190 was approved, be held null and void.
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS and this bill was signed into law on June 20, 1964 by the My opinion in this regard is based upon a personal
President of the Philippines and became Republic Act No. 4134. knowledge of how the constitutional proviso, Article VI, Section
ANNOTATED
Section 1, paragraph A of Republic Act 4134 provides, 14 of the Constitution, which is now in question, became a part
Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs. among others, that the annual salary of the President of the of our present Constitution. It was the Second National
Senate and of the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall Assembly which amended our original Constitution. I, was a
Mathay be forty thousand pesos, and that of the Senators and Members humble Member of the Second National Assembly, representing
House of Representatives approving the increase. In specifying of the House of Representatives shall be thirty-two thousand the province of Antique.
"the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the pesos each. The paragraph ends with this sentence: "The salary
The three important amendments that were incorporated held by the Members of the Second National Assembly in the Members of the first Senate to be elected under the Constitution
in our Constitution by the Second National Assembly in 1940 deliberations which later brought about the 1940 amendments, as amended was settled by inserting a proviso that the
were the provisions regarding (1) the establishment of a I, distinctly remember that the proposed amendment to 319
bicameral legislature composed of a House of Representatives change the legislature from unicameral to that of bicameral, just
VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 319
and a Senate, to take the place of the then existing unicameral as the proposal to change the term of office of the President
legislature known as the National Assembly; (2) the change in from six years without reelection to that of four years with one Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs.
the term of the office of the President of the Philippines, and the reelection, at first met very strong opposition by a considerable
Vice-President, which formerly was for a period of six years, to group of Assemblymen. But somehow the opposition was Mathay
that of four years, with the proviso that no person shall serve as finally subdued; so to say. In the case of the legislature, the basic first senators elected should, in the manner provided by law, be
President for more than eight consecutive years; and (3) the idea of having two chambers of the legislature -—one chamber divided equally into three groups: the senators of the first group
creation of the Commission on Elections. serving as a check to the other -—was accepted. It was to serve for a term of six years, those of the second group to
It is regrettable that the deliberations of the Second 318 serve for a term of four years, and those of the third group for a
National Assembly on the 1940 amendments to the term of two years (Article VI, Section 3). And for the purposes
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS of the-first elections under the amended Constitution
Constitution were mostly done in caucuses behind closed
doors, and the discussions were not recorded. It was during the ANNOTATED Commonwealth Act No. 666 was enacted by the National
first special sessions of the Second National Assembly in Assembly providing, as far as the first Senate was concerned,
September, 1939 when discussions on proposed amendments Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs. that "The Senate shall, within ten days after it shall have been
to the Constitution were held. It was only after the proposed organized with the election of its President, determine by lot
Mathay
amendments had been approved in which of the elected Senators shall belong to the group who
then considered as a wise idea to have the Senate as the upper
317 shall serve six years,' which to the group who shall serve for
chamber, to be composed of members who would be elected at
four years, and which to the group which shall serve for two
VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 317 large, and it was expected that those who would be elected to
years." (Section 9, Com. Act No. 666)
the Senate would be men of national prestige; prestigious
Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs. When the matter regarding the compensation of the
because of their known integrity, in their record and experience
members of both chambers came up for the deliberation, there
Mathay as a public servant, or in their prominence as a successful
were proposals that the Senators be given more compensation
member of his profession. lt was even said, then, that the Senate
caucuses when the amendments were embodied in a resolution than the Members of the House of Representatives, and a
would be a training ground for future Presidents of the nation.
and submitted to the National Assembly in open session. The number of proposals were presented regarding the amount of
And so, when it was agreed that a bicameral legislature would
amendments as approved in caucuses were embodied in compensation that would be paid; to the Senators or to the
be provided in the Constitution, the next matter that had to be
Resolution No. 38 and adopted on September 15, 1939. Representatives, as the case may be. This matter was the
considered was the tenure of office of the members of each of
However, during the second regular sessions in 1940 subject of long discussions. It was finally agreed that the
the two chambers of the legislature, As far as the terms of the
Resolution No. 38 was amended by Resolution No. 73 which amount of compensation for the Senators and for the Members
members of the lower chamber, to be known as the House of
was adopted on April 11, 1940. That is how the amendments of the House of Representatives be the same, and it was fixed at
Representatives, there was no disagreement over the idea that
came to be known as the 1940 Amendments. Those P7,200.00 per annum each, including per diems and other
their term be for a period of 'f our years, to coincide with the
amendments were approved in a plebiscite that was held on emoluments, exclusive only of travelling expenses in going to
term of the President. But as far as the term of office of the
June 18, 1940. and returning from the sessions. There was an increase of
members of the upper chamber, to be known. as the Senate,
I, still have vivid recollections of the important points P2,200.00 over-, the P5,000.00 per annum that the Members of
there was at first a divergence of opinion. There was a group
brought up during the deliberations in caucus over proposed the National Assembly were receiving at the time. It is thus seen
that supported the idea that the term of the members of the
amendments and of the agreements arrived at. I, remember too that in the matter of compensation the sense of the Members of
upper chamber be four years, similar to that of the House of
the influences that worked, and the pressures that were the Second National Assembly who amended the Constitution
Representatives, so that in the national elections that would
brought to bear upon the Assemblymen, in the efforts to bring in 1940 was to provide for an equal compensation for the
take place every four years there would be elections for
about agreements on very controversial matters and thus Members of the Senate and to the Members of the House of
President, Vice-President, and all the members of the Congress
secure the insertion of the desired amendments to the Representatives,
of the Philippines. However, there was a very strong advocacy
Constitution. The discussions on the proposed amendments When the matter regarding the increase in the
on the part of top political leaders at that time that the Senate
affecting the legislative branch of the government were compensation of the Senators and of the Representatives came
should be made a continuing body, such that the complete
specially of interest to us then because we were in some way up for consideration, there was unanimity among the
membership of that chamber should not be elected during the
personally affected, as most of us were interested in running for Assemblymen in support of the idea that members of the
national elections that would take place every four years.
reelection. 320
Finally, it was agreed that the members of the Senate,
It is not my purpose here to impose on anyone my
which was decided to be composed of twenty-four, would have 320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
recollections of matters that were brought up during our
a term of six years, one-third of which number would be elected
caucuses then, but I, only wish to emphasize the fact that my ANNOTATED
every two years. The idea of having elections of one-third of the
concurring opinion in the decision of the case now before Us
membership of the Senate was adjusted. to the situation that in Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs.
has for its basis my honest and best recollections of what had
between two national elections there were the elections for
transpired, or what had been expressed, during the caucuses Mathay
local officials. The question regarding the term of office of the
Congress of the Philippines may approve a law increasing their It should be noted that the above-quoted portion of Section 14, Assembly that those members of the House of Representatives
compensation, but that no Member of the House of Article VI of the Constitution talks of the "expiration of the full who would be elected subsequent to the approval of such
Representatives or of the Senate that approved the law term of all the Members" then followed by the words "of the increase could not immediately receive the increased
increasing the compensation should receive the increased Senate and of the House of Representatives approving such compensation as approved during the preceding Congress; and
compensation during their term of office when the increase was increase/' This proviso contemplates not the Representatives neither could the eight Senators who would be elected along
approved. I, remember that the question as to when the or the Senators who voted in favor of the increase, but the with those Representatives in the same elections. To allow
increase of compensation as approved by the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives as a body that those newly elected Representatives and Senators to receive
Congress of the Philippines should take effect was the subject approved the increase. And so, because the understanding of the increased compensation would give rise to a situation
of a prolonged and heated discussion. Many Members of the the amending Assemblymen was that the effectiveness of the whereby the Members of the House of Representatives and
National Assembly wanted to continue with the provision of increase should take place after the expiration of the term of the eight Senators would be receiving a compensation higher than
Article VI, Section 5, of the original Constitution that "No Senators with the Iongest term among the Members of the that received by at least sixteen Members of the Senate,
increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the Senate that approved the increase the constitutional proviso including the President of the Senate, as the case might happen.
expiration of the full term of the Members of the National was so worded "shall take effect until after the full term of all That would be inconsistent with the basic idea adopted by the
Assembly elected subsequent to the approval of such increase." the members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives Members of the National Assembly that the compensation of
I, have taken note that no less than eighteen members of the approving such increase." It will be noted that this Section 14 the Members of the House of Representatives and those of the
Second National Assembly in 1940 were members, of the 1934 starts -'with using the words "Senators and Members of the Senate should be the same; and it is only logical that when we
constitutional convention that drafted the original Constitution, House of Representatives" in referring to the compensation to say that the compensation of the Members of the House and of
and it was this group of Assemblymen that were zealous in be received by each. They are considered individually. But in the Members of the Senate is the same, that compensation
maintaining the idea that one full term of a member of the the matter of determining the time when the increase is to take should be the same not only in amount but also at the same time
legislature subsequent to the approval of the increase in effect they are considered as collective by the use of the phrase within their respective terms of office.
compensation should be made to lapse before the increase shall "all the Members of the Senate and of the House of 323
take effect. But this idea could not be insisted upon because Representatives approving such increase." The use of the
VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 323
while that was feasible in the case of Members of the National word allincludes every Member of the Senate and of the House
Assembly which was a unicameral body, that idea could not be of Representatives, regardless of whether or not he or she voted Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs.
adopted in a bicameral body where the term of office of the affirmatively for the increase. It is the House and the Senate that
members of one chamber was not the same as that of the approved the increase. And so because the effectiveness of the Mathay
members of the other chamber. I, recall that it was finally increase depends on the expiration of the term of all the It was envisaged by the Members of the National Assembly that
agreed to simply adopt the constitutional precept that no members of both chambers it stands to reason that all the the salary increase, under the constitutional proviso now in
Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may members of the two chambers were taken into consi- question, would become effective after the lapse of two years,
receive any increase in compensation, as approved by the 322 or four years, as the case may be, after the commencement of
House and the Senate of a particular Congress, bef ore the the term of office of those Members of the House of
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS Representatives that are elected in the elections subsequent to
expiration of the term of all the members of the House of
Representatives and of the Senate that approved the increase, ANNOTATED the approval of the increase. In the case of the lapse of four
Inasmuch as the term of the Members of the House of years, which we have just stated, it would mean that it would be
Representatives is shorter than that of the Senators, it was Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs. the Members of the House of Representatives who would be
understood that the expiration of the term of the Members of elected in the second elections subsequent to the approval of
Mathay
the Senate that approved the increase should be awaited before the increase who would receive the increased compensation.
deration, and because when the increase was approved by the
the increase in compensation would take effect. As finally As I, have stated, it was the sense of the Members of the
Senate and the House of Representatives there were members,
worded by the Committee on Style of the Assembly, Second National Assembly that approved the constitutional
of the Senate whose term of office was longer than. that. of.
321 amendment in 1940 that the increase in the compensation for
some other Members of the Senate and of the Members. of -the
Members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate
VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 321 House of Representatives it is the term of the Senators which
would take effect only until after the expiration of the full term
was the longest that should first expire before the increase
Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs. of the senators who were Members of the Senate that approved
should take effect. That is how I, understood then that portion
the incr It is my recollection that the main idea of the Members
Mathay of Section 14, Article VI of the Constitution, and I, sincerely
of the National Assembly in adopting the proviso in question
believe that that was also how most if not all of my colleagues
and that Committee on Style was headed by the illustrious and was to maintain the equality of the compensation of the
understood it.
indefatigable Assemblyman Gregorio Perfecto, who later Members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate at
The question precisely was raised whether under that
became a worthy member of this Court, that constitutional all times.
constitutional proviso, as above-quoted, the Members of the
precept which became part of Section 14, Article VI of the Three situations were anticipated to happen by the
House of Representatives who are elected during the elections
amended Constitution was worded as follows: amending Assemblymen under the constitutional proviso in
subsequent to the approval of the increase by the Congress of
"No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after question:
the Philippines could receive the increased compensation
the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate 1. This is the first situation. Let us take the case of the First
inasmuch as the term of those Members of the House that had
and of the House of Representatives approving such increase." Congress of the Philippines which was elected in November,
approved the increase had already expired. I, remember that it
1941 already under the Constitution as amended in 1940. This
was the understanding of the Members of the National
Congress was composed of a House of Representatives whose of Representatives whose members had been elected for a term
Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs.
members were elected for a term of (4 years, to expire on of four years, and a Senate that
December 29, 1945; and of a Senate composed of eight Senators 325 Mathay
with a term of 6, years to expire on December 29, 1947; eight but the Senate has a different composition. The Senate would
VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 325
senators with a term of (4 years to expire on December 29, already be composed of eight new Senators who were elected
1945, and eight senators with a term of :& years to expire on Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs. during the elections of November, 1955 and whose term of
December 29, 1943. office would expire on December 29, 1961, the remaining eight
If a law increasing the compensation of Members of Mathay
Senators elected in 1953 and eight Senators who were elected
Congress was passed during the sessions of 1942, supposing is composed of Members who had each been elected 'f or a term in 1951. If the law increasing the compensation is passed during
that there was no war, the increase would take of six years, although at different elections, as provided in the the regular session of 1956 this law would be approved by the
324 Constitution. House of Representatives and by the Senate that had eight new
We make the Third Congress of the Republic of the members whose term would expire on December 29, 1961.
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS Philippines as an example. This Congress covered the period of Since the term of these new eight Senators would expire on
ANNOTATED four years from January, 1954 to December, 1957, inclusive. December 29, 1961, then the increased compensation would
During the first two years (or two regular sessions) this take effect on December 30, 1961.
Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs. Congress was composed of the House of Representatives whose In November, 1957 there were elections and a new House
members were elected in the elections of November, 1953 and of Representatives was then elected, and the term of office of
Mathay
whose term would expire on December 29, 1957; and twenty- the members of the new House would expire on December 29,
effect on December 30, 1947, after the expiration of the term of
four senators: eight who were elected in November, 1953 1961. Likewise, a new set of eight Senators were elected whose
the eight senators who were elected in the elections in
whose term would expire on December 29, 1959; eight who term would expire on December 29, 1963. Those Members of
November, 1941 who served for a term of six years. The term
were elected in November, 1951 and whose term would expire the House of Representatives who were elected in November,
of the eight senators who were elected in 1941 and who would
on December 29, 1957; and eight who were elected in 1957, among whom perhaps were Representatives who voted
have served for only two years would have expired on
November, 1949 and whose term would expire on December for the increase during the 1956 sessions, would not enjoy the
December 29, 1943; and the term of the eight senators who
29, 1955. increased compensation because their term would expire on
would have served for four years would have expired on
If a law increasing the salary is passed, say in the first December 29, 1961—the very same date of the termination of
December 29, 1945. The term (4 years) of the Representatives
regular session of the Third Congress in May, 1954, then the the term of the eight Senators who were elected in 1955 and
who were elected in November, 1941 would also have expired
increase provided for in this law would take effect on December who were Members of the Senate that approved the increase
on December 29, 1945. But in November, 1943 elections for
30, 1959. Why ? Because that law was approved by the House during the session of 1956. In this case the increased
eight senators who would serve for a regular term of 6, years
of Representatives (the term of whose members ended on compensation would be received by the Members of the House
would have taken place; and likewise elections for a full House
December 29, 1957) and by a Senate at least eight of whose of Representatives who were elected in the elections of
of Representatives and for another set of senators to serve for
members were elected in November, 1953 and whose term of' November, 1961, along; with the Senators who were elected in
a full term of six years would have taken place in November,
office would expire on December 29, 1959. That means that the November, 1961 and the remaining Senators who were elected
1945. If the war did not upset the national affairs a new
members of the House of Representatives who were elected in in 1959 and 1957. They would all be receiving the same
Congress would have convened in January, 1946, already
the elections of November, 1957 (many of whom may be compensation and at the same time while they are in office
composed of a House of Representatives and a Senate whose
members of the Third Congress who voted for the law in May, during. the term for which they were elected.
members would all have been elected for a term of six years
1954) would have to wait for two years before they could As far as the House of Representatives is concerned, the
each.
receive the increased compensation. In other words, beginning situation as portrayed in this third case is the same situation as
So, on December 80, 1947 when the increase in the
December 30, 1959, the Members of the House of that which was contemplated by the framers of the original
compensation would take effect, the increased compensation
Representatives and all the Members of the Senate (those Constitution of 1935 when it was provided in the Constitution
would be uniformly enjoyed by all members of Congress
elected in the 1955, 1957 and 1959 elections) would all as adopted that the increase in salary should not take effect
(Senators and Representatives alike)—those Senators who
beuniformly getting the increased salary. "until after the expiration of the
were elected in the 1943, 1945 and 1947 elections, and by the
3. Let us take the third situation. We still use the Third 327
Members of the House of Representatives who were elected in
Congress of the Republic of the Philippines as an example. Let
the 1945 elections. Under that situation, the Members of the VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 327
us suppose that the law increasing the compensation was
House of Representatives who were elected in 1945 would have
passed in the third regular session of the Third Congress in May,
waited for two years before they could receive the increased Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs.
1956. This time the Third Congress is composed of the same
compensation that was approved in the 1942 sessions of
members of the House of Representatives who were elected in Mathay
Congress. And this is so, because it is on December 29, 1947,
November, 1953, full term of the Members of the National Assembly elected
when the sixyear term of the eight Senators who were Members
326 subsequent to the approval of such increase." In the example we
of the Senate that approved the increased compensation in
1942 (along with the then existing House of Representatives) 326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS have given, the increase in salaries of the Members of the House
had expired. of Representatives which was approved by the Members of the
ANNOTATED House in the third regular session of the Third Congress did not
2. Now let us take the second situation. Let us take the case
of a Congress that is normally constituted. When I, say take effect until after the expiration of the full term of the
"normally constituted" I, mean a Congress composed of a House
Members of the House who were elected subsequent to the CASTRO, J., concurring: must first expire before the increase can take effect? It is the full
approval of such increase, term "of the members of the Senate and of the House of
The case now before Us is similar to Case No. '2 that we Republic Act 4134, increasing the salary of all the members of Representatives approving such increase." The immediate as
have portrayed above. Republic Act 4134 was approved during Congress, was approved on June 20, 1964. In the light of the well as lasting impact of these words is that what must first
the regular session of the Fifth Congress of the Republic of the constitutional prohibition or limitation embodied in section 14 expire is the full term of the members of bothhouses of
Philippines in May, 1964 and signed into law by the President of article. VI of the Constitution, when does such increase in Congress approving the increase. It cannot be the full term of
on June 20, 1964. As I, have stated earlier, the increase provided salary take effect? Shall effectivity be this year 1966 for the the members of eitherhouse, nor yet the full term of the
in- this law was approved by the House of Representatives members of the. House of Representatives, considering that the members of the Senate or that of the members of the House of
whose members were elected in November, 1961, and whose full term of the members thereof who participated in the Representatives.
term of office expired on December 29, 1965; and by the Senate approval of the salary increase has expired? Even if the full The key word is the particle "and". "And" is a conjunction
composed of eight Senators who were elected in November, terms of all the members of the Senate, as composed in 1964, pertinently defined as meaning "together with," "joined with"
1963 whose term would expire on December 29, 19619, eight have not expired? Or shall effectivity be only on December 30, (Funk and Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary of the English
Senators who were elected in November, 1961 whose term 1969, after the expiration of the full term of the senators elected Language, p. 105); ""along or together with," "added to or
would expire on December 29, 1967, and eight Senators who in 1963? linked to," used to conjoin
were elected in November, 1959 whose term had expired on I, fully adhere to and support the position taken by my 330
December 29, 1965. Inasmuch as the increase would take effect esteemed brethren, Justices J.B.L. Reyes, Jose P. Bengzon and 330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
at the expiration of the term of the Senators who were elected Calixto Zaldivar. Their thoroughgoing treatment of the issue
in November, 1963—which is on December 29, 1969—the effectively exploits logical, historical and empirical ANNOTATED
Members of the present House of Representatives cannot considerations leading quite inevitably to the firm conclusion
receive this increased compensation during their present term Philippine Constitution. Association, Inc. vs.
that the salary increase provided for by Congress in 1964 can
of office. It will be the Members of the House of Representatives take eff ect, for any and all members of Congress, only after the Mathay
who will be elected in November, 1969, along with the Senators expiration of the full term of the senators elected in 1963, that word with word, phrase with phrase, clause with clause
elected in 1965, 1967 and 1969, who will receive this increased is to say, only after December 29, 1969. (Webster's New International Dictionary, p. ,.98). The word
compensation. They will then all be receiving There is, however, a vital aspect of the problem that, in my "and" does not,mean -"or"; it is a conjunction used to denote a
the samecompensation during the time that they are in office. view, requires not only projection but emphasis joinder or union, "binding together," "relating the one to the
I, have endeavored to make a discourse of facts as 1. know 329 other" (See '2 Words and Phrases, 569-571.).
them, because I, sincerely believe that the interpretation As understood from the common and usual meaning of the
embodied in the opinion penned by my esteemed colleague, Mr. VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 329
conjunction "and," the expiration of the full term of all the
Justice J.B.L. Reyes, of the pertinent provision of Article VI, Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs. members of the Senate is inseparable from the expiration of the
Section 14 of our Constitution is in consonance with the facts full term of all the members of the House of Representatives,
and circumstances as I, remember them, and as I, know them. Mathay From the perspective of semantics, it is undeniably perceived
As I, have stated at the as well. This is the language of the pertinent constitutional that those who framed the constitutional provision, when they
328 prohibition or limitation which by itself forcefully compels the utilized the word "and," stated what they meant and meant
very conclusion arrived at by the majority of the Court. what they stated.
