Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Case Digest Const Re Art. 6, Sec. 17

Case Digest Const Re Art. 6, Sec. 17

Ratings: (0)|Views: 17 |Likes:
Published by Marivic Linag

More info:

Published by: Marivic Linag on Aug 06, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





G. R. No. 83767 October 27, 1988Juan Ponce Enrile, et al. vs. The Senate Electoral Tribunal
This is a Special Civil Action for certiorari to nullify and set aside the Resolutionsof the Senate Electoral Tribunal dated February 12, 1988 and May 27, 1988, denyingrespectively, the petitioners’ Motion for Disqualification or Inhibition and their Motion for Reconsiderations thereafter filed.
Facts of the Case:
On October 9, 1987, the petitioners filed before the respondent Tribunal anelection contest docketed as SET Case No. 002-87 against 22 candidates of theLABAN coalition who were proclaimed senators-elect in the May 11, 1987congressional elections by the Commission on Elections. The respondent Tribunal wasat the time composed of three (3) Justices of the Supreme Court and six (6) Senators,namely: Senior Associate Justice Pedro L. Yap (Chairman), Associate Justices AndresR. Narvasa and Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr. and Senators Joseph E. Estrada, Neptali A.Gonzales, Teofisto T. Guingona, Jose Lina, Jr., Mamintal A. J. Tamano and Victor S.Ziga.On November 17, 1987, the petitioners filed with the respondent Tribunal aMotion for Disqualification or Inhibition of the Senators-Members thereof from thehearing and resolution of SET Case No. 002-87 on the ground that all of them areinterested parties to said case, as respondents therein.The petitioners argue that considerations of public policy and the norms of fair play and due process imperatively require the mass disqualification sought and that thedoctrine of necessity which they perceive to be the foundation of the petition of thequestioned Resolution does not rule out a solution both practicable and constitutionallyunobjectionable, namely: the amendment of the respondent Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure so as to permit the contest being decided by only three Members of theTribunal.The proposed amendment to the Tribunal’s Rules (Section 24) – requiring theconcurrence of five (5) members for the adoption of resolution of whatever nature is aproviso that where more than four (4) members are disqualified, the remaining membersshall constitute a quorum, if not less than three (3) including one (1) Justice, and mayadopt resolutions by majority vote with no abstentions. This would, in the context of thatsituation, leave the resolution of the contest to the only three Members who wouldremain, all Justices of the Supreme Court, whose disqualification is not sought.
Whether both the considerations of public policy and fair play and the constitutionalintent concerning mixed “judicial” and “legislativecomposition of the ElectoralTribunal would appear to be substantially met and served?

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->