• __

---------------------------------------------------------  presidential  and  vice-presidential  election  protests  while 

concurrentlyacting as an independent Electoral Tribunal. 
MACALINTAL v. PET 
 
Class Topic: PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (PET)  1.  By  the  same  token,  the  PET  is  not  a  separate  and  distinct 
G.R. No. 191618 November 23, 2010 NACHURA, J.:  entity  from  the  Supreme  Court,  albeit  it  has  functions  peculiar 
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_ only  to  the  Tribunal.  It  is  obvious  that  the  PET  was  constituted 
2010.html  in  implementation  of  Section  4,  Article  VII  of  the  Constitution, 
  and  it  faithfully  complies  not  unlawfully  defies  the 
DECISION:   constitutional  directive.  The  adoption  of  a  separate  seal,  as 
“One final note. Although this Court has no control over  well  as  the  change  in  the  nomenclature  of  the  Chief  Justice 
contrary people and naysayers, we reiterate a word of  and  the  Associate  Justices  into  Chairman  and  Members  of 
caution against the filing of baseless petitions which only  the  Tribunal,  respectively,  was  designed  simply  to  highlight 
clog the Court’s docket [galit si besh :P]. The petition in the  the  singularity  and  exclusivity  of  the  Tribunals  functions  as  a 
instant case belongs to that classification. WHEREFORE, the  special  electoral  court.  the  PET,  as  intended  by  the  framers  of 
petition is DISMISSED. Costs against petitioner.”  the  Constitution,  is  to  be  an  institution  independent,but  not 
  separate,  from  the  judicial  department,i.e.,  the  Supreme 
FACTS:  Court. 
PETITIONER: Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal (Atty. Macalintal)   
1.  Questions  the  constitutionality  of  the  Presidential  Electoral  2. It is also beyond cavil that when the Supreme Court, as 
Tribunal  (PET)  as  an  illegal  and  unauthorized  progeny  of  PET, resolves a presidential or vice-presidential election 
Section  4,2  Article  VII  of  the  Constitution:  The  Supreme  Court,  contest, it performs what is essentially a judicial power. In the 
sitting  en  banc,  shall  be  the  sole  judge  of  all  contests  relating  landmark case of Angara v. Electoral Commission,Justice 
to  the  election,  returns,  and  qualifications  of  the  President  or  Jose P. Laurel enucleated that "it would be inconceivable if 
Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.  the Constitution had not provided for a mechanism by which 
2.  Petitioner,  a  prominent  election  lawyer  who  has  filed  to direct the course of government along constitutional 
several  cases  before  this  Court  involving  constitutional  and  channels." In fact,Angarapointed out that "[t]he Constitution 
election  law  issues,  including,  among  others,  the  is a definition of the powers of government." And yet, at that 
constitutionality  of  certain  provisions  of  Republic  Act  (R.A.)  time, the 1935 Constitution did not contain the expanded 
No.  9189  (The  Overseas  Absentee  Voting  Act  of  2003),cannot  definition of judicial power found in Article VIII, Section 1, 
claim  ignorance  of:  (1)  the  invocation  of  our  jurisdiction  paragraph 2 of the present Constitution. 
under  Section  4,  Article  VII  of  the  Constitution;  and  (2)  the  --------------------------------------------------------- 
unanimous  holding  thereon.  Unquestionably,  the  overarching   
framework  affirmed  inTecson  v.  Commission  on  Elections  is 
 
that  the  Supreme  Court  has  original  jurisdiction  to  decide 
presidential  and  vice-presidential  election  protests  while  REPUBLIC ACT No. 1793  
concurrently acting as an independent Electoral Tribunal.   
  AN  ACT  CONSTITUTING  AN  INDEPENDENT  PRESIDENTIAL 
RESPONDENT: PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL,  ELECTORAL  TRIBUNAL  TO  TRY,  HEAR  AND  DECIDE  PROTESTS 
Respondent.   CONTESTING  THE  ELECTION  OF  THE  PRESIDENT-ELECT  AND 
1. Grudgingly, petitioner throws us a bone by acknowledging  THE  VICE-PRESIDENT-ELECT  OF  THE  PHILIPPINES  AND 
that the invoked constitutional provision does allow the  PROVIDING FOR THE MANNER OF HEARING THE SAME. 
"appointment of additional personnel."   
  https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1957/ra_1793_
ISSUES:  1957.html 
1.  Whether  the  creation  of  the  Presidential  Electoral  Tribunal  is   
unconstitutional  for  being  a  violation  of  paragraph  7,  Section  ELEVEN  MEMBERS:  It  shall  be  composed  of  the  Chief 
4  of  Article  VII  of  the  1987  Constitution  “The  Supreme  Court,  Justice and the other ten members of the Supreme Court.  
sitting  en  banc,  shall  be  the  sole  judge  of  all  contests  relating 
to  the  election,  returns,  and  qualifications  of  the  President  or   
Vice-President,  and  may  promulgate  its  rules  for  the   
purpose.”   
   