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
We cannot. overemphasize the essential role of language. There is to be sure, a specific rule of interpretation that
ANNOTATED It is one of the distinctive qualities of man, especially of modern would allow "or" to be interchanged with, “and,” in which event
thinking man. Man does feel and analyze his intellectual and a negation of the concept of joinder would ensue. But this is the
Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs. material experiences; but more than this he has the ability to exception rather than the general rule. The exception is
Mathay articulate, and through articulation he manages synthesis and resorted to only when a literal interpretation would pervert the
early part of this concurring opinion, it is not my purpose to brings forth the creation and evolution of culture, literature, plain intention of the writer or draftsman as gleaned from the
impose on anyone my recollection of what transpired, or of science and law. In the process, the unceasing effort is to say overall context of the writing and/or from external factors. This
what had been discussed about, or of what had been agreed what is meant and to mean what is said. does not obtain in the provision under discussion. Indeed, a
upon, by the Members of the Second National Assembly during How, then, is the constitutional prohibition or limitation on departure from the general rule and a resort to the exception
the deliberations which brought about the 1940 amendments congressional salary increases stated? "No increase in said would pervert section 14 of article VI. Note the parity of
to our Constitution. My perception and my memory are as frail compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the compensation of the senators and the members of the House of
as those of any other human being, and I may have incurred full term of all the members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. If the expiration of the full term of the
myself in error. It just happened that the facts and the Representatives approving such increase." This statement has members of the Senate would be considered as separable from
circumstances that I, have herein narrated, as I, remember a literal message of striking clarity. The phrase "Noincrease in the expiration of the full term of the members of the House of
them, have engendered in my mind an opinion, nay a said compensation shall take effect" establishes the character of Representatives, despite the conjunction "and," then the result
conviction, which dovetails with the opinion of my illustrious the provision as a prohibition or limitation, as can be seen from would be to allow members of the House of Representatives to
colleague that has penned the opinion for the majority of the the unqualified words "no increase". The words "until after the enjoy the increase in compensation ahead of the senators,
Court in this case. expiration of the full term" impart the period of time during thereby producing a disparity of compensation; Furthermore, if
which the prohibition or limitation operates, after which period the framers of the provision were concerned with the realities
the increase in compensation can take effect. Whose full term of the term of office of the senators and that of the
representatives, more than with the reality of the parity of section 14 of the 1935 Constitution, it is self evident that the TEEHANKEE, J.:
compensation, then they should have staggered the effectivity “rate of pay as provided by law” for members of Congress
of entitlement to the increased salary and allowed the first retiring on December 30, 1969 such as petitioner must The Court dismisses the petition for review and thereby affirms
group of senators elected after the approval of the increase to necessarily be P7,200.00 per annum, the compensation they the Auditor-General’s decision that petitioner as a
enjoy such increase. received “as provided by law” and the Constitution during their Congressman whose term of office expired on December 30,
331 term of office. 1969 and qualified for retirement benefits by virtue of a
Same; Same; Same; Retirement gratuity cannot be minimum of twenty years of government service is entitled to a
VOL. 18, OCTOBER 15, 1966 331
computed on the basis of increased salary which incumbent retirement gratuity based on the salary actually received by
Cordero vs. Gonda members of Congress who approved said increase were him as a member of Congress of P7,200.00 per annum. To grant
The prohibition or limitation may be stated elsewise: 'The full prohibited to receive.—To grant retirement gratuity to petitioner’s contention that the retirement gratuity of members
terms of all the members of the Senate and of the House of members of Congress whose terms expired on December 30, of Congress such as himself whose terms expired on December
Representatives approving such increase must first expire 1969 computed on the basis of an increased salary of 30, 1969 should be computed on the basis of an increased
before an increase in compensation can take effect." Would the P32,000.00 per annum (which they were prohibited by the salary of P32,000.00 per annum under Republic Act 4134 which
literal meaning of the provision still be in doubt? Constitution from receiving during their term of office) would could only be operative with incoming members of Congress
The framers of the constitutional provision under be to pay them prohibited emoluments which in effect increase whose terms of office would commenceon December 30, 1969,
discussion certainly were not wanting of competent legal the salary beyond that which they were permitted by the by virtue of the Constitutional mandate that such salary
stylists. With such more reason, then, must they be regarded as Constitution to receive during their incumbency. As stressed by increases could take effect only upon the expiration of the full
having achieved a unity of intention, statement and meaning. the Auditor-General in his decision in the similar case of term of all members of Congress that approved on June 20,
These experienced stylists could have so easily phrased the petitioner’s colleague, ex-Congressman Singson, “(S)uch a 1964 such increased salary, (since petitioner and other
provision differently to conform to a different intention. For scheme would Contravene the Constitution for it would lead to outgoing members of Congress were constitutionally
example, it could have been: "x x x until after the expiration of the same prohibited result by enabling administrative prohibited from receiving such salary increase during their
the full term of all the members of the Senate or of the House of authorities to do indirectly what cannot be done directly.” term of office) would be a subtle way of going around the
Representatives approving such increase, as the case may Same; Same; Same; Retirement gratuity a form of constitutional prohibition and increasing in effect their
be." But this was not done, and we cannot deviate from what compensation within the meaning of constitutional provision compensation during their term of office and of doing indirectly
able stylists have plainly stated in plain language. limiting Congressmen’s compensation.—Petitioner’s contention what could not be done directly.
Concepcion, that since the increased salary of P32,000.00 per annum was 825
C.J.,Barrera, Dizon, Regala,Makalintal and Sanchez, JJ.,concur. already operative when his retirement took effect on December
Writ of prohibition granted. 30, 1969, his retirement gratuity should be based on such VOL. 56, APRIL 30, 1974 825
Note.—In Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs. increased salary cannot Ligot vs. Mathay
Gimenez, L-23326, Dec. 18, 1965, the right of the Philconsa to _______________
Petitioner served as a member of the House of Representatives
institute an action for prohibition for the purpose of testing the of the Congress of the Philippines for three consecutive four-
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 3836, which appropriates *FIRST DIVISION. year terms covering a twelve-year span from December 30,
retirement benefits for Senators and Congressmen, was upheld. 824 1957 to December 30, 1969.
That law was declared unconstitutional as being in During his second term in office (1961-1965), Republic Act
contravention of section 14, Article VI of the Constitution and 824 SUPREME COURT
No. 4134 “fixing the salaries of constitutional officials and
being in violation of the equal protection clause. REPORTS ANNOTATED certain other officials of the national government” was enacted
into law and under section 7 thereof took effect on July 1, 1964.
Ligot vs. Mathay
VOL. 56, APRIL 30, 1974 823 The salaries of members of Congress (senators and
be sustained as far as he and other members of Congress
congressman) were increased under said Act from P7,200.00 to
Ligot vs. Mathay similarly situated whose term of office ended on December 30,
P32,000.00 per annum, but the Act expressly provided that said
1969 are concerned for the simple reason that a retirement
increases “shall take effect in accordance with the provisions of
No. L-34676. April 30, 1974.* gratuity or benefit is a form of compensation within the
the Constitution.” (section 1)
BENJAMIN T. LIGOT, petitioner, vs. ISMAEL MATHAY, Auditor purview of the Constitutional provision limiting their
Petitioner was reelected to a third term (December 30,
General and JOSE V. VELASCO, Auditor, Congress of the compensation and “other emoluments” to their salary as
1965 to December 30, 1969) but was held not entitled to the
Philippines, respondents. provided by law. This was the clear teaching of Philconsa vs.
salary increase of P32,000.00 during such third term by virtue
Congress; Constitutional law;Retirement Jimenez, 15 SCRA 479.
of this Court’s unanimous decision in Philconsa vs.
pay; Compensation of a member of Congress as of the time of
Mathay1 “that the increased compensation provided by
retirement is basis for computation of retirement pay.—Since the PETITION for review of a decision of the Auditor General. Republic Act No. 4134 is not operative until December 30,
salary increase to P32,000.00 per annum for members of
1969 when the full term of all members of the Senate and House
Congress under R.A. 4134 could be operative only from
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. that approved it on June 20, 1964 will have expired” by virtue
December 30, 1969 for incoming members of Congress when
Maximo A. Savellano, Jr.for petitioner. of the constitutional mandate in Section 14, Article VI of the
the full term of all members of Congress (House and Senate)
Office of the Solicitor General, for respondent. 1935 Constitution which provides that “No increase in said
that approved the increase (such as petitioner) will have
compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of
expired, by virtue of the constitutional mandate of Article VI,
the full term of all the members of the Senate and of the House contributions with interest compounded monthly and the prohibited by the Constitution from receiving
of Representatives approving such increase.” payment of the corresponding employer’s premiums, described during their term of office) would be to pay them
Petitioner lost his bid for a consecutive fourth term in the in subsection (a) of Section five hereof, without interest, be only prohibited emoluments which in effect increase
1969 elections and his term having expired on December 30, a gratuity equivalent to one month’s salary for every year of the the salary beyond that which they were permitted
1969, filed a claim for retirement under Commonwealth Act first twenty years of service, plus one and one-half month’s by the Constitution to receive
186, section 12 (c) as amended by Republic Act 4968 which salary for every year of service over twenty but below thirty
provided for retirement gratuity of any official or employee, years and two month’s salary for every year over thirty years in
828
appointive or elective, with a total of at least twenty years of case of employees based on the highest rate received and in
service, the last three years of which are continuous on the case of elected off icials on the rates of pay as provided by law. 828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
basis therein provided “in case of employees based on x x x”
ANNOTATED
the highest rate received and in case of elected officials on 827
the rates of pay as provided by law.”2 Ligot vs. Mathay
VOL. 56, APRIL 30, 1974 827
_______________
Ligot vs. Mathay
1. during their incumbency. As stressed by the Auditor-
1 18 SCRA 300, 312 (Oct. 4, 1966); emphasis supplied. 1971, of the Office of the President, dismissing the appeal of
General in his decision in the similar case of
2 The pertinent text of the cited retirement law reads: Congressman Singson from the Auditor General’s adverse
petitioner’s colleague, ex-Congressman Singson,
826 decision disallowing the claim for retirement gratuity,
“(S)uch a scheme would contravene the
computed on a salary basis of P32,000.00 per annum.
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS Constitution for it would lead to the same
Hence the present petition for review by way of appeal
prohibited result by enabling administrative
ANNOTATED from the adverse decision of the Auditor General.
authorities to do indirectly what can not be done
The thrust of petitioner’s appeal is that his claim for
Ligot vs. Mathay directly.”3
retirement gratuity computed on the basis of the increased
On May 8, 1970, the House of Representatives issued a treasury salary of P32,000.00 per annum for members of Congress
warrant in the sum of P122,429.86 in petitioner’s favor as his (which was not applied to him during his incumbency The Auditor-General further aptly observed that “(I)t should
retirement gratuity, using the increased salary of P32,000.00 which endedDecember 30, 1969, while the Court held not escape notice that during his entire tenure as Congressman
per annum of members of Congress which he never received in Philconsa vs. Mathay that such increases would become (Dec. 30, 1965 to December 30, 1969) comprising the last four
during his incumbency and which under this Court’s above- operative only for members of Congress elected to serve years of his government service, the herein claimant-retiree
quoted decision inPhilconsa vs. Mathay could become operative therein commencingDecember 30, 1969) should not have been was unable to receive the increased salary of P32,000.00 per
only on December 30, 1969 with the expiration of the full terms disallowed, because at the time of his retirement, the increased annum for Members of Congress precisely because of the
of all members of Congress that approved on June 20, 1964 such salary for members of Congress “as provided by law” (under constitutional ban. To allow him now to collect such amount in
increased salary. Republic Act 4134) was already P32,000.00 per annum. the guise of retirement gratuity defies logic. Nor does it stand to
Respondent Velasco as Congress Auditor did not sign the Petitioner’s contention is untenable for the following reason that while he could not legally receive such rate as salary
warrant, however, pending resolution by the Auditor General of reasons: while still in the service, he would now be allowed to enjoy it
a similar claim filed by former Representative Melanio T. thereafter by virtue of his retirement.”4
Singson, whose term as Congressman likewise, expired on 3. Petitioner’s contention that since the increased salary of
December 30, 1969. 1. 1.Since the salary increase to P32,000.00 per annum
P32,000.00 per annum was already operative when his
On July 22, 1970, respondent auditor Velasco formally for members of Congress under Republic Act 4134
retirement took effect on December 30, 1969, his retirement
requested petitioner to return the warrant and its supporting could be operative onlyfrom December 30, 1969
gratuity should be based on such increased salary cannot be
papers for a recomputation of his retirement claim, enclosing for incoming members of Congress when the full
sustained as far as he and other members of Congress similarly
therewith copy of the Auditor General’s adverse decision on ex- term of all members of Congress (House and
situated whose term of office ended on December 30, 1969 are
Congressman Singson’s claim for retirement gratuity as Senate) that approved the increase (such as
concerned for the simple reason that a retirement gratuity or
computed on the basis of the salary increase of P32,000.00 per petitioner) will have expired, by virtue of the
benefit is a form of compensation within the purview of the
annum for members of Congress under Republic Act No. 4134. constitutional mandate of Article VI, section 14 of
Constitutional provision limiting their compensation and
Petitioner’s request for reconsideration was denied in due the 1935 Constitution, it is self-evident that the
“other emoluments” to their salary as provided by law.
course on January 20, 1972, by the Auditor General through “rate of pay as provided by law” for members of
This was the clear teaching ofPhilconsa vs. Jimenez.5 In
respondent Auditor who further advised petitioner and Congress retiring onDecember 30, 1969 such as
striking down Republic Act No. 3836 as null and void insofar as
furnished him with copy of the 2nd indorsement of June 29, petitioner must necessarily be P7,200.00 per
it referred to the retirement of members of Congress and the
_______________ annum, the compensation they received “as
elected officials thereof for being violative of the Constitution,
provided by law” and the Constitution during their
this Court held that “it is evident that retirement benefit is a
term of office.
“(c) Retirement is likewise allowed to any official or form or another species of emolument, because it is a part of
2. 2.To grant retirement gratuity to members of
employee, appointive, or elective, regardless of age and compensation for services of one possessing any office” and that
Congress whose terms expired on December 30,
employment status, who has rendered a total of at least twenty “Republic Act No. 3836 provides for an increase in the
1969 computed on the basis of an increased salary
years of service, the last three years of which are continuous. _______________
of P32,000.00 per annum (which they were
The benefit shall, in addition to the return of his personal
3 Rollo, p. 21. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.,
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
4 Idem. ROMEO G. JALOSJOS, accused-appellant.
5 15 SCRA 479, 490-491 (Dec. 18, 1965).
ANNOTATED
829
Ligot vs. Mathay DECISION
VOL. 56, APRIL 30, 1974 829 successor and the effective rate of pay of his successor and all
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Ligot vs. Mathay incoming members of Congress was already the new rate of
P32,000 per annum, it is this new rate of pay that should be
emoluments of Senators and Members of the House of
made the basis in computing his retirement gratuity. Suffice it This Court has declared that the state policy on the
Representatives, to take effect upon the approval of said Act,
to say that P7,200 per annum is Mr. Singson’s authorized heinous offense of rape is clear and unmistakable. Under
which was on June 22, 1963.Retirement benefits were
compensation during his term of office and, therefore, the rate certain circumstances, some of them present in this case, the
immediately availablethereunder, without awaiting the
of pay prescribed by law for him on his retirement, while offender may be sentenced to a long period of confinement, or
expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and
P32,000 per annum is the allowable compensation of incoming he may suffer death. The crime is an assault on human
the House of Representatives approving such increase. Such
members of Congress during their term and, hence, the rate of dignity. No legal system worthy of the name can afford to ignore
provision clearly runs counter to the prohibition in Article VI,
pay prescribed by law for them on their retirement. There is, the traumatic consequences for the unfortunate victim and
section 14 of the Constitution.”6
then, no basis for equating a constitutionally prohibited grievous injury to the peace and good order of the community.[1]
It is thus correctly submitted by the Solicitor General that
compensation for Mr. Singson with a statutory prescribed rate
“(T)o allow petitioner a retirement gratuity computed on the Rape is particularly odious, one which figuratively
of pay for his successor in computing his retirement gratuity.
basis of P32,000.00 per annum would be a subtle way of scrapes the bottom of the barrel of moral depravity, when
“It is likewise contended by Mr. Singson that the new rate
increasing his compensation during his term of office and of committed against a minor.[2]
of pay (P32,000.00) authorized in Republic Act No. 4134 would
achieving indirectly what he could not obtain directly.”
be used in the instant case, not to compensate him for services
4. The other Ancillary contentions of petitioner in pressing In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where
during the constitutionally prohibited period, but would simply
his claim were amply refuted by the Office of the President in only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the
serve as basis for computing his retirement gratuity for services
dismissing the Appeal in the similar case of ex-Congressman complainant is always scrutinized with extreme caution. [3]
rendered by him not only as a member of Congress but in other
Singson and therefore likewise serve to show the untenability
branches of the government as well. The foregoing contention In the present case, there are certain particulars which
of petitioner’s stand in this appeal, mutatis mutandis, as
carries its own refutation. Retirement benefit is compensation impelled the court to devote an even more painstaking and
follows:
for services rendered (PHILCONSA VS. GIMENEZ,supra). Since meticulous examination of the facts on record and a similarly
“It is evident, therefore, that the increased compensation of
Mr. Singson applied for retirement as an ‘elected official,’ it is conscientious evaluation of the arguments of the parties. The
P32,000 is the rate of pay prescribed by Republic Act No. 4134
evident that he seeks compensation not only for services victim of rape in this case is a minor below twelve (12) years of
for Mr. Singson’s successor in office, while Mr. Singson and his
rendered in other branches of the Government but also for his age. As narrated by her, the details of the rape are mesmerically
colleagues of the same term are limited to the annual
services as member of Congress using P32,000, an amount sordid and repulsive. The victim was peddled for commercial
compensation of P7,200 fixed in the Constitution. To compute
prohibited for him but allowed for his successor, in the sex by her own guardian whom she treated as a foster
his retirement gratuity at the rate of P32,000 per annum after
computation of his retirement gratuity.”7 father. Because the complainant was a willing victim, the acts of
the expiration of his term of office would effectively give him
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby dismissed. No costs. rape were preceded by several acts of lasciviousness on
the benefits of increased compensation to which he was not
Makalintal, C. J., Castro,Esguerra and Muñoz Palma, distinctly separate occasions. The accused is also a most
entitled during his term, thereby violating the constitutional
JJ.,concur. unlikely rapist. He is a member of Congress. Inspite of his
prohibition against increased compensation of legislators
Makasiar, J., on leave. having been charged and convicted by the trial court for
during their term of office (Sec. 14, Art. VI, Const.) which was
Petition dismissed. statutory rape, his constituents liked him so much that they
presumably in the mind of Congress when it stated in Republic
Notes.—Pensions and retirement allowances are part of knowingly re-elected him to his congressional office, the duties
Act No. 4134 that ‘the salary increases herein fixed shall be in
compensation of public officials; otherwise their payment of which he could not perform.
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.’
would be unconstitutional (Philippine Constitution Ass’n, Inc.
vs. Gimenez, 15 SCRA 490). Statutory rape committed by a distinguished
xxxx Congressman on an eleven (11) year old commercial sex
worker is bound to attract widespread media and public
“Neither an argument of logic nor a judicial EN BANC attention. In the words of accused-appellant, he has been
pronouncement supports the proposition that, as Mr. demonized in the press most unfairly, his image transmogrified
Singsong’s retirement legally started simultaneously with the into that of a dastardly, ogre, out to get his slimy hands on
beginning of the term of his innocent and nave girls to satiate his lustful desires.[4] This
_______________ Court, therefore, punctiliously considered accused-appellants
[G.R. Nos. 132875-76. November 16, 2001]
claim that he suffered invidiously discriminatory
6Emphasis supplied. treatment. Regarding the above allegation, the Court has
830 ascertained that the extensive publicity generated by the case
did not result in a mistrial; the records show that the accused
had ample and free opportunity to adduce his defenses.
This is an appeal from the decision[5] of the Regional Trial there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal Maria Rosilyn Delantar was a slim, eleven-year old lass
Court of Makati, Branch 62, in Criminal Case Nos. 96-1985 and knowledge with (sic) eleven year old minor Rosilyn Delantar with long, straight black hair and almond-shaped black
96-1986, convicting accused-appellant Romeo Jalosjos of two against her will, with damage and prejudice. eyes. She grew up in a two-storey apartment in Pasay City
(2) counts of statutory rape, and in Criminal Case Nos. 96-1987, under the care of Simplicio Delantar, whom she treated as her
96-1988, 96-1989, 96-1990, 96-1992, and 96-1993, for six (6) own father. Simplicio was a fifty-six year old homosexual whose
CONTRARY TO LAW.[7]
counts of acts of lasciviousness defined and penalized under ostensible source of income was
Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Section 5(b) sellinglongganiza and tocino and accepting boarders at his
of Republic Act No. 7610, also known as the Child Abuse Law. For acts of lasciviousness, the informations[8] under house. On the side, he was also engaged in the skin trade as a
which accused-appellant was convicted were identical except pimp.
There were six (6) other cases, Criminal Case Nos. 96- for the different dates of commission on June 14, 1996; June 15,
1991, 96-1994, 96-1995, 96-1996, 96-1997, and 96-1998, 1996; June 16, 1996; June 20, 1996; June 21, 1996; and June 22, Rosilyn never got to see her mother, though she had
where the accused-appellant was acquitted of the charges of 1996, to wit: known a younger brother, Shandro, who was also under the
acts of lasciviousness for failure of the prosecution to prove his care of Simplicio. At a very young age of 5, fair and smooth-
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. complexioned Rosilyn was exposed by Simplicio to his illicit
The undersigned, upon prior sworn complaint by the offended activities. She and her brother would tag along with Simplicio
On December 16, 1996, two (2) informations for the party, eleven (11)-year old minor ROSILYN DELANTAR whenever he delivered prostitutes to his clients.When she
crime of statutory rape; and twelve (12) for acts of accuses ROMEO JALOSJOS of the crime of ACTS OF turned 9, Rosilyn was offered by Simplicio as a prostitute to an
lasciviousness defined and penalized under Article 336 of the LASCIVIOUSNESS in relation to Section 5 (b), Article III of Arabian national known as Mr. Hammond. Thus begun her
Revised Penal Code, in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the Special ordeal as one of the girls sold by Simplicio for sexual favors.
No. 7610, were filed against accused-appellant. The accusatory Protection of Children against Abuse, Exploitation and
portion of said informations for the crime of statutory rape Discrimination Act, committed as follows: Rosilyn first met accused-appellant, Romeo Jalosjos,
state: sometime in February 1996 at his office located near Robinsons
Galleria. Rosilyn and Simplicio were brought there and
That in the evening of June 14, 1996, or thereabout, in Room
introduced by a talent manager by the name of Eduardo
In Criminal Case No. 96-1985: No. 1702, Ritz Towers, Makati City, Metro-Manila and within
Suarez. Accused-appellant promised to help Rosilyn become an
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
actress. When he saw Rosilyn, accused-appellant asked how old
accused, with lewd design, did then and there wilfully,
The undersigned, upon prior sworn complaint by the offended she was. Simplicio answered, 10. She is going to be 11 on May
unlawfully and feloniously kiss, caress and fondle said
party, eleven (11) year old minor ROSILYN DELANTAR, 11. Accused-appellant inquired if Rosilyn knows how to
complainant's face, lips, neck, breasts, whole body, and vagina,
accuses ROMEO JALOSJOS of the crime of RAPE defined and sing. Simplicio told Rosilyn to sing, so she sang the song, Tell Me
suck her nipples and insert his finger and then his tongue into
penalized under Art. 335 (3) of the Revised Penal Code, You Love Me.Accused-appellant then asked if Rosilyn has nice
her vagina, place himself on top of her, then insert his penis in
committed as follows: legs and then raised her skirt up to the mid-thighs. He asked if
between her thighs until ejaculation, and other similar
she was already menstruating, and Simplicio said yes. Accused-
lascivious conduct against her will, to her damage and
prejudice. appellant further inquired if Rosilyn already had breasts.When
That on or about June 18, 1996 at Room No.1702, Ritz Towers,
nobody answered, accused-appellant cupped Rosilyns left
Makati City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
breast. Thereafter, accused-appellant assured them that he
Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully,
CONTRARY TO LAW. would help Rosilyn become an actress as he was one of the
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge
producers of the TV programs, Valiente and Eat Bulaga.
with (sic) eleven year old minor Rosilyn Delantar against her
will, with damage and prejudice. In Criminal Cases Nos. 96-1988; 96-1990; and 96-1993, Simplicio and Suarez then discussed the execution of a
there were added averments that on the different dates, the contract for Rosilyns movie career. Accused-appellant, on the
accused gave the complainant P10,000.00, P5,000.00 and other hand, said that he would adopt Rosilyn and that the latter
CONTRARY TO LAW.[6]
P5,000.00 respectively. would have to live with him in his condominium at the Ritz
Upon arraignment on January 29, 1997, accused- Towers. Before Simplicio and Rosilyn went home, accused-
In Criminal Case No. 96-1986: appellant gave Rosilyn P2,000.00.
appellant refused to enter a plea. Hence, the trial court entered
a plea of not guilty for him. At the trial, the prosecution The second time Rosilyn met accused-appellant was at
The undersigned, upon prior sworn complaint by the offended presented eight (8) main witnesses and seven (7) rebuttal
party, eleven (11) year old minor ROSILYN DELANTAR, his condominium unit, located at Room 1702, Ritz Towers,
witnesses as well as documentary evidences marked as Makati City. Accused-appellant and Simplicio discussed the
accuses ROMEO JALOSJOS of the crime of RAPE defined and Exhibits A to EEEE, inclusive of submarkings. The defense, on
penalized under Art. 335 (3) of the Revised Penal Code, contract and his plan to finance Rosilyns studies. Accused-
the other hand presented twenty-six (26) witnesses. Its appellant gave Simplicio P500.00, thereafter, Rosilyn, Shandro
committed as follows: documentary evidence consists of Exhibits 1 to 153, inclusive of and Simplicio left.
submarkings. The records of the case are extremely
That on or about June 20, 1996 at Room No. 1702, Ritz voluminous. The third meeting between Rosilyn and accused-
Towers, Makati City, and within the jurisdiction of this appellant was also at Ritz Towers to discuss her acting
The Peoples version of the facts, culled mainly from the career.Accused-appellant referred the preparation of Rosilyns
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and
testimony of the victim, are as follows:
contract to his lawyer, who was also present. After the meeting, returned to the Ritz Towers, Simplicio was waiting for her. The naked and again put on her the long shirt he wanted her to
Simplicio and Rosilyn left. As they were walking towards the two of them went home. Rosilyn narrated to Simplicio what wear. After watching television for a while, accused-appellant
elevator, accused-appellant approached them and gave Rosilyn accused-appellant did to her, and pleaded for him not to bring knelt beside Rosilyn, raised her shirt, caressed her breasts and
P3,000.00. her back to the Ritz Towers. Simplicio told her that everything inserted his finger into her vagina. Then, he clipped his penis
was alright as long as accused-appellant does not have sexual between Rosilyns thighs, and made thrusting motions until he
On June 14, 1996, at about 8:30 to 9:00 p.m., Simplicio intercourse with her. ejaculated. Thereafter, Rosilyn went to sleep.
and Rosilyn returned to accused-appellants condominium unit
at Ritz Towers. When accused-appellant came out of his That same evening, at around 9:00 to 9:30 in the evening, The next day, June 22, 1996, Rosilyn was awakened by
bedroom, Simplicio told Rosilyn to go inside the bedroom, while Simplicio again brought Rosilyn to the Ritz Towers. After accused-appellant who was kissing her and fondling her sex
he and accused-appellant stayed outside. After a while, Simplicio left, accused-appellant removed Rosilyns clothes and organ. She, however, ignored him and went back to sleep. When
accused-appellant entered the bedroom and found Rosilyn dressed her with the same long T-shirt. They watched she woke up, she found the P5,000.00 which accused-appellant
watching television. He walked towards Rosilyn and kissed her television for a while, then accused-appellant sat beside Rosilyn left and gave the same to Simplicio Delantar, when the latter
on the lips, then left the room again. Simplicio came in and bid and kissed her on the lips. He made Rosilyn lie down, lifted her came to pick her up.
her goodbye. Rosilyn told Simplicio that accused-appellant shirt above her breasts, and inserted his finger into her
kissed her to which Simplicio replied, Halik lang naman. vagina. Then, accused-appellant removed his own clothes, On June 29, 1996, Rosilyn again went to the Ritz
placed his penis between Rosilyns thighs and made thrusting Towers. During that visit, accused-appellant took photographs
Rosilyn was left alone in the bedroom watching motions until he ejaculated on her thighs. Thereafter, accused- of Rosilyn. He asked her to pose with her T-shirt pulled down
television. After some time, accused-appellant came in and appellant kissed her and told her to sleep. thereby exposing her breasts. He also took her photographs
entered the bathroom. He came out clad in a long white T-shirt with her T-shirt rolled up to the pelvis but without showing her
on which was printed the word, Dakak. In his hand was a plain The next day, June 16, 1996, accused-appellant roused pubis, and finally, while straddled on a chair facing the backrest,
white T-shirt. Accused-appellant told Rosilyn that he wanted to her from sleep and bathed her. Again, he rubbed soap all over showing her legs.
change her clothes. Rosilyn protested and told accused- her body, washed her hair, and thereafter rinsed her body and
appellant that she can do it herself, but accused-appellant dried her hair. While accused-appellant was bathing Rosilyn, he Before Rosilyn went to sleep, accused-appellant kissed
answered, Daddy mo naman ako.Accused-appellant then took asked her to fondle his penis while he caressed her breasts and her lips, fondled her breasts and inserted his finger into her
off Rosilyns blouse and skirt. When he was about to take off her inserted his finger into her vagina. After their shower, accused- vagina. The following morning, she woke up and found the
panties, Rosilyn said,Huwag po. Again, accused-appellant told appellant ate breakfast. He gave Rosilyn P5,000.00 and told her P5,000.00 left by accused-appellant on the table. She recalled
her, After all, I am your Daddy. Accused-appellant then removed to just wait for Simplicio in the condominium unit. On their way that earlier that morning, she felt somebody caressing her
her panties and dressed her with the long white T-shirt. home, Simplicio told Rosilyn that if accused-appellant tries to breasts and sex organ.
insert his penis into her vagina, she should refuse.
The two of them watched television in bed. After On July 2, 1996 at 7:00 p.m., Rosilyn and Simplicio
sometime, accused-appellant turned off the lamp and the At around 8:00 p.m. of June 18, 1996, Simplicio brought returned to the Ritz Towers. Rosilyn had to wait for accused-
television. He turned to Rosilyn and kissed her lips. He then Rosilyn to the Ritz Towers. They found accused-appellant appellant, who arrived between 12:00 to 1:00 a.m. He again
raised her shirt, touched her breasts and inserted his finger into sitting on the bed in his bedroom. Simplicio told Rosilyn to dressed her with the long white shirt similar to what he was
her vagina. Rosilyn felt pain and cried out, Tama na approach accused-appellant, then he left.Accused-appellant wearing. While sitting on the bed, accused-appellant kissed her
po. Accused-appellant stopped. He continued to kiss her lips took off Rosilyns clothes and dressed her with a long T-shirt on lips and inserted his tongue into her mouth. He then fondled her
and fondle her breasts. Later, accused-appellant told Rosilyn to which was printed a picture of accused-appellant and a woman, breasts and inserted his finger into her vagina, causing her to
sleep. with the caption, Cong. Jalosjos with his Toy. They watched cry in pain. Accused-appellant stopped and told her to sleep.
television for a while, then accused-appellant lay beside Rosilyn
The following morning, Rosilyn was awakened by The next morning, accused-appellant bathed her
and kissed her on the lips. He raised her shirt and parted her
accused-appellant whom she found bent over and kissing again. While he soaped her body, he fondled her breasts and
legs. He positioned himself between the spread legs of Rosilyn,
her. He told her to get up, took her hand and led her to the inserted his finger in her vagina. Rosilyn felt pain and shoved
took off his own shirt, held his penis, and poked and pressed the
bathroom. He removed Rosilyns shirt and gave her a bath. his hand away. After bathing her, accused-appellant had
same against Rosilyns vagina. This caused Rosilyn pain inside
While accused-appellant rubbed soap all over Rosilyns body, he breakfast. Before he left, he gave Rosilyn P5,000.00. As soon as
her sex organ. Thereafter, accused-appellant fondled her
caressed her breasts and inserted his finger into her Simplicio arrived, Rosilyn gave her the money and then they left
breasts and told her to sleep.
vagina. After that, he rinsed her body, dried her with a towel for school.
and applied lotion on her arms and legs. Then, he dried her hair When Rosilyn woke up the following morning, June 19,
On July 20, 1996, Simplicio again brought Rosilyn to the
and told her to dress up. Rosilyn put on her clothes and went 1996, accused-appellant was no longer around but she found
Ritz Towers. Accused-appellant was waiting in his bedroom. He
out of the bathroom, while accused-appellant took a shower. P5,000.00 on the table. Earlier that morning, she had felt
took off Rosilyns clothes, including her panties, and dressed her
somebody touching her private parts but she was still too
Accused-appellant ate breakfast while Rosilyn stayed in with a long T-shirt similar to what he was wearing. After
sleepy to find out who it was. Rosilyn took a bath, then went off
the bedroom watching television. When accused-appellant watching television, accused-appellant kissed Rosilyn on the
to school with Simplicio, who arrived to fetch her.
entered the room, he knelt in front of her, removed her panties lips, inserted his tongue in her mouth and fondled her
and placed her legs on his shoulders. Then, he placed his tongue The next encounter of Rosilyn with accused-appellant breasts. Then, he made Rosilyn lie on the bed, spread her legs
on her vagina. Thereafter, he gave Rosilyn P10,000.00 and told was on June 21, 1996, at about 9:00 oclock in the evening in his apart and placed a pillow under her back. He inserted his finger
his housemaid to take her shopping at Shoemart. When she bedroom at the Ritz Towers. Accused-appellant stripped her in her vagina and mounted himself between her legs with his
hands rested on her sides. After that, he lifted his shirt, then There are no external signs of application of any form of On July 3, 1996, he was the guest in the inaguration of the
pointed and pressed his penis against her vagina. Accused- violence.[9] 3rd Engineering District of Dapitan City. After the mass, he
appellant made thrusting motions, which caused Rosilyn visited the Jamboree site in Barangay Taguilon, Dapitan City.
pain. Thereafter, accused-appellant told her to sleep.
During the trial, accused-appellant raised the defense of He further contended that after his arrival in Dipolog on
In the early morning of July 21, 1996, Rosilyn felt denial and alibi. He claimed that it was his brother, Dominador June 28, 1996, there was never an instance when he went to
somebody touching her sex organ, but she did not wake Jun Jalosjos, whom Rosilyn had met, once at accused-appellants Manila until July 9, 1996, when he attended a conference called
up.When she woke up later, she found P5,000.00 on the table, Dakak office and twice at the Ritz Towers. Accused-appellant by the President of the Philippines.
and she gave this to Simplicio when he came to fetch her. insisted that he was in the province on the dates Rosilyn
claimed to have been sexually abused. He attributed the filing Accused-appellant likewise alleged that on July 21, 1996,
On August 15, 1996, Rosilyn and Simplicio went to the of the charges against him to a small group of blackmailers who he took the 5:00 a.m. flight of PAL from Manila to Dumaguete
Ritz Towers at around 7:00 p.m. Accused-appellant was about wanted to extort money from him, and to his political City. From there, he was flown by a private plane to Dipolog,
to leave, so he told them to come back later that evening. The opponents, particularly Ex-Congressman Artemio Adaza, who where he stayed until the President of the Philippines arrived.
two did not return. are allegedly determined to destroy his political career and
boost their personal agenda. To buttress the theory of the defense, Dominador Jun
The following day, Rosilyn ran away from home with the Jalosjos testified that he was the one, and not accused-
help of Yamie Estreta, one of their boarders. Yamie More specifically, accused-appellant claims that on June appellant, whom Rosilyn met on three occasions. These
accompanied Rosilyn to the Pasay City Police, where she 16, 1996, he was on the Philippine Airlines (PAL) 9:40 a.m. occurred once during the first week of May 1996, at accused-
executed a sworn statement against Simplicio Delantar.Rosilyn flight from Manila to Dipolog. He stayed in Dipolog until June appellants Dakak office where Rosilyn and Simplicio Delantar
was thereafter taken to the custody of the Department of Social 18, 1996. He submitted in evidence airline ticket no. were introduced to him by Eduardo Suarez, and twice at the
Welfare and Development (DSWD). The National Bureau of 10792424,[10] showing that he was on board Flight PR 165; the Ritz Towers when he interviewed Rosilyn, and later when
Investigation (NBI) conducted an investigation, which said flights passengers manifest,[11] where the name Rosilyn and Simplicio followed up the proposed entry of
eventually led to the filing of criminal charges against accused- JALOSJOS/RM/MR appears; and photographs showing Rosilyn into the show business.
appellant. accused-appellants constituents welcoming his arrival and
showing accused-appellant talking with former Mayor Dominadors admission of his meetings with Rosilyn on
On August 23, 1996, Rosilyn was examined by Dr. Hermanico Carreon and Fiscal Empainado. three instances were limited to interviewing her and assessing
Emmanuel L. Aranas at Camp Crame. The examination yielded her singing and modeling potentials. His testimony made no
the following results: Accused-appellant further alleges that on June 28, 1996, mention of any sexual encounter with Rosilyn.
he again took the 9:40 a.m. flight from Manila to Dipolog
City. On the same flight, he met Armando Nocom of the After trial, the court rendered the assailed decision, the
EXTERNAL AND EXTRAGENITAL dispositive portion of which reads:
Philippine Daily Inquirer. Upon arrival and after talking to his
representatives, he proceeded to his residence known as
Fairly developed, fairly nourished and coherent female Barangay House in Taguinon, Dapitan, near Dakak Beach resort, WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
subject. Breasts are conical with pinkish brown areola and and spent the night there. rendered as follows:
nipples from which no secretions could be pressed
out. Abdomen is flat and soft On June 29, 1996, accused-appellant attended the fiesta
at Barangay San Pedro. He stayed in the house of Barangay 1. In Criminal Cases Nos. 96-1985 and 96-1986, the
Captain Mila Yap until 5:30 p.m. Then, together with some prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of
GENITAL friends, he visited the Rizal Shrine and the Pirate Bar at Dakak the accused, ROMEO JALOSJOS y GARCIA, as principal in the
Beach Resort. Thereafter, he retired in the Barangay House in two (2) counts of statutory rape defined and penalized under
There is moderate growth of pubic hair. Labia majora are full, Taguilon. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. He is hereby declared
convex and coaptated with the pinkish brown labia minora CONVICTED in each of these cases.
On June 30, 1996, accused-appellant alleges that he
presenting in between. On separating the same disclosed an
attended a city-wide consultation with his political leaders at
elastic, fleshy type hymen, with shallow healed laceration at 3 2. Accordingly, he is sentenced to:
the Blue Room of Dakak, which lasted till the afternoon. In the
o'clock position and deep healed laceration at 8 o'clock
evening, he went home and slept in the Barangay House.
position. External vaginal orifice offers moderate resistance to
the introduction of the examining index finger and the virgin 2a. suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in each of these
On July 1, 1996, he attended the whole day celebration of
sized vaginal speculum. Vaginal canal is narrow with cases.
Dipolog Day. He spent the night in the Barangay House.
prominent rugosities. Cervix is firm and closed.
On July 2, 1996, he attended the inauguration of the 2b. indemnify the victim, MA. ROSILYN DELANTAR, in the
CONCLUSION: reception hall of Dakak Beach Resort. The blessing ceremony amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as moral
was officiated by Assistant Parish Priest Adelmo Laput. damages for each of the cases.
which is not within the province of the Court to determine. governor shall be an ex-officio member of the Sang 437
A public office is a public trust.3 lt is created for the interest 436
VOL. 135, MARCH 18, 1985 437
and the benefit of the people, As such, a holder thereof “is
subject to such regulations and conditions as the law may Adaza us. Pacana, Jr.
a] Assume the office of the governor for the unexpired term of Eustaquio T. C Acero, but which was objected to by petitioners.
Rafael R. Recto
the latter in the cases provided for in Section 48, paragraph Realizing, perhaps, the validity of the objection, he decided,
Those named on the left list may be called the Puyat Group;
16 of this Code;” instead, to “intervene” on the ground of legal interest in the
those on the right, the Acero Group. Thus, the Puyat Group
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. No costs. matter under litigation. And it may be noted that in the case
would be in control of the Board and of the management of IPI.
SO ORDERED. filed before the Rizal Court of First Instance (L-51928), he
34
appeared as counsel for defendant Excelsior, co-defendant of
respondent Acero therein. 3 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
VOL. 113, MARCH 25, 1982 31
Same; Same; Same; Same.—Under those facts and
circumstances, we are constrained to find that there has been Puyat vs. De Guzman, Jr.