2.  Whether  the  designation  of  members  of  the  supreme  court   
as  members  of  the  presidential  electoral  tribunal  is   
unconstitutional  for  being  a  violation  of  Section  12,  Article  VIII   
of  the  1987  Constitution:  “The  Members  of  the  Supreme  Court   
and  of  other  courts  established  by  law  shall  not  be   
designated  to  any  agency  performing  quasi-judicial  or 
 
administrative function.” 
 
 
 
RATIO DECIDENDI: 
1.  Petitioner,  a  prominent  election  lawyer  who  has  filed 
 
several  cases  before  this  Court  involving  constitutional  and   
election  law  issues,  including,  among  others,  the   
constitutionality  of  certain  provisions  of  Republic  Act  (R.A.)   
No.  9189  (The  Overseas  Absentee  Voting  Act  of  2003),cannot   
claim  ignorance  of:  (1)  the  invocation  of  our  jurisdiction   
under  Section  4,  Article  VII  of  the  Constitution;  and  (2)  the   
unanimous  holding  thereon.  Unquestionably,  theoverarching   
frameworkaffirmed  inTecson  v.  Commission  on  Electionsis   
that  the  Supreme  Court  has  original  jurisdiction  to  decide   
 
• __

---------------------------------------------------------  department.  Evidently,  even  the  legislature  cannot  limit  the 

MACALINTAL v. PET (MR)  judicial  power  to  resolve  presidential  and  vice-presidential 
Class Topic: PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (PET)  election  contests  and  our  rule-making  power  connected 
G.R. No. 191618 June 7, 2011  thereto. 
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_191618_2011.ht  
ml  LEGISLATIVE INTENT: JOURNAL:  
STEP 1: CHECK OTHER DIGESTS/NEWS FOR SUMMARY OF   
FACTS.   Are  we  not  giving  enormous  work  to  the  Supreme  Court 
  especially  when  it  is  directed  to  sit  en  banc  as  the  sole 
DECISION:   judge  of  all  presidential  and  vice-presidential  election 
“WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Our  contests? 
Decision in G.R. No. 191618 STANDS.”   
  MR.  SUAREZ.  If  the  election  contest  proved  to  be  long, 
NACHURA comments:   burdensome  and  tedious,  practically  all  the  time  of  the 
Finally,  petitioner’s  application  of  our  decision  in  Biraogo  v.  Supreme  Court  sitting  en  banc  would  be  occupied  with it 
Philippine  Truth  Commission  to  the  present  case  is  an  considering  that  they  will  be  going  over  millions  and 
unmitigated quantum leap.  millions of ballots or election returns, Madam President. 
  CODALS: BLANK 
OSG:   XXXXXX 
Petitioner is estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the PET.  FR. BERNAS. Precisely, this is necessary. Election contests 
  are, by their nature, judicial. Therefore, they are 
FACTS:   cognizable only by courts. If, for instance, we did not have 
Petitioner  cites  the  concurring  opinion  of  Justice  Teresita  J.  a constitutional provision on an electoral tribunal for the 
Leonardo-de  Castro  that  the  PTC(Philippine  Truth  Senate or an electoral tribunal for the House, normally, as 
composed, that cannot be given jurisdiction over 
Commission)  is  a  public  office  which  cannot  be  created  by 
contests. 
the  President,  the  power  to  do  so  being  lodged  exclusively 
with  Congress.  Thus, petitioner submits that if the President, as   
head  of  the  Executive  Department,  cannot  create  the  PTC, 
LEGISLATIVE INTENT: JOURNAL:  
the  Supreme  Court,  likewise,  cannot  create  the  PET  in  the 
absence of an act of legislature.   
  MR.  SUAREZ.  Thank  you.  Let  me  proceed  to  line 
ISSUES:  23, page 2, wherein it is provided, and I quote: 
1.  To  bolster  his  arguments  that  the  PET  is  an  illegal  and   
unauthorized  progeny  of  Section  4,  Article  VII  of  the  The  Supreme  Court,  sitting en banc[,] shall be the 
Constitution,  petitioner  invokes  our  ruling  on  the  sole  judge  of  all  contests  relating  to  the  election, 
constitutionality  of  the  Philippine  Truth  Commission  (PTC).2  returns  and  qualifications  of  the  President  or 
Petitioner  cites  the  concurring  opinion  of  Justice  Teresita  J.  Vice-President.1avvphi1 
Leonardo-de  Castro  that  the  PTC  is  a  public  office  which   
cannot  be  created  by  the  President,  the  power  to  do  so  Are  we  not giving enormous work to the Supreme 
being  lodged  exclusively  with  Congress.  Thus,  petitioner 
Court  especially  when  it is directed to sit en banc 
submits  that  if  the  President,  as  head  of  the  Executive 
as  the  sole  judge  of  all  presidential  and 
Department,  cannot  create  the  PTC,  the  Supreme  Court, 
vice-presidential election contests? 
likewise,  cannot  create  the  PET  in  the  absence  of  an  act  of 
legislature. 
xxx 
2.  W/N  Biraogo  v.  Philippine  Truth  Commission applies to the  MR.  SUAREZ.  If  the  election  contest  proved  to  be 
present case  long,  burdensome  and  tedious, practically all the 
  time  of  the  Supreme  Court  sitting  en banc would 
RATIO DECIDENDI:  be  occupied  with  it  considering  that  they  will  be 
1.  Except  for  the invocation of our decision in Louis ‟Barok" C.  going  over  millions  and  millions  of  ballots  or 
Biraogo  v.  The  Philippine  Truth  Commission  of  2010,3  election returns, Madam President. 
petitioner  does  not  allege  new  arguments  to  warrant   
reconsideration of our Decision. [the basis of allowing this MR]  [IMPLIED LEGISLATIVE INTENT for the necessity of 
1.  Before  the  passage  of  that republic act, in case there was  the creation of PET]  
any  contest  between  two  presidential  candidates  or  two 
vice-presidential  candidates,  no  one  had  jurisdiction  over  it.   
So,  it  became  necessary  to  create  a  Presidential  Electoral  contest between two parties is a judicial power 
Tribunal.  What  we  have  done  [SC]  is  to constitutionalize what 
 