Puyat vs. De Guzman, Jr.
an indirect “appearance as counsel before x x x an
No. L-51122. March 25, 1982.* administrative body” and, in our opinion, that is a 1. b)May 25, 1979. The Acero Group instituted at the
EUGENIO J. PUYAT, ERWIN L. CHIONGBIAN, EDGARDO P. circumvention of the Constitutional prohibition. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) quo
REYES, ANTONIO G. PUYAT, JAIME R. BLANCO, RAFAEL R. “intervention” was an afterthought to enable him to appear warrantoproceedings, docketed as Case No. 1747
RECTO and REYNALDO L. LARDIZABAL, petitioners, vs.HON. actively in the proceedings in some other capacity. To believe (the SEC Case), questioning the election of May 14,
SIXTO T. J. DE GUZMAN, JR., as 33 1979. The Acero Group claimed that the
_______________
VOL. 113, MARCH 25, 1982 33 stockholders’ votes were not properly counted.
2. c)May 25-31, 1979. The Puyat Group claims that at
*EN BANC. Puyat vs. De Guzman, Jr. conferences of the parties with respondent SEC
32 the avowed purpose, that is, to enable him eventually to Commissioner de Guzman, Justice Estanislao A.
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS vote and to be elected as Director in the event of an unfavorable Fernandez, then a member of the Interim Batasang
outcome of the SEC Case would be pure naivete. He would still Pambansa, orally entered his appearance as
ANNOTATED appear as counsel indirectly. counsel for respondent Acero to which the Puyat
Group objected on Constitutional grounds. Section
Puyat vs. De Guzman, Jr.
Barredo, J.: 11, Article VIII, of the 1973 Constitution, then in
Associate Commissioner of the Securities & Exchange
force, provided that no Assemblyman could
Commission, EUSTAQUIO T. C. ACERO, R. G. VILDZIUS,
“appear as counsel before x x x any administrative
ENRIQUE M. BELO, MANUEL G. ABELLO, SERVILLANO DOLINA, I reserve my vote.
body”, and SEC was an administrative body.
JUANITO MERCADO and ESTANISLAO A. FERNANDEZ, PETITION for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
Incidentally, the same prohibition was maintained
respondents. injunction to review the order of the Commissioner of the
by the April 7, 1981 plebiscite. The cited
Attorneys; Constitutional Law;Administrative Security and Exchange Commission.
Constitutional prohibition being clear,
Law; Corporations Act; An assemblyman cannot indirectly fail to The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Assemblyman Fernandez did not continue his
follow the Constitutional prohibition not to appear as counsel
appearance for respondent Acero.
before an administrative tribunal like the SEC by buying a MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: 3. d)May 31, 1979. When the SEC Case was called, it
nominal amount of share of one of the shareholders after his
turned out that:
appearance as counsel therein was contested.—Ordinarily, by
This suit for Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary
virtue of the Motion for Intervention, Assemblyman Fernandez
Injunction is poised against the Order of respondent Associate 1. (i)On May 15, 1979, Assemblyman Estanislao A.
cannot be said to be appearing as counsel. Ostensibly, he is not
Commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission Fernandez had purchased from Augusto A. Morales
appearing on behalf of another, although he is joining the cause
(SEC) granting Assemblyman Estanislao A. Fernandez leave to ten (10) shares of stock of IPI for P200.00 upon
of the private respondents His appearance could theoretically
intervene in SEC Case No. 1747. request of respondent Acero to qualify him to run
be for the protection of his ownership of ten (10) shares of IPI
A question of novel import is in issue. For its resolution, the for election as a Director.
in respect of the matter in litigation and not for the protection
following dates and allegations are being given and made: 2. (ii)The deed of sale, however, was notarized only on
of the petitioners nor respondents who have their respective
a) May 14, 1979. An election for the eleven Directors of the May 30, 1979 and was sought to be registered on
capable and respected counsel.
International Pipe Industries Corporation (IPI) a private said date.
Same; Same; Same; Same.—However, certain salient
corporation, was held. Those in charge ruled that the following 3. (iii)On May 31, 1979, the day following the
circumstances militate against the intervention of
were elected as Directors: notarization of Assemblyman Fernandez’
Assemblyman Fer-nandez in the SEC Case. He had acquired a
mere P200.00 worth of stock in IPI, representing ten shares out Eugenio J. Puyat Eustaquio T.C. Acero purchase, the latter had filed an Urgent Motion for
of 262,843 outstanding shares. He acquired them “after the Intervention in the SEC Case as the owner of ten
fact”, that is, on May 30, 1979, after the contested election of Erwin L. Chiongbian R. G. Vildzius (10) IPI shares alleging legal interest in the matter
Directors on May 14, 1979, after the quo warranto suit had been Edgardo P. Reyes Enrique M. Belo in litigation.
filed on May 25, 1979 before SEC and one day before the
scheduled hearing of the case before the SEC on May 31, 1979. Antonio G. Puyat Servillano Dolina
e) July 17, 1979. The SEC granted leave to intervene on the basis
And what is more, before he moved to intervene, he had Jaime R. Blanco Juanito Mercado of Atty. Fernandez’ ownership of the said ten shares. 1It is this
signified his intention to appear as counsel for respondent Order allowing intervention that precipitated the instant
petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary He shall not accept employment to intervene in any cause “intervene” in the proceedings. That which the Constitution
Injunction. or matter where he may be called to act on account of his office. directly prohibits may not be done by indirection or by a
_______________ (Emphasis and paragraphs supplied) general legislative act which is intended to accomplish the
What really has to be resolved is whether or not, in intervening objects specifically or impliedly prohibited.3
1p. 23, Rollo. in the SEC Case, Assemblyman Fernandez is, in effect, appearing In brief, we hold that the intervention of Assemblyman
35 as counsel, albeit indirectly, before an administrative body in Fernandez in SEC. No. 1747 falls within the ambit of the
contravention of the Constitutional provision. prohibition contained in Section 11, Article VIII of the
VOL. 113, MARCH 25, 1982 35 Ordinarily, by virtue of the Motion for Intervention, Constitution.
Puyat vs. De Guzman, Jr. Assemblyman Fernandez cannot be said to be appearing as Our resolution of this case should not be construed as,
counsel. Ostensibly, he is not appearing on behalf of another, absent the question of the constitutional prohibition against
f) July 3, 1979. Edgardo P. Reyes instituted a case before the
although he is joining the cause of the private respondents. His members of the Batasan, allowing any stockholder, or any
Court of First Instance of Rizal (Pasig), Branch XXI, against N.V.
appearance could theoretically be for the protection of his number of stockholders, in a corporation to intervene in any
Verenigde Bueinzenfabrieken Excelsior—De Maas and
ownership of ten (10) shares of IPI in respect of the matter in controversy before the SEC relating to intra-corporate matters.
respondent Eustaquio T. C. Acero and others, to annul the sale
litigation and not for the protection of the petitioners nor A resolution of that question is not necessary in this case.
of Excelsior’s shares in the IPI to respondent Acero (CC No.
respondents who have their respective capable and respected WHEREFORE, respondent Commissioner’s Order granting
33739). In that case, Assemblyman Fernandez appeared as
counsel. Atty. Estanislao A. Fernandez leave to intervene in SEC Case No.
counsel for defendant Excelsior. In L-51928, we ruled that
However, certain salient circumstances militate against the 1747 is hereby reversed and set aside. The temporary
Assemblyman Fernandez could not appear as counsel in a case
intervention of Assemblyman Fernandez in the SEC Case. He Restraining Order heretofore issued is hereby made
originally filed with a Court of First Instance as in such situation
had acquired a mere P200.00 worth of stock in IPI, representing permanent.
the Court would be one “without appellate jurisdiction.”
ten shares out of 262,843 outstanding shares. He acquired them No costs.
On September 4, 1979, the Court en banc issued a
“after the fact”, that is, on May 30, 1979, after the contested SO ORDERED.
temporary Restraining Order enjoining respondent SEC
election of Directors on May 14, 1979, after the quo _______________
Associate Commissioner from allowing the participation as an
warranto suit had been filed on May 25, 1979 before SEC and
intervenor, of respondent Assemblyman Estanislao Fernandez
one day before the scheduled hearing of the case before the SEC 3 Am. Digest, 2d Dicennial Ed., Vol. 5, citing Atkinson vs.
at the proceedings in the SEC Case.
on May 31, 1979. And what is more, before he moved to Board, etc., 108 P. 1046.
The Solicitor General, in his Comment for respondent
intervene, he had signified his intention to appear as counsel for 38
Commissioner, supports the stand of the latter in allowing
respondent Eustaquio T. C. Acero,2 but which was objected to
intervention. The Court en banc,on November 6, 1979, resolved 38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
by petitioners. Realizing, perhaps, the validity of the objection,
to consider the Comment as an Answer to the Petition.
he decided, instead, to “intervene” on the ground of legal ANNOTATED
The issue which will be resolved is whether or not
interest in the matter under litigation. And it maybe noted that
Assemblyman Fernandez, as a then stockholder of IPI. may
in the case filed before the Rizal Court of First Instance (L- Puyat vs. De Guzman, Jr.
intervene in the SEC Case without violating Section 11, Article
51928), he appeared as counsel for defendant Excelsior, co- Fernando, C.J.,Teehankee, Makasiar,Concepcion,
VIII of the Constitution, which, as amended, now reads:
defendant of respondent Acero therein. Jr., Fernandez,Guerrero, Abad Santos, De
“SEC. 11.
_______________ Castro, Ericta, Plana andEscolin, JJ., concur.
No Member of the Batasang Pambansa shall appear as
Barredo, J., I reserve my vote.
counsel before any court without appellate jurisdiction.
2p. 6, ibid. Aquino, J., no part.
before any court in any civil case wherein the Government,
37 Order reversed and set aside.
or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof is the
Notes.—Prohibited purchase of property under litigation
adverse party, VOL. 113, MARCH 25, 1982 37 from client by his lawyer is void and produces no legal effect. Its
or in any criminal case wherein any officer or employee of
Puyat vs. De Guzman, Jr. nullity cannot be cured by ratification. (Rubias vs. Batiller,51
the Government is accused of an offense committed in relation
SCRA 120.)
to his office, Under those facts and circumstances, we are constrained to find
Attorney’s withdrawal from the case must be with the
or before any administrative body. that there has been an indirect “appearance as counsel before x
consent of the client. (Republic vs. CFI of Lanao del Norte, Branch
Neither shall he, directly or indirectly be interested x x an administrative body” and, in our opinion, that is a
II, 53 SCRA 317.)
financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special circumvention of the Constitutional prohibition. The
It is the duty of counsel to check with the court respecting
privilege granted by the Government, or any subdivision, “intervention” was an afterthought to enable him to appear
the outcome of the hearing at which he failed to appear. (Galvez
agency or instrumentality actively in the proceedings in some other capacity. To believe
vs. Court of Appeals, 42 SCRA 278.)
36 the avowed purpose, that is, to enable him eventually to vote
There is need of proof as to the amount of damages for
and to be elected as Director in the event of an unfavorable
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS attorney’s fees. (Medenilla vs. Kayanan, 40 SCRA 154.)
outcome of the SEC Case would be pure naivete. He would still
An attorney is entitled to recover compensation for his
ANNOTATED appear as counsel indirectly.
services on quantum meruit basis. (Cabildo vs. Navarro, 54
A ruling upholding the “intervention” would make the
Puyat vs. De Guzman, Jr. SCRA 26.)
constitutional provision ineffective. All an Assemblyman need
thereof, including any government-owned or controlled Article 1491 of the New Civil Code prohibiting sale to
do, if he wants to influence an administrative body is to acquire
corporation, during his term of office. lawyer of client’s estate involved in a litigation applies only
a minimal participation in the “interest” of the client and then
while litigation is pending. (Director of Lands vs. Adaba, 88 Same; Same; Same; Quorum;The Senate Electoral The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
SCRA 513.) Tribunal cannot legally function as such, absent its entire
RESOLUTION
An agreement for payment of 1/2 of real property in membership of Senators and no amendment of its Rules can
litigation to a lawyer as attorney’s fees in case appealed does confer on the three Justices-Members alone the power of valid
not violate Article 1491 of the New Civil Code. (Director of Lands adjudication of a senatorial election contest.—Let us not be GANCAYCO, J.:
vs. Adaba, 88 SCRA 513.) misunderstood as saying that no Senator-Member of the Senate
An attorney is not disqualified where the relations of Electoral Tribunal may inhibit or disqualify himself from sitting This is a Special Civil Action for certiorari to nullify and set aside
attorney and client has terminated before the appointment or in judgment on any case before said Tribunal. Every Member of the Resolutions of the Senate Electoral Tribunal dated February
where, although he is attorney of another judgment creditor or the Tribunal may, as his conscience 12, 1988 and May 27, 1988, denying, respectively, the
defendant, he is not attorney for the judgment creditor who ap- petitioners’ Motion for Disqualification or Inhibition and their
39 _______________ Motion for Reconsideration thereafter filed.
On October 9, 1987, the petitioners filed before the respon-
VOL. 113, MARCH 25, 1982 39
653
*EN BANC.
Villegas vs. Legaspi 652 VOL. 166, OCTOBER 27, 1988 653
plied for the receivership; and, a fortiori, the mere fact that one
is a Solicitor or practicing barrister being in no way connected 652 SUPREME COURT Abbas vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal
with the particular parties or subject matter, does not disqualify REPORTS ANNOTATED dent Tribunal an election contest docketed as SET Case No. 002-
him to be receiver. (Cochingyan, Jr. vs. Cloribel, 76 SCRA 361.) 87 against 22 candidates of the LABAN coalition who were
Abbas vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal proclaimed senators-elect in the May 11, 1987 congressional
dictates, refrain from participating in the resolution of a elections by the Commission on Elections. The respondent
VOL. 166, OCTOBER 27, 1988d 651
case where he sincerely feels that his personal interests or Tribunal was at the time composed of three (3) Justices of the
Abbas vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal biases would stand in the way of an objective and impartial Supreme Court and six (6) Senators, namely: Senior Associate
judgment. What we are merely saying is that in the light of the Justice Pedro L. Yap (Chairman). Associate Justices Andres R.
No. L-83767. October 27, 1988.* Constitution, the Senate Electoral Tribunal cannot legally Narvasa and Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr., and Senators Joseph E.
FIRDAUSI SMAIL ABBAS, HOMOBONO A. ADAZA, ALEJANDRO function as such, absent its entire membership of Senators and Estrada, Neptali A. Gonzales, Teofisto T. Guingona, Jose Lina, Jr.,
D. ALMENDRAS, ABUL KAHYR D. ALONTO, JUAN PONCE that no amendment of its Rules can confer on the three Justices- Mamintal A.J. Tamano and Victor S. Ziga.
ENRILE, RENE G. ESPINA, WILSON P. GAMBOA, ROILO S. Members alone the power of valid adjudication of a senatorial On November 17, 1987, the petitioners, with the exception
GOLEZ, ROMEO G. JALOSJOS, EVA R. ESTRADA-KALAW, election contest. of Senator Estrada but including Senator Juan Ponce Enrile
WENCESLAO R. LAGUMBAY, VICENTE P. MAGSAYSAY, (who had been designated Member of the Tribunal replacing
JEREMIAS U. MONTEMAYOR, BLAS F. OPLE, RAFAEL P. Senator Estrada, the latter having affiliated with the Liberal
PALMARES, ZOSIMO JESUS M. PAREDES, JR., VICENTE G. FELICIANO, J.: Concurring
Party and resigned as the Opposition’s representative in the
PUYAT, EDITH N. RABAT, ISIDRO S. RODRIGUEZ, FRANCISCO S. Tribunal) filed with the respondent Tribunal a Motion for
TATAD, LORENZO G. TEVES, ARTURO M. TOLENTINO, and Constitutional Law;Composition of the Senate Electoral
Disqualification or Inhibition of the Senators-Members thereof
FERNANDO R. VELOSO, petitioners, vs. THE SENATE Tribunal; Quorum; Should any three (3) Senator-Members of the
from the hearing and resolution of SET Case No. 002-87 on the
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, respondent. Senate Electoral Tribunal voluntarily inhibit or disqualify
ground that all of them are interested parties to said case, as
Constitutional Law;Composition of the Senate Electoral themselves from participating in the proceedings, a tribunal,
respondents therein. Before that, Senator Rene A.V. Saguisag,
Tribunal; The Constitutional provision clearly mandates the resulting to a balance between three (3) Justices and three (3)
one of the respondents in the same case, had filed a Petition to
participation in the same process of decision of a representative Senators as members, still constitute more than a quorum.—
Recuse and later a Supplemental Petition to Recuse the same
or representatives of the Supreme Court.—It seems quite clear to Should any three (3) Senator-Members of the Senate Electoral
Senators-Members of the Tribunal on essentially the same
us that in thus providing for a Tribunal to be staffed by both Tribunal voluntarily inhibit or disqualify themselves from
ground. Senator Vicente T. Paterno, another respondent in the
Justices of the Supreme Court and Members of the Senate, the participating in the proceedings in SET Case No. 002-87, a
same contest, thereafter filed his comments on both the
Constitution intended that both those “Judicial” and Tribunal would result that would be balanced between the
petitions to recuse and the motion for disqualification or
“legislative” components commonly share the duty and three (3) Justice-Members and the three (3) Senator-Members
inhibition. Memoranda on the subject were also filed and oral
authority of deciding all contests relating to the election, and still constitute more than a bare quorum. In such a
arguments were heard by the respondent Tribunal, with the
returns and qualifications of Senators. The respondent Tribunal Tribunal, both the considerations of public policy and fair play
latter afterwards issuing the Resolutions now complained of.
correctly stated one part of this proposition when it held that raised by petitioners and the constitutional intent above noted
Senator Juan Ponce Enrile in the meantime had voluntarily
said provision “x x x is a clear expression of an intent that all concerning the mixed “judicial” and “legislative” composition of
inhibited himself from participating in the hearings and
(such) contests x x x shall be resolved by a panel or body in the Electoral Tribunals would appear to be substantially met
deliberations of the respondent Tribunal in both SET Case No.
which their (the Senators’) peers in that Chamber are and served. Thisdénouement, however, must be voluntarily
002-87 and SET Case No. 001-87, the latter being another
represented.” The other part, of course, is that the reached and not compelled by certiorari.
contest filed by Augusto S. Sanchez against him and Senator
constitutional provision just as clearly mandates the Santanina T. Rasul as alternative respondents, citing his
participation in the same process of decision of a representative SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION for certiorari to review the resolutions personal involvement as a party in the two cases.
or representatives of the Supreme Court. of the Senate Electoral Tribunal. The petitioners, in essence, argue that considerations of
public policy and the norms of fair play and due process
imperatively require the mass disqualification sought and that held that said provision “x x x is a clear expression of an intent Let us not be misunderstood as saying that no Senator-
the doctrine of necessity which they perceive to be the founda- that all (such) contests x x x shall be resolved by a panel or body Member of the Senate Electoral Tribunal may inhibit or
654 in which their (the Senators’) peers in that Chamber are disqualify himself from sitting in judgment on any case before
represented.”1 The other part, of course, is that the said Tribunal. Every Member of the Tribunal may, as his
654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
constitutional provision just as clearly mandates the conscience dictates, refrain from participating in the resolution
ANNOTATED participation in the same process of decision of a representative of a case where he sincerely feels that his personal interests or
or representatives of the Supreme Court. biases would stand in the way of an objective and impartial
Abbas vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal Said intent is even more clearly signaled by the fact that the judgment. What we are merely saying is that in the light of the
tion of the questioned Resolutions does not rule out a solution proportion of Senators to Justices in the prescribed Constitution, the Senate Electoral Tribunal cannot legally
both practicable and constitutionally unobjectionable, namely; membership of the Senate Electoral Tribunal is 2 to 1—an function as such, absent its entire membership of Senators and
the amendment of the respondent Tribunal’s Rules of unmistakable indication that the “legislative component” that no amendment of its Rules can confer on the three Justices-
procedure so as to permit the contest being decided by only cannot be totally excluded from participation in the resolution Members alone the power of valid adjudication of a senatorial
three Members of the Tribunal. of senatorial election contests, without doing violence to the election contest.
The proposed amendment to the Tribunal’s Rules (Section spirit and intent of the Constitution. The charge that the respondent Tribunal gravely abused its
24)—requiring the concurrence of five (5) members for the Where, as here, a situation is created which precludes the discretion in its disposition of the incidents referred to must
adoption of resolutions of whatever nature—is a proviso that substitution of any Senator sitting in the Tribunal by any of his therefore fail. In the circumstances, it acted well within law and
where more than four (4) members are disqualified, the other colleagues in the Senate without inviting the same principle in dismissing the petition for disqualification or
remaining members shall constitute a quorum, if not less than objections to the substitute’s competence, the proposed mass inhibition filed by herein petitioners. The instant petition for
three (3) including one (1) Justice, and may adopt resolutions disqualification, if sanctioned and ordered, would leave the certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
by majority vote with no abstentions. Obviously tailored to fit Tribunal no alternative but to abandon a duty that no other SO ORDERED.
the situation created by the petition for disqualification, this court or body can perform, but which it cannot lawfully Fernan (C.J.), Melencio-
would, in the context of that situation, leave the resolution of discharge if shorn of the participation of its entire membership Herrera, Cruz, Padilla, Bidin,Sarmiento, Cortés, Griño-
the contest to the only three Members who would remain, all of Senators. Aquino, Medialdea andRegalado, JJ., concur.
Justices of this Court, whose disqualification is not sought. To our mind, this is the overriding consideration—that the Narvasa, Gutierrez, Jr.and Paras, JJ., no part.
We do not agree with petitioners’ thesis that the suggested Tribunal be not prevented from discharging a duty which it Feliciano, J., see separateconcurring statement.
device is neither unfeasible nor repugnant to the Constitution. alone has the power to perform, the performance of which is in
We opine that in fact the most fundamental objection to such the highest public interest as evidenced by its being expressly FELICIANO, J.: Concurring
proposal lies in the plain terms and intent of the Constitution imposed by no less than the fundamental law.
itself which, in its Article VI, Section 17, creates the Senate It is aptly noted in the first of the questioned Resolutions
Electoral Tribunal, ordains its composition and defines its I quite agree with what Mr. Justice Gancayco has written into
that the framers of the Constitution could not have been
jurisdiction and powers. his opinion for the Court. I would merely like to carry forward
unaware of the possibility of an election contest that would
“Sec. 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall however slightly the analysis found in the penultimate
involve all 24 Senators-elect, six of whom would inevitably have
each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of paragraph of his opinion.
to sit in judgment thereon, Indeed, such possibility might
all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications 657
surface again in the wake of the 1992 elections when once
of their respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be more, but for the last time, all 24 seats in the Senate will be at VOL. 166, OCTOBER 27, 1988 657
composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of
the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the Cuerdo vs. Commission on Audit
_______________
remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Should any three (3) Senator-Members of the Senate Electoral
Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the Tribunal voluntarily inhibit or disqualify themselves from
1 Page 2, Resolution of public respondent Tribunal of May
basis of proportional representation from the political parties participating in the proceedings in SET Case No. 002-87, a
and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list 27, 1988; p. 25, Rollo. Tribunal would result that would be balanced between the
system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral 656 three (3) Justice-Members and the three (3) Senator-Members
Tribunal shall be its Chairman.” 656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS and still constitute more than a bare quorum. In such a
It seems quite clear to us that in thus providing for a Tribunal Tribunal, both the considerations of public policy and fair play
to be staffed by both Justices of the Supreme Court and ANNOTATED raised by petitioners and the constitutional intent above noted
Members of the Senate, the Constitution intended that both concerning the mixed “judicial” and “legislative” composition of
Abbas vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal
those “judicial” and “legislative” components commonly share the Electoral Tribunals would appear to be substantially met
stake. Yet the Constitution provides no scheme or mode for
the duty and authority of deciding all contests relating to the and served. This dénouement,however, must be voluntarily
settling such unusual situations or for the substitution of
655 reached and not compelled by certiorari.
Senators designated to the Tribunal whose disqualification may
Petition dismissed.
VOL. 166, OCTOBER 27, 1988 655 be sought. Litigants in such situations must simply place their
Notes.—The legislature as creator of corporations can
trust and hopes of vindication in the fairness and sense of
Abbas vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal define the extent of their powers and can deny the power to
justice of the Members of the Tribunal. Justices and Senators,
election, returns and qualifications of Senators. The respondent own lands. (Director vs. Lood, 124 SCRA 460.)
singly and collectively.
Tribunal correctly stated one part of this proposition when it
Judiciary has to refer to legislative discretion in the view of prejudiced by such action, as in this case. lt is—"a plain exercise represents in the tribunal, formal affiliation with another
programs for economic development and social progress. of the judicial power, that power vested in courts to enable political party, or removal for-other valid cause. A member may
(Heirs of Juancho Ardana vs. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220.) them to administer justice according to law. x x x It is simply a not be expelled by the House of Representatives for “party
necessary concomitant of the power to hear and dispose of a disloyalty” short of proof that he has formally affiliated with
case or controversy properly before the court, to the another political group. As the records of this case fail to show
792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
determination of which must be brought the test and measure that Congressman Camasura has become a registered member
ANNOTATED of the law.” (Vera vs. Avelino, 77 Phil. 192, 203.) of another political party, his expulsion from the LDP and from
Constitutional Law; House Electoral Tribunal; Nature of the HRET was not for a valid cause, hence, it violated his right
Bondoc vs. Pineda functions.—The use of the word “sole” in both Section 17 of the to security of tenure.
G.R. No, 97710. September 26, 1991.* 1987 Constitution and Section 11 of the 1935 Constitution
DR. EMIGDIO A. BONDOC, petitioner, vs.REPRESENTATIVES underscores theexclusive jurisdiction of the House Electoral PETITION for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to review
MARCIANO M. PINEDA, MAGDALENO M. PALACOL, COL. Tribunal as judge of contests relating to the election, returns the decision of the House of Representatives Electoral
JUANITO G. CAMASURA, JR., or any other representative who and qualifications of the members of the House of Tribunal.
may be appointed vice representative Juanito G. Camasura, Jr., Representatives (Robles vs. House of Representatives Electoral
and THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL Tribunal, G.R. No. 86647, February 5, 1990). The tribunal was
The facts are stated in the opinion of the ‘Court,
TRIBUNAL, respondents. created to function as a nonpartisan court although twothirds
Estelito P. Mendoza,Romulo C. Felixmera andHoracio S.J.
Political Law; Separation of powers; Judicial review of of its members are politicians. It is a non-political body in a sea
Apostol for petitioner.
acts of the other branches of government.—Since “a of politicians x x x To be able to exercise exclusive jurisdiction,
Nicanor S. Bautista for respondent Marciano M. Pineda.
constitutional grant of authority is not usually unrestricted, the House Electoral Tribunal must be independent. Its
Benedicto R. Palacol for respondent M.M. Palacol.
limitations being provided For as to what may be done and how jurisdiction to hear and decide congressional election contests
it is to be accomplished, necessarily then, it becomes the is not to be shared by it with the Legislature nor with the Courts.
Same; Same; Grounds for removal; Disloyalty to party not GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:
responsibility of the courts to ascertain whether the two
coordinate branches have adhered to the mandate of the a valid cause for termination of membership.—As judges, the
fundamental law The question thus posed is Judicial rather than members of the tribunal must be non-partisan. They must This case involves a question of power. May the House of
political. The duty remains to assure that the supremacy of the discharge their functions with complete detachment, Representatives, at the request of the dominant political party
Constitution is upheld” (Aquino vs. Ponce Enrile, 59 SCRA 183, impartiality, and independence—even independence from the therein, change that party’s representation in the House
196). That duty is a part of the judicial power vested in the political party to which they belong. Hence, “disloyalty to party” Electoral Tribunal to thwart the promulgation of a decision
courts by an express grant under Section 1, Article VIII of the and “breach of party discipline,” are not valid grounds for the freely reached by the tribunal in an election contest pending
1987 Constitution of the Philippines which defines judicial expulsion of a member of the tribunal. ln expelling therein? May the Supreme Court review and annul that action
power as both authority and duty of the courts to settle actual Congressman Camasura from the HRET for having cast a of the House?
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable “conscience vote” in favor of Bondoc, based strictly on the result Even the Supreme Court of the United States over a century
and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there of the examination and appreciation of the ballots and the 795
recount of the votes by the tribunal, the House of
Representatives committed a grave abuse of VOL. 201, SEPTEMBER 26, 1991 795
________________ 794 Bondoc vs. Pineda
794 SUPREME COURT ago, in Marbury vs. Madison, 2L. ed. 60 (1803), had hesitated to
*EN BANC.
embark upon a legal investigation of the acts of the other two
793 REPORTS ANNOTATED branches of the Government, finding it “peculiarly irksome as
VOL. 201, SEPTEMBER 793 Bondoc vs, Pineda well as delicate” because it could be considered by some as “an
discretion, an injustice, and a violation of the attempt to intrude” into the affairs of the other two and to
26, 1991
Constitution. Its resolution of expulsion against Congressman intermeddle with their prerogatives.
Bondoc vs. Pineda Camasura is, therefore, null and void. In the past, the Supreme Court, as head of the third and
has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack Same; Same; Same; Same.—Another reason for the weakest branch of our Government, was all too willing to avoid
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or nullity of the expulsion resolution of the House of a political confrontation with the other two branches by
instrumentality of the Government.” Representatives is that it violates Congressman Camasura’s burying its head ostrich-like in the sands of the “political
Same; Same; Same.—The power and duty of the courts right to security of tenure, Members of the HRET, as “sole judge” question” doctrine, the accepted meaning of which is that
to nullify, in appropriate cases, the actions of the executive and of congressional election contests, are entitled to security of “where the matter involved is left to a decision by the people
legislative branches of the Government, does not mean that the tenure just as members of the judiciary enjoy security of tenure acting in their sovereign capacity or to the sole determination
courts are superior to the President and the Legislature. It does under our Constitution (Sec. 2, Art. VIII, 198? Constitution). by either or both the legislative or executive branch of the
mean though that the judiciary may not shirk “the irksome task” Therefore; membership in the House Electoral Tribunal may government, it is beyond judicial cognizance. Thus it was that in
of inquiring into the constitutionality and legality of legislative not be terminated except for a just cause, such as, the expiration suits where the party proceeded against was either the
or executive action when a justiciable controversy is brought of the member’s congressional term of office, his death, President or Congress, or any of its branches for that matter, the
before the courts by someone who has been aggrieved or permanent disability, resignation from-the political party he courts refused to act.” (Aquino vs. Ponce Enrile, 59 SCRA 183,
196.)
In time, however, the duty of the courts to look into the
Marciano M. Pineda ................................................................................................... Congressman 31,700 votes
constitutionality and validity of legislative or executive action,
especially when private rights are affected, came to be Emigdio A. Bondoc ..................................................................................................... 1st Dist., Davao del Sur 28,400 votes
recognized. As we pointed out in the celebrated Aquino case, a
showing that plenary power is granted either department of Difference ................................................................................................................... LDP 3,300 votes
government may not be an obstacle to judicial inquiry, for the On May 19, 1987, Pineda was proclaimed winner in the election.
JOSE E. CALINGASAN Member
improvident exercise or the abuse thereof may give rise to a In due time, Bondoc filed a protest (HRET Case No. 26) in the
justiciable controversy. Since “a constitutional grant of House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET for short) Congressman
authority is not usually unrestricted, limitations being provided which is composed of nine (9) members, three of whom are
Justices of the Supreme Court and the remaining six are 4th Dist., Batangas
for as to what may be done and how it is to be accomplished,
necessarily then, it becomes the responsibility of the courts to members of the House of Representatives chosen on the basis LDP
ascertain whether the two coordinate branches have adhered of proportional representation from the political parties and
the parties or organizations registered under the party-list ANTONIO H. CERILLES Member
to the mandate of the fundamental law. The question thus
posed is judicial rather than political. The duty remains to system represented therein (Sec. 17, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution) Congressman
assure that the supremacy of the Constitution is upheld” as
797 2nd Dist., Zamboanga del Sur
(Aquino vs. Ponce Enrile, 59 SCRA 183, 196).
That duty is a part of the judicial power vested in the courts VOL. 201, SEPTEMBER 26, 1991 797 (formerly GAD, now NP)
by an express grant under Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 798
Constitution of the Philippines which defines judicial power as Bondoc vs. Pineda
follows: 798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
both authorityand duty of the courts “to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable AMEURFINA M. HERRERA Chairman ANNOTATED
and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has
Associate Justice Bondoc vs. Pineda
been a grave
796 After the revision of the ballots, the presentation of evidence,
Supreme Court and submission of memoranda, Bondoc’s protest was
796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS submitted for decision in July, 1989.
ISAGANI A. CRUZ Member
ANNOTATED By October 1990, a decision had been reached in which
Associate Justice Bondoc won over Pineda by a margin of twenty-three (23)
Bondoc vs. Pineda Supreme Court votes. At that point, the LDP members in the Tribunal insisted
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of on a reappreciation and recount of the ballots cast in some
jurisdiction onthe part of any branch or instrumentality of the FLORENTINO P. FELICIANO Member precincts, thereby delaying by at least four (4) months the
Government.” finalization of the decision in the case.
Associate Justice
The power and duty of the courts to nullify, in appropriate The reexamination and re-appreciation of the ballots
cases, the actions of the executive and legislative branches of Supreme Court resulted in increasing Bondoc’s lead over Pineda to 107 votes,
the Government, does not mean that the courts are superior to Congressman Camasura voted with the Supreme Court Justices
HONORATO Y. AQUINO Member
the President and the Legislature. It does mean though that the and Congressman Cerilles to proclaim Bondoc the winner of the
judiciary may not shirk “the irksome task” of inquiring into the Congressman contest.
constitutionality and legality of legislative or executive action Moved by candor and honesty, Congressman Camasura
1st Dist., Benguet revealed on March 4, 1991, to his “Chief,” Congressman Jose S.
when a justiciable controversy is brought before the courts by
someone who has been aggrieved or prejudiced by. such action, LDP Cojuangco, Jr., LDP Secretary General, not only the final tally in
as in this case. It is— the Bondoc case but also that he voted for Bondoc “consistent
DAVID A. PONCE DE LEON Member with truth and justice and self-respect,” and to honor a
“a plain exercise of the judicial power, that power vested in
courts to enable them to administer justice according to law. x Congressman “gentlemen’s agreement” among the members of the HRET that
x x x x x It is simply a necessary concomitant of the power to they would “abide by the result of the appreciation of the
hear and dispose of a case or controversy properly before the 1st Dist., Palawan contested ballot"1 Congressman Camasura’s revelation stirred
court, to the determination of which must be brought the test LDP a hornets’ nest in the LDP which went into a flurry of plotting
and measure of the law.” (Vera vs. Avelino, 77 Phil. 192, 203.) appropriate moves to neutralize the pro-Bondoc majority in the
In the local and congressional elections held on May 11, 1987, SIMEON E. GARCIA, JR. Member Tribunal.
Marciano M. Pineda of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino Congressman On March 5, 1991, the HRET issued a Notice of
(LDP) and Dr. Emigdio A. Bondoc of the Nacionalista Party (NP) Promulgation of Decision on March 14,1991 at 2:30 P.M. in
were rival candidates for the position of Representative for the 2nd Dist., Nueva Ecija HRET Case No. 25. A copy of the notice was received by
Fourth District of the province of Pampanga. Each received the LDP Bondoc’s counsel on March 6,1991.
following votes inthe canvass made by the Provincial Board of On March 13, 1991, the eve of the promulgation of the
Canvassers of Pampanga: JUANITO G. CAMASURA, JR. Member Bondoc decision, Congressman Cojuangco informed
Congressman Camasura by letter2 that on February 28, 1991 rescind the election of the Honorable Juanito G. Camasura, Jr. to earned the respect of the Tribunal but also the loss of the
yet, the LDP Davao del Sur Chapter at Digos, Davao del Sur, by the House Electoral Tribunal on the basis of an LDP confidence of the leadership of his party.
Resolution No. 03–91, had already expelled him and communication which is self-explanatory and copies of which “Under the above circumstances, an untenable situation
Congressman Benjamin Bautista from the LDP for having- are hereto attached. has come about. It is extremely difficult to continue with
allegedly helped to organize the Partido Pilipino of Eduardo “Thank you. membership in the Tribunal and for the Tribunal to preserve its
“Danding” Cojuangco, and for allegedly having invited LDP integrity and credibility as a constitutional body charged with a
members in Davao del Sur ________________ judicial task. It is clear to us that the unseating of an incumbent
member of Congress is being prevented at all costs. We believe
________________ that the Tribunal should not be
3Resolution No. 03–91, p. 35, Rollo.
801
4Annex D-2, p. 36, Rollo.
1Annex B, p. 29, Rollo. 800 VOL. 201, SEPTEMBER 26, 1991 801
2Annex D, p. 34, Rollo.
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS Bondoc vs. Pineda
799
ANNOTATED hampered in the performance of its constitutional function by
VOL. 201, SEPTEMBER 26, 1991 799 factors which have nothing to do with the merits of the cases
Bondoc vs. Pineda before it,
Bondoc vs. Pineda
“For the Secretary-General “In this connection, our own experience teaches that the
to join said political party; and that as those acts are “not only
"(SGD.) Josefina D. Azarcon provision for proportional representation in the Tribunal found
inimical, uncalled for, unethical and immoral, but also a
“Officer-in-charge in Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution, should be
complete betrayal to (sic) the cause and objectives, and loyalty
Operations Department” amended to provide instead for a return to the composition
to LDP," in a meeting on March 12, 1991, the LDP Executive
mandated in the 1935 Constitution, that is: three (3) members
Committee unanimously confirmed the expulsions.3
(p. 10, Rollo.) chosen by the House or Senate upon nomination of the party
At the same time, Congressman Cojuangco notified
having the largest number of votes and three (3) of the party
Speaker Ramon V. Mitra about the ouster of the two
having the second largest number of votes: and a judicial
congressmen from the LDP, and asked the House of Justices Herrera, Cruz, and Feliciano promptly apprised the component consisting of three (3) justices from the Supreme
Representatives, through the Speaker, to take note of it Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court in Court. Thereby, no party or coalition of parties can dominate
“especially in matters where party membership is a writing, of this “distressing development” and asked to be the legislative component in the Tribunal.
prerequisite."4 relieved from their assignments in the HRET because— “In the alternative, the Senate Electoral Tribunal could
At 9:45 in the morning of March 4,1991, the Chairman of “By the above action (of the House) the promulgation of the perhaps sit as the sole judge of all contests relating to the
the Tribunal, Mme. Justice Ameurfina M. Herrera, received the decision of the Tribunal in the electoral protest election, returns and qualifications of members of the House of
following letter dated March 13, 1991, from the Office of the entitled “Bondoc v. Pineda” (HRET Case No. 25), previously Representatives. Similarly, the House of Representatives
Secretary General of the House of Representatives, informing scheduled for 14 March 1991, is sought to be aborted (See the Electoral Tribunal could sit as the sole judge of all such contests
the Tribunal that on the basis of the letter from the LDP, the Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation v. Hon. Intermediate involving members of the Senate. In this way, there should be
House of Representatives, during its plenary session on March Appellate Court, G.R. No. 73777–78, promulgated 12 September lesser chances of non-judicial elements playing a decisive role
13, 1991, decided to withdraw the nomination and rescind the 1990). Even if there were no legal impediment to its in the resolution of election contests.
election of Congressman Camasura, Jr. to the House of Electoral promulgation, the decision which was reached on a 5 to 4 vote “We suggest that there should also be a provision in the
Tribunal. The letter reads as follows: may now be confidently expected to be overturned on a motion Constitution that upon designation to membership in the
“13 March 1991 for reconsideration by the party-litigant which would have Electoral Tribunal, those so designated should divest
been defeated. themselves of affiliation with their respective political parties,
“Honorable Justice Ameurfina “The decision in Bondoc v. Pineda was ready as early as to insure their independence and objectivity as they sit in
Melencio-Herrera October 1990 with a margin of 23 votes in favor of protestant Tribunal deliberations.
Chairman Bondoc. Because some members of the Tribunal requested re- “There are only three (3) remaining cases for decision by
appreciation of some ballots, the finalization of the decision had the Tribunal. Bondoc should have been promulgated today, 14
to be deferred by at least 4 months. March 1991.Cabrera v. Apacible (HRET Case No. 21) is
House of Representatives
With the re-appreciation completed, the decision, now scheduled for promulgation on 31 March 1991 andLucman v.
Electoral Tribunal
with a margin of 107 votes in favor of protestant Bondoc, and Dimaporo (HRET Case No. 45), after the Holy Week recess.
Constitution Hills
concurred in by Justices Ameurfina A. Melencio-Herrera, “But political factors are blocking the accomplishment of
Quezon City
Isagani A. Cruz and Florentino P. Feliciano. and Congressmen the constitutionally mandated task of the Tribunal well ahead
Juanito G. Camasura and Antonio H. Cerilles, is set for of the completion of the present congressional term.