was  statutory but it is not an infringement on the separation of 
powers  because  the  power  being  given  to  the  Supreme   
Court is a judicial power.   
1.  To  this,  Justice  Regalado  [who  suggested  the  insertion  of   
the phrase] forthwith assented and then emphasized that the   
sole  power  ought to be without intervention by the legislative 
• __

1.  Judicial  power  granted to the Supreme Court by the same   

Constitution  is  plenary.  And  under  the  doctrine  of  necessary 
 
implication,  the  additional  jurisdiction  bestowed  by  the  last 
paragraph  of  Section  4,  Article  VII  of  the  Constitution  to 
 
decide  presidential  and  vice-presidential  elections  contests   
includes  the  means  necessary  to  carry  it  into  effect.  [that  is   
PET]   
 
 
1.  We  have  previously  declared  that  the  PET  is  not  simply an 
agency  to  which  Members  of  the  Court  were  designated. 
 
Once  again,  the  PET,  as  intended  by  the  framers  of  the   
Constitution,  is  to  be  an  institution  independent,  but  not   
separate,  from  the  judicial  department,  i.e.,  the  Supreme   
Court.  McCulloch  v.  State  of  Maryland  proclaimed  that  "[a] 
 
power  without  the  means  to use it, is a nullity." The vehicle for 
the  exercise  of  this  power,  as  intended  by  the  Constitution 
 
and  specifically  mentioned  by  the  Constitutional   
Commissioners  during  the  discussions  on  the  grant  of  power   
to  this  Court,  is  the  PET.  Thus,  a  microscopic  view,  like  the   
petitioner's,  should  not  constrict  an  absolute  and 
 
constitutional grant of judicial power. 
 