“Dear Honorable Justice Melencio-Herrera: promulgation on 14 March 1991, with Congressmen Honorato “Under these circumstances, we are compelled to ask to be
Y. Aquino, David A. Ponce de Leon, Simeon E. Garcia, Jr. and Jose relieved from the chairmanship and membership in the
“I have the honor to notify the House of Electoral Tribunal of the E. Calingasan, dissenting. Tribunal.
decision of the House of Representatives during its plenary “Congressman Camasura’s vote in the Bondoc v. “xxx xxx xxx.”
session on 13 March 1991, to withdraw the nomination and to Pineda case was in our view, a conscience vote, for which he
At the open session of the HRET in the afternoon of the same “ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved: a) to DECLINE the ________________
day, the Tribunal issued Resolution No. 91–0018 cancelling the request of Justices Herrera, Cruz, and Feliciano to be relieved
promulgation of the decision in HRET Case No. 25. The from their membership in the House of Representatives 5 The comments of the respondents were later treated as
resolution reads: Electoral Tribunal and instead to DIRECT them to resume their their answers ers to the petition to which the Court gave due
“ln view of the formal notice the Tribunal has received at 9:45 duties therein: b) to EXPRESS its concern over the intrusion of course.
this morning from the House of Representatives that at its non-judicial factors in the 804
plenary session 803
802 804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
VOL. 201, SEPTEMBER 26, 1991 803
802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Bondoc vs. Pineda
ANNOTATED proceedings of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, Bondoc vs. Pineda
which performs functions purely judicial in character despite reorganizing and allowing participation in its proceedings of
Bondoc vs. Pineda Honorable Magdaleno M. Palacol or whoever is designated to
the inclusion of legislators in its membership; and c) to NOTE
held on March 13, 1991 , it it had voted ‘to withdraw the replace Honorable Juanito G. Camasura in said House of
the view that the term of all the members of the Electoral
nomination and rescind the election of Congressman Camasura Representatives Electoral Tribunal, until the issue of the
Tribunals, including those from the legislature, is co-extensive
to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal,’ the withdrawal of the nomination and rescission of the election of
with the corresponding legislative term and cannot be
Tribunal Resolved to cancel the promulgation of its Decision in said Congressman Camasura as member of the HRET by the
terminated at will but only for validlegal cause, and to REQUIRE
Bondoc vs. Pineda (HRET Case No. 25) scheduled for this House of Representatives is resolved by this Court, or until
the Justices-members of the Tribunal ‘to submit the issue to the
afternoon, This is because, without Congressman Camasura’s otherwise ordered by the Court.” (p. 39, Rollo J Congressman
said Tribunal in the first instance.
vote, the decision lacks the concurrence of five members as Juanito G. Camasura, Jr. did not oppose the
“Paras J. filed this separate concurring opinion: ‘I concur,
required by Section 24 of the Rules of the Tribunal and, petition. Congressman Marciano M. Pineda’s plea for the
but I wish to add that Rep. Camasura should be allowed to cast
therefore, cannot be validly promulgated. dismissal of the petition is centered on Congress’ being the sole
his original vote in favor of protestant Bondoc, otherwise a
“The Tribunal noted that the three (3) Justices-members of authority that nominates and elects from its members, Upon
political and judicial travesty will take place.’ Melencio-Herrera,
the Supreme Court, being of the opinion that this development recommendation by the political parties therein, those who are
Cruz and Feliciano, JJ. took no part. Gancayco, J., is on leave.”
undermines the independence of the Tribunal and derails the to sit in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (and in
On March 21,1991, a petition for certiorari, prohibition and
orderly adjudication of electoral cases, they have asked the the Commission on Appointments as well), hence, it allegedly
mandamus was filed by Dr. Emigdio A. Bondoc against
Chief Justice, in a letter of even date, for their relief from has the sole power to remove any of them whenever the ratio
Representatives Marciano M. Pineda, Magdaleno M. Palacol,
membership in the Tribunal. in the representation of the political parties in the House or
Juanito G. Camasura, Jr., or any other representative who may
“The Tribunal further Noted that Congressman Cerilles Senate is materially changed on account of death,
be appointed Vice Representative Juanito G. Camasura Jr., and
also manifested his intention to resign as a member of the incapacity,removal or expulsion from the political party;6 that a
the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, praying this
Tribunal Tribunal member’s term of office is not co-extensive with his
Court to:
“The Tribunal further Noted that Congressmen Aquino, legislative term,7 for if a member of the Tribunal who changes
Ponce de Leon, Garcia, Jr., and Calingasan also manifested a his party affiliation is not removed from the Tribunal, the
similar intention.” (p. 37, Rollo.) 1. 1.Annul the decision of the House of Representatives constitutional provision mandating representation based on
On March 19, 1991, this Court, after deliberating on the request of March 13, 1991, “to withdraw the nomination political affiliation would be completely nullified;8 and that the
for relief of Justices Herrera, Cruz and Feliciano, resolved to and to rescind the nomination of Representative expulsion of Congressman Camasura from the LDP, is “purely a
direct them to return to their duties in the Tribunal. The Court Juanito G. Camasura, Jr. to the House of party affair” of the LDP9 and the decision to rescind his
observed that: Representatives Electoral Tribunal membership in the House Electoral Tribunal is the sole
“x x x in view of the sensitive constitutional functions of the 2. 2.Issue a writ of prohibition restraining respondent prerogative of the House of Representatives, hence, it is a
Electoral Tribunals as the ‘sole judge’ of all contests relating to Palacol or whomsoever may be designated in place purely political question beyond the reach of judicial review. 10
the election, returns and qualifications of the members of of respondent Camasura from assuming, occupying In his comment, respondent Congressman Magdaleno M.
Congress, all members of these bodies are appropriately guided and discharging functions as a member of the Palacol alleged that the petitioner has no cause of action against
only by purely legal considerations in the decision of the cases House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal; him because he has not yet been nominated by the LDP for
before them and that in the contemplation of the Constitution 3. 3.Issue a writ of mandamus ordering respondent
the members-legislators, thereof, upon assumption of their Camasura to immediately reassume and discharge
his functions as a member of the House of ________________
duties therein, sit in the Tribunal no longer as representatives
of their respective political parties but as impartial judges. The Representatives Electoral Tribunal; and
view was also submitted that, to further bolster the 4. 4.Grant such. other relief as may be just and 6 p. 53, Rollo.
independence of the Tribunals, the term of office of every equitable. 7 p. 93, Rollo,
8 p. 94, Rollo,
member thereof should be considered co-extensive with the
9 p. 111, Rollo.
corresponding legislative term and may not be legally
Upon receipt of the petition, the Court, without giving it due 10 p. 99, Rollo.
terminated except only by death, resignation, permanent
course, required the respondents to comment5 on the petition 805
disability, or removal for valid cause, not including political
within ten days from notice and to enjoin the HRET “from
disloyalty. VOL. 201, SEPTEMBER 26, 1991 805
ruse of “reorganizing” the representation in the tribunal of the of politicians. What this Court had earlier said about the
Bondoc vs. Pineda
majority party? Electoral Commission applies as well to the electoral tribunals
membership in the HRET.11Moreover, the petition failed to Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution supplies the of the Senate and House of Representatives:
implead the House of Representatives as an indispensable party answer to that question. It provides: “The purpose of the constitutional convention creating the
for it was the House, not the HRET, that withdrew and “Sec. 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall Electoral Commission was to provide anindependent and
rescinded Congressman Camasura’s membership in the each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be thesole Judge of impartial tribunalfor the determination of contests to
HRET.12 all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of legislative office, devoid of partisan consideration, and to
The Solicitor General, as counsel for the Tribunal, argued their respective members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be transfer to that tribunal all the powers previously exercised by
in a similar vein; that the inclusion of the HRET as a party composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the legislature in matters pertaining to contested elections of its
respondent is erroneous because the petition states no cause of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice., and members.
action against the Tribunal. The petitioner does not question the remaining six.shall be Members of the Senate or House of ‘The power granted to the electoral Commission to judge
any act or order of the HRET in violation of his rights. What he Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the contests relating to the election and qualification of members s
assails is the act of the House of Representatives of withdrawing basis of proportional representation from the political parties of the National Assembly is intended to be as complete and
the nomination, and rescinding the election, of Congressman and the parties or organizations registered under the party list unimpaired as if it had remained in the legislature.”
Juanito Camasura as a member of the HRET.13 system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral ‘The Electoral Tribunals of the Senate and the House were
Replying to the Solicitor General’s Manifestation, the Tribunal shall be its Chairman.” created by the Constitution as special tribunals to be the sole
petitioner argued that while the Tribunal indeed had nothing to Section 17 reechoes Section 11, Article VI of the 1935 judge of all contests relating to election returns and
do with the assailed decision of the House of Representatives, it Constitution, except the provision on the representation of the qualifications of members of the legislative houses, and as such,
acknowledged that decision by cancelling the promulgation of main political parties in the tribunal which is now based are independent bodies which must be permitted to select their
its decision in HRET Case No. 25 to his (Bondoc’s) onproportional representation from all the political parties, own employees, and 16 supervise and control them, without
prejudice.14Hence, although the Tribunal may not be an instead of equal representation of three members from each of any legislative interference.” (Suanes vs. Chief Accountant of
indispensable party, it is a necessary party to the suit, to assure the first and second largest political aggrupations in the the Senate, 81 Phil. 818.)
that complete relief is accorded to the petitioner for “in the Legislature. The 1935 constitutional provision reads as follows: To be able to exercise exclusive jurisdiction, the House Electoral
ultimate, the Tribunal would have to acknowledge, give “Sec. 11. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall Tribunal must be independent Its jurisdiction to hear and
recognition, and implement the Supreme Court’s decision as to have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all decide congressional election contests is not to be shared by it
whether the relief of respondent Congressman Camasura from contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of with the Legislature nor with the Courts.
the Office of the Electoral Tribunal is valid."15 their respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be “The Electoral Commission is a body separate from
In his reply to Congressman Palacol’s Comment, the composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of and independent of the legislature and though not a power in the
petitioner explained that Congressman Palacol was impleaded the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the tripartite scheme of
as one of the respondents in this case because after the House remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or of the House of 808
of Representatives had announced the termination of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen by
Congressman Camasura’s membership in the HRET, several 808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
each House, three upon nomination of the party having the
newspapers of general circulation reported that the House of largest number of votes and three of the party having the ANNOTATED
Representatives would nominate and elect Congressman second largest number of votes therein. The senior Justice in
Palacol to take Congressman Camasura’s seat in the Tribunal,16 each Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.” (1935 Bondoc vs. Pineda
Constitution of the Philippines.) government. it is to all intents and purposes, when acting within
________________ Under the above provision, the Justices held the deciding the limits of its authority, an independent organ; while
807 composed of a majority of members of the legislature it is a
11 p. 127, Rollo. body separate from and independent of the legislature.
VOL. 201, SEPTEMBER 26, 1991 807 xxx xxx xxx
12 p. 130, Rollo.
13 p. 142, Rollo. Bondoc vs. Pineda ‘The Electoral Commission, a constitutional organ created
14 p. 150, Rollo. for the specific purpose of determining contests relating to
votes, and it was impossible for any political party to control the
15 p. 152, Rollo. election returns and qualifications of members of the National
voting in the tribunal.
16 p. 151, Rollo. Assembly may not be interfered with by the judiciary when and
The 1973 Constitution did not provide for an electoral
806 while acting within the limits of its authority, but the Supreme
tribunal in the Batasang Pambansa.
Court has jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission for the
The use of the word “sole” in both Section 17 of the 1987
806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS purpose of determining the character, scope and extent of the
Constitution and Section 11 of the 1935 Constitution
constitutional grant to the commission as sole judge of all
ANNOTATED underscores the exclusivejurisdiction of the House Electoral
contests relating to the election and qualifications of the
Tribunal as judge of contests relating to the election, returns
Bondoc vs. Pineda members of the National Assembly.” (Angara vs. Electoral
and qualifications of the members of the House of
Now, is the House of Representatives empowered by the Commission, 63 Phil. 139.)
Representatives (Robles vs. House of Representatives Electoral
Constitution to do that, i.e., to interfere with the disposition of The independence of the electoral tribunal was preserved
Tribunal, G.R. No. 86647, February 5, 1990). The tribunal was
an election contest in the House Electoral Tribunal through the’ undiminished in the 1987 Constitution as the following
created to function as a nonpartisan court although two-thirds
of its members are politicians. It is a non-political body in a sea
exchanges on the subject between Commissioners Maambong wordings say: “The Senate and the House of to be the sole judge of the election contest between Pineda and
and Azcuna in the 1986 Constitutional Commission, attest: Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal'.' It Bondoc,
“MR. MAAMBONG. Thank you. “My questions will be very basic is still the Senate Electoral Tribunal and the House To sanction such interference by the House of
so we can go as fast as we can. In the case of the electoral Electoral Tribunal So, technically, it is the tribunal of the Representatives in the work of the House Electoral Tribunal
tribunal, either of the House or of the Senate, is it correct to House and tribunal of the Senate although they are would reduce the tribunal to a mere tool for the
say that these tribunals are constitutional creations? I will independent. aggrandizement of the party in power (LDP) which the three
distinguish these with the case of the Tanodbayan and the “MR. MAAMBONG. But both of them, as we have agreed on, are justices of the Supreme Court and the lone NP member would
Sandiganbayan which are created by mandate of the independent from both bodies? be powerless to stop. A minority party candidate may as well
Constitution but they are not constitutional creations. Is “MR. AZCUNA. That is correct. abandon all hope at the threshold of the tribunal.
that a good distinction? “MR. MAAMBONG. This is the bottom line of my question. How 811
“MR. AZCUNA. That is an excellent statement. can we say that these bodies are independent when we still
VOL. 201, SEPTEMBER 26, 1991 811
“MR. MAAMBONG. Could we, therefore, say that either the have six politicians sitting in both tribunals?
Senate Electoral Tribunal or the House Electoral Tribunal “MR. AZCUNA. Politicians can be independent, Madam Presi- Bondoc vs. Pineda
is a constitutional body? dent.
“MR. AZCUNA. It is, Madam President. “MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President, when we discussed a Disloyalty to party is not a valid cause for termination of
“MR. MAAMBONG. If it is a constitutional body, is it then subject portion of this in the Committee on the Executive, there membership in the HRET.—
to constitutional restrictions? was a comment by Chief Justice Concepcion— As judges, the members of the tribunal must be non-partisan;
“MR. AZCUNA. It would be subject to constitutional restrictions Commissioner Concepcion—that there seems to be some They must discharge their functions with complete
intended for that body. incongru- detachment, impartiality, and independence—even
“MR. MAAMBONG. I see. But I want to find out if the ruling in 810 independence from the political party to which they belong.
the case of Vera us. Avelino, 77 Phil. 192, will still be Hence, “disloyalty to party” and “breach of party discipline,” are
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
applicable to the present bodies we are creating since it not valid grounds for the expulsion of a member of the tribunal.
ruled that the electoral tribunals are not separate ANNOTATED In expelling Congressman Camasura from the HRET for having
departments cast a “conscience vote” in favor of Bondoc, based strictly on the
809 Bondoc vs. Pineda
result of the examination and appreciation of the ballots and the
ity in these electoral tribunals, considering that politicians
VOL. 201, SEPTEMBER 26, 1991 809 recount of the votes by the tribunal, the House of
still sit in the tribunals in spite of the fact that in the ruling in
Representatives committed a grave abuse of discretion, an
Bondoc vs. Pineda the case of Sanidad vs. Vera, Senate Electoral Tribunal Case No.
injustice, and a violation of the Constitution. Its resolution of
1, they are supposed to act in accordance with law and justice
of the -government: Would that ruling still be valid? expulsion against Congressman Camasura is, therefore, null
with complete detachment from all political considerations.
“MR. AZCUNA. Yes’, they are not separate departments because and void.
That is why I am asking now for the record how we could
the separate departments are the legislative, the executive
achieve such detachment when there are six politicians sitting Expulsion of Congressman Camasura violates his right to security
and the judiciary; but they are constitutional bodies.
there.
“MR. MAAMBONG. Although they are “not separate of tenure.—
“MR. AZCUNA. The same reason that the Gentleman, while
departments of government, I would like to know again if Another reason for the nullity of the expulsion resolution of the
chosen on behalf of the opposition, has, with sterling
the ruling in Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 53 Phil. 139, House of Representatives is that it violates Congressman
competence, shown independence in the proceedings of
would still be applicable to the present bodies we are Camasura’s right to security of tenure. Members of the HRET, as
this Commission. I think we can also trust that the
deciding on, when the Supreme court said that these “sole judge” of congressional election contests, are entitled to
members of the tribunals will be independent.” (pp. .111–
electoral tribunals are independent from Congress, devoid of security of tenure just as members of the judiciary enjoy
112, Journal, Tuesday, July 22,1986, Italic ours.)
partisan influence or consideration and, therefore, Congress security of tenure under our Constitution (Sec. 2, Art. VIII, 1987
has no power to regulate proceedings of these electoral Resolution of the House of Representatives violates the Constitution). Therefore, membership in the House Electoral
tribunals, Tribunal may not be terminated except for a just cause, such as,
“MR. AZCUNA. I think that is correct. They are independent independence of the HRET.—
the expiration of the member’s congressional term of office, his
although they are not a separate branch of government. The independence of the House Electoral Tribunal so zealously
death, permanent disability, resignation from the political party
“MR. MAAMBONG. There is a statement that in all parliaments guarded by the framers of our Constitution, would, however, by
he represents in the tribunal, formal affiliation with another
of the world, the invariable rule is to leave unto themselves a myth and its proceedings a farce if the House of
political party, or removal for other valid cause. A member may
the determination of controversies with respect to the Representatives, or the majority party therein, may shuffle and
not be expelled by the House of Representatives for “party
election and qualifications of. their members, and precisely manipulate the political (as distinguished from the judicial)
disloyalty” short of proof that he has, formally affiliated with
they have this Committee on Privileges which takes care of component of the electoral tribunal, to serve the interests of the
another political group. As the records of this case fail to show
this particular controversy. , party in power.
that Congressman Camasura has become a registered member
“Would the Gentleman say that the creation of electoral The resolution of the House of Representatives removing
812
tribunals is an exception to this rule because apparently we Congressman Camasura from the House Electoral Tribunal for
have an independent electoral tribunal? disloyalty to the LDP, because he cast his vote in favor of the 812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
“MR. AZCUNA. To the extent that the electoral tribunals are Nacionalista Party’s candidate, Bondoc, is a clear impairment of
the constitutional prerogative of the House Electoral Tribunal ANNOTATED
independent, but the Gentleman will notice that the
Since the expulsion of Congressman Camasura from the Can the Supreme Court review and annul an act of the House of
Bondoc vs. Pineda
House Electoral Tribunal by the House of Representatives was Representatives, assuming that said act were politically
of another political party, his expulsion from the LDP and from not for a lawful and valid cause, but to unjustly interfere with motivated, but well within the constitutional parameters of its
the HRET was not for a valid cause, hence, it violated his right the tribunal’s disposition of ‘the Bondoc case and to deprive authority?
to security of tenure. Bondoc of the fruits of the Tribunal’s decision in his favor, the The majority would postulate that the Court is empowered
There is nothing to the argument of respondent Pineda that action of the House of Representatives is is clearly violative of to do so on the strength of the second paragraph, Section 1 of
members of the House Electoral Tribunal are not entitled to the constitutional mandate (Sec. 17, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution) Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution which reads:
security of tenure because, as a matter of fact, two Supreme which created the House Electoral Tribunal to be the “sole “Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
Court Justices in the Tribunal were changed before the end of judge” of the election contest between Pineda and Bondoc. We, actual controversies involving rights which are legally
the congressional term, namely: Chief Justice Marcelo B. Fernan therefore, declare null and void the resolution dated: March 13, demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not
who, upon his elevation to the office of Chief Justice, was 1991 of the House of ‘Representatives withdrawing the there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
replaced by Justice Florentino P. Feliciano, and the latter, who nomination, and rescinding the election, of Congressman excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
was temporarily replaced by Justice Emilio A. Gancayco, when Camasura as a member of the House Electoral Tribunal. The instrumentality of the government.”
he (J. Feliciano) took a leave of absence to deliver a lecture in petitioner, Dr. Emigdio Bondoc, is entitled to the reliefs he prays The majority would even go as far as annul the action of the
Yale University. lt should be stressed, however, that those for in this case, House of Representatives in withdrawing and rescinding its
changes in the judicial composition to the HRET had no political WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari, prohibition and nomination to the House Electoral Tribunal of Congressman
implications at all unlike the present attempt to remove mandamus is granted. The decision of the House of Juanito J. Camasura, Jr. and order Camasura’s reinstatement to
Congressman Camasura. No coercion was applied on Chief Representatives withdrawing the nomination and rescinding said Tribunal. I regret I cannot join the majority’s posture
Justice Fernan to resign from the tribunal, nor on Justice the election of Congressman Juanito G. Camasura, Jr. as a which, I believe, is violative of the almost sacramental doctrine
Feliciano to go 011 a leave of absence. They acted on their own member of the House Electoral Tribunal is hereby declared null of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. It is for
free will, for valid reasons, and with no covert design to derail and voidabinitio for being violative of the Constitution, and this reason that I register my dissent.
the disposition of a pending case in the HRET. Congressman Juanito G. Camasura, Jr. is ordered reinstated to A fundamental principle in our constitutional system is
The case of Congressman Camasura is different. He was his position as a member of the House of Representatives that the powers of government are distributed among three (3)
expelled from, and by, the LDP to punish him for “party Electoral Tribunal. The HRET Resolution No. 91–0018 dated great departments: legislative, executive and judicial. Each of
disloyalty” after he had revealed to the Secretary-General of the March 14,1991, cancelling the promulgation of the decision in these departments is separate from, yet coordinate and co-
party how he voted in the Bondoc case. The purpose of the HRET Case No. 26 (“Dr. Emigdio Bondoc vs. Marciano A. equal with
“expulsion of Congressman Camasura was to nullify his vote in Pineda”) is also set aside. Considering the unconscionable delay 815
the Bondoc case so that the HRET’s decision may not be incurred in the promulgation of that decision to the prejudice
promulgated, and so that the way could be cleared for the LDP VOL. 201, SEPTEMBER 26, 1991 815
of the speedy resolution’ of electoral cases, the Court, in the
to nominate a replacement for Congressman Camasura in the exercise .of its equity jurisdiction, and in the interest of justice, Bondoc vs. Pineda
Tribunal. That strategem of the LDP and the House of hereby declares the said decision DULY PROMULGATED,
Representatives is clearly aimed to substitute Congressman the others each one deriving its authority directly from the
effective upon service of copies thereof on the parties, to be fundamental law.1 As Mr. Justice Moreland summarized, “the
Camasura’s vote and, in effect, to change the judgment of the done immediately by the Tribunal Costs against respondent
HRET in the Bondoc case. three departments are not only coordinate, they are co-equal
Marciano A. Pineda. and co-important. While interdependent, in the sense that each
The judicial power of this Court has been invoked by 814
Bondoc for the protection of his rights against the strong arm of is unable to perform its functions fully and adequately without
the majority party in the House of Representatives. The Court 814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS the other, they are nevertheless in many senses independent of
cannot be deaf to his plea for relief, nor indifferent to his charge each other. That is to say, one department may not control or
ANNOTATED even-interfere with another in the exercise of its particular
that the House of Representatives had acted with grave abuse
of discretion in removing Congressman Camasura from the functions."2 (Italics supplied)
Bondoc vs. Pineda
House Electoral Tribunal, He calls upon the Court, as guardian The completeness of their separation and mutual
SO ORDERED.
of the Constitution, to exercise its judicial power and discharge independence does not, however, extend to the point that those
Narvasa, Paras, Bidin,Medialdea, Regalado andDavide
its in authority in one department can ignore and treat the acts of
, Jr., JJ., concur.
813 those in authority in the others, done pursuant to the authority
Fernan (C.J.), No part—formerly chairman of HRET.
vested in them, as nugatory and not binding in every other
VOL. 201, SEPTEMBER 26, 1991 813 Melencio-Herrera, J., No part. Chairman of HRET.
department.3 In other words, one department must not
Gutierrez, J., I certify that he concurs with J. Aquino
encroach upon nor interfere with acts done within. the
Bondoc vs. Pineda and votes to grant the petition. (Fernan, C.J.)
constitutional competence of the other where full ‘discretionary
duty to protect his rights as the party aggrieved by the- action Cruz and Feliciano, JJ.,No part; being members of
authority has been delegated by the Constitution to said
of the House. The Court must perform its duty under the HRET.
departmentThat department alone, to the exclusion of the
Constitution “even when the violator be the highest official of Padilla and Sarmiento, JJ., See dissent.
others, has both right and duty to exercise it free from any
the land or the Government itself (Concurring opinion of J. encroachment or interference of whomsoever.4
DISSENTING OPINION
Antonio Barredo: in Aquino vs. Ponce-Enrile, 59 SCRA 183, This principle or doctrine of separation of powers is
207). enforced by the judiciary through the exercise of its power of
PADILLA, J.:
judicialreview and prudent refusal to assume jurisdiction over legislative term. Were that the fact, the constitutional provision ________________
cases involving political questions5 mandating representation in the electoral tribunal based on
In the case at bar, one notes that the dispute emerged when political affiliation may be completely nullified in the event that Section 17, Article VI, 1987 Constitution.
6
the House of Representatives withdrew and rescinded the a member of the Tribunal changes party affiliation. Bautista vs. Salonga, G.R. No. 86439, 13 April 1989; 172
7
nomination of Congressman Juanito J. Camasura, Jr. to the As provided for in the Constitution, there are nine (9) SCRA 182.
House Electoral Tribunal. This act was, it seems, precipitated by members of the House Electoral Tribunal. Three (3) of the 818
a letter of Congressman Jose S. Cojuangco, Jr. informing the members of the tribunal are Justices of the Supreme Court as
Speaker of the House of Representatives of the expulsion of designated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The 818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Congressman Juanito J. Camasura, Jr. from the LDP for hav- remaining six (6) members come from the members of the ANNOTATED
House chosen on the basis of proportional representation from
________________ the political parties and the parties or organizations registered Bondoc vs. Pineda
under the party- The judicial department, in my opinion, has no power to review
817 even the most arbitrary and unfair action of the legislative
1People vs. Vera, 65 Phil. 56.
department, taken in the exercise of power committed exclusively
2Province of Tarlac vs. Gale, 20 Phil. 338, 349. VOL. 201, SEPTEMBER 28, 1991 817
3 Kilbourn vs. Thomson, 103 US 168, 25 L. ed. 177; Abueva
to it by the Constitution.8 It is not within the province of this
Bondoc vs. Pineda Court to supervise legislation or oversee legislative acts as to
vs. Wood, 45 Phil. 612.
4 Mr. Justice Concepcion in Tanada, et al. vs. Mariano Jesus list system.6 The House of Representatives has the power to keep them within the bounds of propriety, fairness and
nominate the members of the House Electoral Tribunal common sense. Such acts, like the one at bar, are exclusively of
Cuenco, et al., G.R. “No. L-10520, 28 February 1957.
5 Neptali Gonzales, Philippine Political Law, 1966 ed., p. (representing the House) provided, of course, that the legislative concern.9 To hold otherwise would be to invalidate
proportional representation of parties is maintained. the principle of separation of powers. As Judge Learned Hand
102.
Can the House of Representatives withdraw the so aptly observed, “one cannot find among the powers granted
816
nomination extended to a member of the electoral tribunal to courts any authority to pass upon the validity of the decisions
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (representing the House of Representatives) after the majority of another ‘Department’ as to the scope of that ‘Department’s’
party in the House has expelled him from its; ranks? I believe it powers. Indeed, it is to be understood that the three (3)
ANNOTATED ‘Departments’ were separate and co-equal, each being, as-it
can. The power to appoint or designate a member of the House
Bondoc vs. Pineda of Representatives- to’ be a member of the House Electoral were, a Leibnizian monad, looking up to the Heaven of the
ing allegedly helped to organize the Partido Pilipino of Mr. “Tribunal must, to my mind, necessarily include the power to Electorate, but without any mutual dependence, What could be
Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. and for allegedly having invited other remove said member. A withdrawal of the nomination of a better evidence of complete dependence than to subject the
LDP members to join the said political party. As a result of this member of the Tribunal -where such withdrawal will maintain validity of the decision of one ‘Department’ as to its authority on
letter, the nomination of Camasura to the House Electoral “‘the’ proportional representation of the political parties, a given occasion to review and reversal by another? Such a
Tribunal was withdrawn at a plenary session of the House of mandated by the Constitution, must be recognized and doctrine makes supreme the ‘Department’ that has the last
Representatives and the House Electoral Tribunal was respected; no matter how politically motivated It might be. word.” 10(Italics supplied)
informed of such action of the House. Constitutional law, it is said, is concerned with power not with The Court should not lose sight of the fact that “sometimes
Petitioner assails the propriety of said action of the House policy, wisdom orexpediency.7 The question that:must be asked the division of power tacitly accepted by society runs counter
of Representatives as it is, he alleges, but a ploy to thwart the in testing the validity of such legislative act is, does the House to its own ideology and to the constitutional commandments.
promulgation of a decision in the electoral protest lodged by of ‘Representatives have the power to do “what’ it has done and This “may be because the society is still unsure of what the best
him (petitioner Bondoc) against Marciano M. Pineda, a member not whether the House of Representatives should have done division of power would be and so temporarily accepts the
of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP), and which what it has done, existing one, or because the society has vacated its
decision would be favorable to him (Bontoc). Petitioner Corollary to the above is, can the Judiciary question a decisionmaking function and special interest groups have
contends that not only does the action of the House of legislative act done within the constitutional authority to the stepped in to fill the vacuum. In either case, the Court can
Representatives violate the independence of the House legislature? I believe not, in the same way that, for instance, the neither validate a clearly unconstitutional distribution, and
Electoral Tribunal but that it also violates the security of tenure House cannot question the act of the Chief Justice, should he thereby subject its role as guardian to claims of fraud,
of Congressman Camasura, Jr. in said electoral tribunal. deem it proper to change the Justices who sit as members of the norinvalidate a functioning system with an order which would be
Congressman (respondent) Pineda, on the other hand, House Electoral Tribunal. Matters such as—who will be ignored. To do either would be to sacrifice the popular prestige
submits that the House of Representatives has the soleauthority designated or nominated as members of the electoral tribunal, which is the Court’s
to nominate and select from among its members who are to sit how they should vote—surely are matters that not merely
in the House Electoral Tribunal, upon recommendation of the concern political action as far as members of the House are ________________
political parties therein, hence, it also has the sole power to concerned, but are the very essence of political action, if
remove any of them from the electoral tribunal whenever the - political life has any connotation at all. To open courts of justice Vera v. Avelino, 77 Phil. 192.
8
ratio in the representation of the political parties in the House to such political controversies would have courts sit in People v. Carlos, 78 Phil. 535.
9
is materially changed on account of death, incapacity, removal judgment over-the manifold disputes engendered by political 10 delivered on occasion of the Oliver Wendell Homes
or expulsion of a House member from a political party. A manuevers and skirmishes. This would drag the courts into the Lecture of 1958 and published in LEARNED HAND, The Bill of
Tribunal member’s term of office in said electoral tribunal is political arena which in the long run could undermine and Rights 4 (1958).
not, Congressman Pineda argues, co-extensive with his destroy their independence.
819 political question and a question in which the Court can not This is a Petition for Mandamus and Quo Warranto directed
intervene. against respondents Speaker Jose De Venecia and Secretary-
VOL. 201, SEPTEMBER 26, 1991 819
It is true that under the Charter, the jurisdiction of this General Roberto P. Nazareno of the House of Representatives
Bondoc us. Pineda Court includes the power to strike down excesses of any agency to compel them to implement the decision of the Commission
primary source of power."11 of Government, but the Charter did not alter or discard the on Elections en banc by (a) administering the oath of office to
Even assuming that the act of the House of Representatives principle of separation of powers. petitioner as the duly-elected Representative of the 4th
in withdrawing and rescinding the nomination of Congressman Evidently, Congressman Camasura’s ouster from the legislative district of Leyte, and (b) registering the name of the
Camasura, Jr. as a member of the House Electoral Tribunal is Tribunal was a result of political maneuvers within the lower petitioner in the Roll of Members of the House of
politically motivated, precipitated as it is by the knowledge of house. This Court, however, is above politics and Justices should Representatives, and against respondent Ma. Victoria L. Locsin
how Camasura, Jr. is to vote in one of the electoral protests be the last persons to get involved in the “dirty” world of for usurping, intruding into, and unlawfully holding and
before said Tribunal, this, to me, is not sufficient reason to politics. If they do, they risk their independence. exercising the said public office on the basis of a void
invalidate said act of the House of Representatives, since it is Decision null and void. proclamation.
done within the limits of its constitutional power.Besides, what Note.—The power granted to the Electoral Tribunal is full,
other act of the House (or Senate) is -there that is not politically clear and complete and excludes the exercise of any authority
The facts are uncontroverted. Petitioner and respondent
motivated? After all, that branch of government is a political on the part of the Court that would in any wise restrict or curtail
Locsin were candidates for the position of Representative of
branch and necessarily or pragmatically all of its acts are and it x x x except, in any event, upon a clear showing of such
the 4th legislative district of Leyte during the May 14, 2001
will always be politically motivated. arbitrary and improvident use of the power as will constitute a
elections. At that time, petitioner was the Mayor of Ormoc City
The environmental facts of this case do not, in my denial of due process of law. (Lazatin vs. House Electoral
while respondent Locsin was the sitting Representative of the
considered opinion, bring it within the Court’s power to strike Tribunal, 168 SCRA 391.)
4th legislative district of Leyte. On May 8, 2001, one Josephine
down the legislative act in question, it is the people of this de la Cruz, a registered voter of Kananga, Leyte, filed directly
nation—not this court—who should ultimately judge the act with the COMELEC main office a Petition for
when they cast their ballots. The Court cannot arrogate unto Republic of the Philippines Disqualification1 against the petitioner for indirectly soliciting
itself the power to institute what it perceives to be political SUPREME COURT votes from the registered voters of Kananga and Matag-ob,
reforms, for in the last analysis -on which all else -depend, the Manila Leyte, in violation of Section 68 (a) of the Omnibus Election
vitality of a political system would be greatly weakened by Code. It was alleged that the petitioner used the equipments
reliance on the judiciary for any and all political reforms and, in and vehicles owned by the City Government of Ormoc to
time, a complacent body politic will result. It is the EN BANC
extract, haul and distribute gravel and sand to the residents of
responsibility of the people and none other. to remain ever Kananga and Matag-ob, Leyte, for the purpose of inducing,
vigilant about their government to the end that they can G.R. No. 150605 December 10, 2002 influencing or corrupting them to vote for him. Attached to the
continue to live under a regime of justice, liberty and petition are the (a) Affidavits of Basilio Bates,2 Danilo D.
democracy. To leave this task to the Court, would in the long run Maglasang,3 Cesar A. Laurente;4 (b) Joint Affidavit of Agripino
be inimical to and destructive of democratic government itself. EUFROCINO M. CODILLA, SR., petitioner,
C. Alferez and Rogelio T. Salvera;5 (c) Extract Records from the
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DISMISS the petition. vs.
Police Blotter executed by Police Superintendent Elson G.
HON. JOSE DE VENECIA, ROBERTO P. NAZARENO, in their
DISSENTING OPINION Pecho;6 and (d) Photographs showing government dump
official capacities as Speaker
trucks, haulers and surfacers and portions of public roads
and Secretary-General of the House of Representatives,
allegedly filled-in and surfaced through the intercession of the
SARMIENTO, J.: respectively,
respondent.7 The case was docketed as SPA No. 01-208 and
and MA. VICTORIA L. LOCSIN, respondents.
assigned to the COMELEC's Second Division.
Like my distinguished colleague Justice Teodoro Padilla. I too
am unable to agree with the majority. I believe that the ques- DECISION
On May 10, 2001, the COMELEC Second Division issued an
Order delegating the hearing and reception of evidence on the
________________ PUNO, J.: disqualification case to the Office of the Regional Director of
Region VIII.8 On May 11, 2001, the COMELEC Second Division
11 Philippa Strum, “The Supreme Court and Political
sent a telegram informing the petitioner that a disqualification
In a democracy, the first self-evident principle is that he who
Questions” a study in judicial evasion, 1974 ed, p. 103. case was filed against him and that the petition was remanded
has been rejected by the people cannot represent the people.
820 to the Regional Election Director for investigation.9
Respondent Ma. Victoria L. Locsin lost to petitioner Eufrocino
820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS M. Codilla, Sr. by 17,903 votes in the May 14, 2001 elections as
Representative of the 4th legislative district of Leyte. The most At the time of the elections on May 14, 2001, the Regional
ANNOTATED
sophisticated legal alchemy cannot justify her insistence that Election Director had yet to hear the disqualification case.
Bondoc vs. Pineda she should continue governing the people of Leyte against Consequently, petitioner was included in the list of candidates
tion, as Justice Padilla raised it—can the Court annul an act of their will. The enforcement of the sovereign will of the people for district representative and was voted for. The initial results
Congress, revamping its House Electoral Tribunal?—is a is not subject to the discretion of any official of the land. showed that petitioner was the winning candidate.
On May 16, 2001, before the counting could be finished, roads in the municipalities of Matag-ob and Kananga were By virtue of the said Resolution, the votes cast for petitioner,
respondent Locsin joined as intervenor in SPA No. 128 and undertaken without his authority, participation or directive as totaling 71,350, were declared stray even before said
filed a "Most Urgent Motion to Suspend Proclamation of City Mayor of Ormoc. He attached in his Answer the following: Resolution could gain finality. On June 15, 2001, respondent
Respondent [herein petitioner]" with the COMELEC Second (a) Affidavit of Alex B. Borinaga;18 (b) Copy of the Excerpt from Locsin was proclaimed as the duly elected Representative of
Division.10 Respondent Locsin alleged that "the evidence on the Minutes of the Regular Session of Barangay the 4th legislative district of Leyte by the Provincial Board of
record against respondent is very strong and unless rebutted Monterico;19 (c) Affidavit of Wilfredo A. Fiel;20 (d) Canvassers of Leyte. It issued a Certificate of Canvass of Votes
remains." She urged the Commission to set the hearing of the Supplemental Affidavit of Wilfredo A. Fiel;21 and (e) Affidavit and Proclamation of the Winning Candidates for Member of
disqualification case and prayed for the suspension of the of Arnel Y. Padayao.22 the House of Representatives stating that "MA. VICTORIA
proclamation of the respondent "so as not to render the LARRAZABAL LOCSIN obtained a total of FIFTY THREE
present disqualification case moot and academic." A copy of THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FORTY SEVEN (53,447) votes
On May 25, 2001, petitioner filed a Motion to Lift Order of
the Motion was allegedly served on petitioner by representing the highest number of votes legally cast in the
Suspension,23 alleging that (a) he did not receive a copy of the
registered mail but no registry receipt was attached legislative district for said office."37 Respondent Locsin took
Motion to Suspend his Proclamation and hence, was denied
thereto.11 her oath of office on June 18, 2001 and assumed office on
the right to rebut and refute the allegations in the Motion; (b)
June 30, 2001.
that he did not receive a copy of the summons on the petition
On May 18, 2001, respondent Locsin filed a "Second Most for disqualification and after personally obtaining a copy of the
Urgent Motion to Suspend Proclamation of Respondent" petition, filed the requisite answer only on May 24, 2001; and On June 20, 2001, petitioner seasonably filed with the
stating "there is clear and convincing evidence showing that (c) that he received the telegraph Order of the COMELEC COMELEC en banc a Motion for Reconsideration38from the
the respondent is undoubtedly guilty of the charges against Second Division suspending his proclamation only on May 22, June 14, 2001 Resolution of the COMELEC Second Division
him and this remains unrebutted by the respondent." A copy 2001. He attached documentary evidence in support of his which ordered his disqualification, as well as an Addendum to
of the Motion was sent to the petitioner and the corresponding Motion to Lift the Suspension of his proclamation, and the Motion for Reconsideration.39 Petitioner alleged in his
registry receipt was attached to the pleading.12 The records, requested the setting of a hearing on his Motion.24 Motion for Reconsideration that the COMELEC Second Division
however, do not show the date the petitioner received the erred: (1) in disqualifying petitioner on the basis solely of the
motion. dubious declaration of the witnesses for respondent Locsin;
On May 30, 2001, an oral argument was conducted on the
(2) in adopting in toto the allegations of the witnesses for
petitioner's Motion and the parties were ordered to submit
respondent Locsin; and (3) in promulgating the resolution in
On the same day, May 18, 2001, the COMELEC Second their respective memoranda.25 On June 4, 2001, petitioner
violation of its own rules of procedure and in directing therein
Division issued an Ex-Parte Order13 directing the Provincial submitted his Memorandum26 in support of his Motion
the immediate proclamation of the second highest 'vote
Board of Canvassers of Leyte to suspend the proclamation of assailing the suspension of his proclamation on the grounds
getter.' Respondent Locsin and her co-petitioner in SPA No.
petitioner in case he obtains the highest number of votes by that: (a) he was not afforded due process; (b) the order has no
01-208 filed a joint Opposition to the Motion for
reason of "the seriousness of the allegations in the petition for legal and factual basis; and (c) evidence of his guilt is patently
Reconsideration.40
disqualification."14 It also directed the Regional Election inexistent for the purpose of suspending his proclamation. He
Director to speed up the reception of evidence and to forward prayed that his proclamation as winning congressional
immediately the complete records together with its candidate be expediently made, even while the disqualification On June 21, 2001, petitioner filed with the COMELEC en banc
recommendation to the Office of the Clerk of the case against him continue upon due notice and hearing. He a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of
Commission.15 As a result, petitioner was not proclaimed as attached the following additional evidence in his Proclamation,41 docketed as SPC No. 01-324, assailing the
winner even though the final election results showed that he Memorandum: (a) Copy of certification issued by PNP Senior validity of the proclamation of respondent Locsin who
garnered 71,350 votes as against respondent Locsin's 53,447 Inspector Benjamin T. Gorre;27 (b) Certification issued by garnered only the second highest number of votes.
votes.16 Elena S. Aviles, City Budget Officer;28 (c) Copy of certification Respondent Locsin filed her Answer alleging that: (1) the
issued by Wilfredo A. Fiel, City Engineer of Ormoc; 29 (d) Joint Commission lost jurisdiction to hear and decide the case
Affidavit of Antonio Patenio and Pepito Restituto;30and (e) because of the proclamation of Locsin and that any question
At the time that the COMELEC Second Division issued its Order
Affidavits of Demetrio Brion,31 Igmedio Rita32 and Gerardo on the "election, returns, and qualification" of Locsin can only
suspending his proclamation, the petitioner has yet to be
Monteza.33 Respondent Locsin's memorandum also contained be taken cognizance of by the House of Representatives
summoned to answer the petition for disqualification. Neither
additional affidavits of his witnesses.34 Electoral Tribunal (HRET); (2) the case should be filed and
has said petition been set for hearing. It was only on May 24,
heard in the first instance by a Division of the Commission and
2001 that petitioner was able to file an Answer to the petition
not directly by the Commission en banc; and (3) the
for his disqualification with the Regional Election Director, Petitioner's Motion to Lift the Order of Suspension,
proclamation of Locsin was valid because she received the
alleging that: (a) he has not received the summons together however, was not resolved. Instead, on June 14, 2001,
highest number of valid votes cast, the votes of Codilla being
with the copy of the petition; (b) he became aware of the theCOMELEC Second Division promulgated its
stray.
matter only by virtue of the telegram sent by the COMELEC Resolution35 in SPA No. 01-208 which found the petitioner
Second Division informing him that a petition was filed against guilty of indirect solicitation of votes and ordered
him and that the Regional Election Director was directed to his disqualification. It directed the "immediate On June 28, 2001, petitioner filed an Urgent
investigate and receive evidence therewith; and (c) he proclamation of the candidate who garnered the highest Manifestation42 stating that he was deprived of a fair hearing
obtained a copy of the petition from the COMELEC Regional number of votes xxx." A copy of said Resolution was sent by on the disqualification case because while the documentary
Office No. 8 at his own instance.17 Petitioner further alleged fax to the counsel of petitioner in Cebu City in the afternoon of evidence adduced in his Memorandum was in support of
that the maintenance, repair and rehabilitation of barangay the following day.36 his Motion for the lifting of the suspension of his
proclamation, the COMELEC Second Division instead ruled 1. On the Motion for Reconsideration of the proclaim the candidate who garnered the
on the main disqualification case. In consonance with his disqualification resolution against Codilla, highest number of votes in the elections
prayer that a full-dress hearing be conducted on the promulgated by the Commission (Second Division) for that position; and
disqualification case, he submitted Affidavits of additional on June 14, 2001 (SPA No. 01-208), I vote:
witnesses43 which he claims would refute and substantially
(f) to order intervenor-oppositor Locsin,
belie the allegations of petitioner's/intervenor's witnesses. A
(a) to GRANT the Motion for upon the finality of this resolution, to
Reply,44 Rejoinder45 and Sur-Rejoinder46were respectively
Reconsideration of respondent-movant vacate the office of Representative of the
filed by the parties. Consequently, the motion for
Eufrocino M. Codilla, Sr., and to REVERSE House of Representatives representing
reconsideration in SPA No. 01-208 and the petition for
the Resolution of the Commission the Fourth legislative district of Leyte
declaration of nullity in SPC No. 01-324 were submitted for
(Second Division) promulgated on June and, for this purpose, to inform the House
resolution.
14, 2001, for insufficiency of evidence; of Representatives through the
Honorable Speaker of this resolution for
From the records, it appears that initially, a "Resolution" its attention and guidance; and
(b) to lift the order of suspension of
penned by Commissioner Rufino S.B. Javier, dated July 24,
proclamation of petitioner Codilla, issued
2001, was submitted to the Office of the Chairman, dismissing
by the Commission (Second Division) on 2. On the petition for Declaration of Nullity of proclamation of
the petition for declaration of nullity for lack of jurisdiction
May 18, 2001, having been issued respondent Ma. Victoria L. Locsin (SPC No. 01-324), I vote:
and denying the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner
without hearing and without any finding
Codilla.47 Commissioners Florentino A. Tuason, Jr. and
that the evidence of guilt of petitioner
Resurreccion Z. Borra submitted their respective dissenting (a) to GRANT the petition of Eufrocino M. Codilla,
Codilla is strong and, thus, null and void;
opinions48 to the Javier resolution. It bears emphasis that Sr., and declare as null and void the proclamation of
Commissioner Tuason, Jr. was the ponente of the Resolution of losing candidate Locsin, the proclamation being
the COMELEC Second Division which ordered the (c) to nullify the order contained in the violative of election laws, established jurisprudence,
disqualification of petitioner but after considering the Resolution of the Commission (Second and resolutions of the Commission on Elections;
additional evidence presented by the latter, he concluded that Division) promulgated on June 14, 2001,
the totality of the evidence was clearly in petitioner's favor. for "(t)he immediate proclamation of the
(b) to lift the order of suspension of proclamation of
Equally worth mentioning is the fact that Commissioner Ralph candidate who garnered the highest
petitioner Codilla, issued by the Commission
C. Lantion, who was the Presiding Commissioner of the Second number of votes, to the exclusion of
(Second Division) on May 18, 2001, in SPA No. 01-
Division, also dissented and voted to grant Codilla's motion for respondent" and the concurrent order for
208, having been issued without hearing and
reconsideration on the ground that "[T]he people of Leyte "the Provincial Board of Canvasser (sic)
without any finding that the evidence of guilt of
have spoken and I respect the electorate's will. x x x." 49 of Leyte to immediately reconvene and
petitioner Codilla is strong and, thus, null and void;
thereafter proclaim forthwith the
candidate who obtained the highest
On August 29, 2001, then COMELEC Chairman Alfredo L.
number of votes counting out the (c) to nullify the order contained in the Resolution
Benipayo issued a "Vote and Opinion and Summary of
Respondent" the same being violative of of the Commission (Second Division) promulgated
Votes" reversing the resolution of the Second Division and
election laws, established jurisprudence, on June 14, 2001, in SPA No. 01-208, for "(t)he
declaring the proclamation of respondent Locsin as null
and resolutions of the Commission; immediate proclamation of the candidate who
and void. The dispositive portion reads:
garnered the highest number of votes, to the
exclusion of respondent" and the concurrent order
(d) to nullify the ruling contained in the
"JUDGMENT for "the provincial Board of Canvasser (sic) of Leyte
Resolution of the Commission (Second
to immediately reconvene and thereafter proclaim
Division) promulgated o June 14, 2001,
forthwith the candidate who obtained the highest
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, I that the votes of respondent Codilla are
number of votes counting out the Respondent" the
concur with Commissioner Resurreccion Z. Borra, "considered stray and invalid" said ruling
same being violative of election laws, established
Commissioner Florentino A. Tuason, Jr. and Commissioner being issued on the basis of an
jurisprudence, and resolutions of the Commission;
Ralph C. Lantion, in SPA No. 01-208, to GRANT the motion for inapplicable decision, and contrary to
reconsideration and to REVERSE the resolution of the established jurisprudence;
Commission (Second Division) promulgated on June 1, 2001, (d) to nullify the ruling contained in the Resolution
disqualifying Codilla; and subsequently, in SPC No. 01-324, to of the Commission (Second Division) promulgated
(e) to order the Provincial Board of
GRANT the petition of Eufrocino M. Codilla, Sr., and declare as on June 14, 2001, in SPA No. 01-208, that the votes
Canvassers of Leyte, upon the finality of
null and void the proclamation of losing candidate Locsin. of respondent Codilla are "considered stray and
this resolution, to reconvene and
invalid" said ruling being issued on the basis of an
proclaim petitioner Codilla as the
inapplicable decision, and contrary to established
Accordingly: winning candidate for Representative of
jurisprudence;
the Fourth Legislative district of Leyte to
comply with its ministerial duty to
(e) to order the provincial Board of Canvassers of the procedure and the manner by which the decision was now final and executory – COMELEC Decision of August 29,
Leyte, upon the finality of this resolution, to issued. In addition, respondent Locsin requested and was 2001 x x x."
reconvene and proclaim petitioner Codilla as the issued an opinion by House of Representatives Executive
winning candidate for Representative of the Fourth Director and Chief Legal Counsel Leonardo B. Palicte III
These notwithstanding, and despite receipt by the House of
legislative district of Leyte he (sic) having garnered declaring that the COMELEC has no jurisdiction to nullify the
Representatives of a copy of the COMELEC en banc resolution
the highest number of votes in the elections for the proclamation of respondent Locsin after she had taken her
on September 20, 2001,60 no action was taken by the House on
position; and oath and assumed office since it is the HRET which is the sole
the letter-appeal of petitioner. Hence, petitioner sought the
judge of election, returns and qualifications of Members of the
assistance of his party, LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP, which sent a
House.53Relying on this opinion, respondent Locsin submitted
(f) to order respondent Locsin, upon the finality of letter61 addressed to respondent Speaker De Venecia, dated
a written privileged speech to the House during its regular
this resolution, to vacate the office of October 25, 2001, and signed by Party President Teofisto T.
session on September 4, 2001, where she declared that she
Representative of the House of Representatives Guingona, Jr., Secretary-General Heherson T. Alvarez, and
will not only disregard but will openly defy and disobey the
representing the Fourth Legislative district of Leyte Region VIII Party Chairman Sergio Antonio F. Apostol,
COMELEC en banc resolution ordering her to vacate her
and, for this purpose, to inform the House of requesting the House of Representatives to act decisively on
position.54
Representatives through the Honorable Speaker of the matter in order that petitioner "can avail of whatever
this resolution for its attention and guidance. remedy is available should their action remain unfavorable or
On September 6, 2001, the COMELEC en banc issued an otherwise undecisive."
Order55 constituting the members of the Provincial Board of
Summary of Votes
Canvassers of Leyte to implement the aforesaid decision. It
In response, Speaker De Venecia sent a letter62 dated October
likewise ordered the Board to reconvene and "proclaim the
30, 2001, stating that:
Considering the FOUR (4) VOTES of the Chairman and candidate who obtained the highest number of votes in the
Commissioners Resurreccion Z. Borra, Florentino A. Tuason, district, as the duly-elected Representative of the Fourth
Jr., and Ralph C. Lantion, to grant the Motion for Legislative district of Leyte, and accordingly issue a Certificate "We recognize the finality of the COMELEC decision and we
Reconsideration of Codilla and reverse the disqualification of Canvass and Proclamation of Winning Candidate for are inclined to sustain it. However, Rep. Locsin has officially
Resolution of the Commission (Second Division) in SPA No. 01- Member of the House of Representatives x x x, based on the notified the HOUSE in her privilege speech, inserted in the
208, promulgated on June 14, 2001, and as an inevitable city/municipal certificates of canvass submitted beforehand to HOUSE Journal dated September 4, 2001, that she shall 'openly
consequence, in voting to grant the petition for declaration of the previous Provincial Board of Canvassers of Leyte x x x." defy and disobey' the COMELEC ruling. This ultimately means
nullity of the proclamation of Ma. Victoria L. Locsin in SPC No. that implementing the decision would result in the spectacle of
01-324, the verdict/opinion of the Chairman and the three (3) having two (2) legislators occupying the same congressional
On September 12, 2001, petitioner Codilla was proclaimed
Commissioners taken together now stands, as it is, the seat, a legal situation, the only consideration, that effectively
by the Provincial Board of Canvassers as the duly-elected
MAJORITY DECISION of the Commission En Banc in both deters the HOUSE's liberty to take action.
Representative of the 4th legislative district of Leyte,
cases; and the "Resolution" submitted by three (3)
having obtained a total of 71,350 votes representing the
Commissioners, namely, Commissioner Rufino S.B. Javier,
highest number of votes cast in the district.56 On the same day, In this light, the accepted wisdom is that the
Commissioner Luzviminda G. Tancangco, and Commissioner
petitioner took his oath of office before Executive Judge implementation of the COMELEC decision is a matter that
Mehol K. Sadain, is considered, as it is, the MINORITY
Fortunito L. Madrona of the Regional Trial Court of Ormoc can be best, and with finality, adjudicated by the Supreme
DECISION of the Commission En Banc in both cases.
City.57 Court, which, hopefully, shall act on it most expeditiously."
(emphases supplied)
The MAJORTIY DECISION was arrived at after proper
On September 14, 2001, petitioner wrote the House of
consultation with those who joined the majority. The
Representatives, thru respondent Speaker De Venecia, Hence, the present petition for mandamus and quo warranto.
Chairman and the three (3) Commissioners comprising the
informing the House of the August 29, 2001 COMELEC en banc
majority decided that no one will be assigned to write a
resolution annulling the proclamation of respondent Locsin,
Majority Decision. Instead, each one will write his own Petitioner submits that by virtue of the resolution of the
and proclaiming him as the duly-elected Representative of the
separate opinion. Commissioners Borra, Tuason, Jr. and the COMELEC en banc which has become final and executory for
4th legislative district of Leyte.58 Petitioner also served notice
undersigned Chairman submitted separate opinions. failure of respondent Locsin to appeal therefrom, it has
that "I am assuming the duties and responsibilities as
Commissioner Lantion wrote an explanation on his vote."50 become the ministerial duty: (1) of the Speaker of the House of
Representative of the fourth legislative district of Leyte to
Representatives, as its Administrative Head and Presiding
which position I have been lawfully elected and proclaimed.
Officer, to implement the said resolution of the COMELEC en
The aforequoted judgment was adopted in a "Vote of On behalf of my constituents, I therefore expect that all rights
banc by installing him as the duly-elected Representative of
Adoption" signed by Commissioners Ralph C. Lantion, and privileges intended for the position of Representative of
the 4th legislative district of Leyte; and (2) of the Secretary-
Resurreccion Z. Borra and Florentino A. Tuason, Jr.51 the fourth legislative district of Leyte be accorded to me,
General, as official custodian of the records of the House, to
including all physical facilities and staff support." On the basis
formally register his name in the Roll of Members of the House
of this letter, a Memorandum59 dated October 8, 2001 was
Respondent Locsin did not appeal from this decision and delete the name of respondent Locsin therefrom.
issued by Legal Affairs Deputy Secretary-General Gaudencio A.
annulling her proclamation. Instead, she filed a "Comment Petitioner further contends that respondent Locsin has been
Mendoza, Jr., for Speaker De Venecia, stating that "there is no
and Manifestation"52 with the COMELEC en banc questioning usurping and unlawfully holding the public office of
legal obstacle to complying with the duly promulgated – and
Representative of the 4th legislative district of Leyte Additionally, respondent Locsin urges that the resolution of petitioner Codilla, Sr. as the legally elected Representative of
considering that her premature proclamation has been the COMELEC en banc is null and void for lack of jurisdiction. the 4th legislative district of Leyte vice respondent Locsin.
declared null and void by the COMELEC en banc. He alleges First, it should have dismissed the case pending before it after
that the action or inaction of public respondents has deprived her proclamation and after she had taken her oath of office.
I
him of his lawful right to assume the office of Representative Jurisdiction then was vested in the HRET to unseat and
of the 4th legislative district of Leyte. remove a Member of the House of Representatives. Second,
the petition for declaration of nullity is clearly a pre- Whether the proclamation of respondent Locsin is valid.
proclamation controversy and the COMELEC en banc has no
In hisComment,63 public respondent Speaker De Venecia
original jurisdiction to hear and decide a pre-proclamation
alleged that mandamus will not lie to compel the After carefully reviewing the records of this case, we find that
controversy. It must first be heard by a COMELEC Division.
implementation of the COMELEC decision which is not merely the proclamation of respondent Locsin is null and void for the
Third, the questioned decision is actually a "hodge-podge"
a ministerial duty but one which requires the exercise of following reasons:
decision because of the peculiar manner in which the
discretion by the Speaker of the House considering that: (1) it
COMELEC disposed of the case.
affects the membership of the House; and (2) there is nothing
First. The petitioner was denied due process during the
in the Rules of the House of Representatives which imposes a
entire proceedings leading to the proclamation of
duty on the House Speaker to implement a COMELEC decision Finally, respondent Locsin asserts that the matter of her
respondent Locsin.
that unseats an incumbent House member. qualification and eligibility has been categorically affirmed by
the HRET when it dismissed the quo warranto case filed
against her, docketed as HRET Case No. 01-043, entitled COMELEC Resolution Nos. 340270 sets the procedure for
In his Comment,64 public respondent Secretary-General
"Paciano Travero vs. Ma. Victoria Locsin," on the ground disqualification cases pursuant to section 68 of the Omnibus
Nazareno alleged that in reading the name of respondent
that "the allegations stated therein are not proper grounds for Election Code, viz:
Locsin during the roll call, and in allowing her to take her oath
a petition for quo warranto against a Member of the House of
before the Speaker-elect and sit as Member of the House
Representatives under section 253 of the Omnibus Election
during the Joint Session of Congress, he was merely "C. PETITION TO DISQUALIFY A CANDIDATE PURSUANT TO
Code and Rule 17 of the HRET Rules, and that the petition was
performing official acts in compliance with the SEC. 68 OF THE OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE AND PETITION TO
filed late."67
opinions65 rendered by House of Representatives Chief DISQUALIFY FOR LACK OF QUALIFICATIONS OR POSSESSING
Counsel and Executive Director Leonardo C. Palicte III stating SAME GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION
that the COMELEC has no jurisdiction to declare the In his Reply,68 petitioner asserts that the remedy of
proclamation of respondent Locsin as null and void since it is respondent Locsin from the COMELEC decision was to file a
(1) The verified petition to disqualify a candidate
the HRET which is the sole judge of all election, returns and petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, not to seek an
pursuant to Sec. 68 of the Omnibus Election Code
qualifications of Members of the House. He also contends that opinion from the Chief Legal Counsel of the House of
and the verified petition to disqualify a candidate
the determination of who will sit as Member of the House of Representatives; that the HRET has no jurisdiction over a
for lack of qualifications or possessing same
Representatives is not a ministerial function and cannot, thus, petition for declaration of nullity of proclamation which is
grounds for disqualification, may be filed any day
be compelled by mandamus. based not on ineligibility or disloyalty, but by reason that the
after the last day for filing of certificates of
candidate proclaimed as winner did not obtain the highest
candidacy but not later than the date of
number of votes; that the petition for annulment of
Respondent Locsin, in her Comment,66 alleged that the proclamation.
proclamation is a pre-proclamation controversy and, hence,
Supreme Court has no original jurisdiction over an action for
falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the COMELEC
quo warranto involving a member of the House of
pursuant to section 242 of B.P. Blg. 88169 and section 3, Article (2) The petition to disqualify a candidate pursuant
Representatives for under Section 17, Article VI of the
IX (C) of the Constitution; that respondent Speaker De Venecia to Sec. 68 of the Omnibus Election Code shall be
Constitution it is the HRET which is the sole judge of all
himself recognizes the finality of the COMELEC decision but filed in ten (10) legible copies by any citizen of
contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of
has decided to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for voting age, or duly registered political party,
Members of the House of Representatives. She likewise asserts
adjudication; that the enforcement and implementation of a organization or coalition of political parties against
that this Court cannot issue the writ of mandamus against a
final decision of the COMELEC involves a ministerial act and any candidate who in an action or protest in which
co-equal legislative department without grossly violating the
does not encroach on the legislative power of Congress; and he is a party is declared by final decision of a
principle of separation of powers. She contends that the act of
that the power to determine who will sit as Member of the competent court guilty of, or found by the
recognizing who should be seated as a bona fide member of
House does not involve an exercise of legislative power but is Commission of:
the House of Representatives is not a ministerial function but a
vested in the sovereign will of the electorate.
legislative prerogative, the performance of which cannot be
compelled by mandamus. Moreover, the prayer for a writ of 2.a having given money or other material
mandamus cannot be directed against the Speaker and The core issues in this case are: (a) whether the proclamation consideration to influence, induce or
Secretary-General because they do not have the authority to of respondent Locsin by the COMELEC Second Division is corrupt the voters or public officials
enforce and implement the resolution of the COMELEC. valid; (b) whether said proclamation divested the COMELEC performing electoral functions;
en banc of jurisdiction to review its validity; and (c) assuming
the invalidity of said proclamation, whether it is the
ministerial duty of the public respondents to recognize
2.b having committed acts of terrorism to hearing officer concerned shall submit to the Clerk from the completion of the hearing and reception of evidence
enhance his candidacy; of the Commission through the fastest means of together with the complete records of the case.
communication, his findings, reports and
recommendations within five (5) days from the
2.c having spent in his election campaign (a) Petitioner was not notified of the petition for his
completion of the hearing and reception of evidence
an amount in excess of that allowed by disqualification through the service of summons nor of
together with the complete records of the case;
the Omnibus Election Code; the Motions to suspend his proclamation.