 
2.  The  decision  therein  held  that  the  PTC  "finds  justification   
under  Section  17,  Article  VII  of  the  Constitution."  A  plain   
reading  of  the constitutional provisions, i.e., last paragraph of   
Section  4  and  Section  17,  both  of Article VII on the Executive 
 
Branch,  reveals  that  the two are differently worded and deal 
with  separate  powers  of  the  Executive  and  the  Judicial 
 
Branches  of  government.  And  as  previously  adverted to, the   
basis  for  the  constitution  of the PET was, in fact, mentioned in   
the  deliberations  of  the  Members  of  the  Constitutional   
Commission during the drafting of the present Constitution. 
 
---------------------------------------------------------   
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
• __

---------------------------------------------------------  ISSUE: 
Poe-Llamanzares vs COMELEC (2016)  1. W/N petitioner is NOT a natural born citizen due to 
Class Topic: PET  the fact the she is a foundling.  
G.R. No. 221697 March 8, 2016, PEREZ, J  2. W/N COMELEC has jurisdiction over the petition for 
FULL TEXT:  quo warranto or PET 
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/mar2016/gr_221697_2016. RATIO DECIDENDI: 
html  1.  Her  admission  that  she  is  a  foundling  did  not  shift  the 
  burden  to  her  because  such  status  did  not  exclude  the 
Petitioner = MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES  possibility  that  her  parents  were  Filipinos,  especially  as  in  this 
Respondent = COMELEC AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO  case  where  there  is  a  high  probability,  if  not  certainty,  that 
  her parents are Filipinos. 
DECISION:    
“WHEREFORE, Petitioner MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD SONORA  1.  Constitution  law  author  Jose  Aruego..  said:  “During  the 
POE-LLAMANZARES is DECLARED QUALIFIED to be a  debates  on  this  provision…  It  was  believed  that  the  rules  of 
candidate for President in the National and Local Elections of  international  law  were  already  clear  to  the  effect  that 
9 May 2016.”  illegitimate  children  followed  the  citizenship  of  the  mother, 
  and  that  foundlings  followed  the  nationality  of  the  place 
FACTS:  where  they  were  found,  thereby  making  unnecessary  the 
1. Petition for issuance of temporary restraining order  inclusion in the Constitution of the proposed amendment.” 
and writ of preliminary injunction, to COMELEC’s   
disqualification order based on citizenship, for  1.  Under  the  Constitution,  "having  to  perform  an  act"  means 
having been issued without jurisdiction or with grave  that  the  act  must  be  personally  done  by  the  citizen.  In  this 
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of  instance,  the determination of foundling status is done not by 
jurisdiction.   the child but by the authorities. 
2. Petioner was found abandoned as a newborn   
infant in a Parish Church in Iloilo 1968. At 5 years of  1.  Foundlings  are  likewise  citizens  under  international  law. 
age she was adopted by celebrity couple: FPJ and  Under  the  1987  Constitution,  an  international  law  can 
Susan Roces.  become  part  of  the  sphere  of  domestic  law  either  by 
3. In 2001, Petitioner became a naturalized American  transformation  or  incorporation.  The  transformation  method 
citizen.   requires  that  an  international  law  be  transformed  into  a 
4. In 2004, the petitioner came back to the Philippines  domestic  law  through  a  constitutional  mechanism  such  as 
to support her father's candidacy for President in the  local  legislation.124  On  the  other  hand,  generally  accepted 
May 2004 elections. On 13 December 2004,  principles  of  international  law,  by  virtue  of  the  incorporation 
petitioner rushed back to the Philippines upon  clause  of  the  Constitution,  form  part  of  the  laws  of  the  land 
learning of her father's deteriorating medical  even  if  they  do  not  derive  from  treaty  obligations.  Generally 
condition.  accepted  principles of international law include international 
5. In 2005, 24 petiioner secured a Tax Identification  custom  as  evidence  of  a general practice accepted as law, 
Number from the Bureau of Internal Revenue  and general principles of law recognized by civilized nations 
6. In 2006, petitioner took her Oath of Allegiance to the   
Republic of the Philippines pursuant to RA No. 9225   
7. In 2006, petitioner registered as a voter of San Juan  Quo  warranto  is  a  special  form  of  legal  action  used  to 
City  resolve  a  dispute  over  whether  a  specific  person  has  the 
8. In October 21 2010, Petitioner executed an "Affidavit  legal right to hold the public office 
of Renunciation of Allegiance to the United States of 
 
America and Renunciation of American Citizenship" 
2.  Second,  the  petitions  filed  against  her  are  basically 
before a notary public in Pasig City. Thereafter, took 
petitions  for  quo  warranto  as  they  focus  on  establishing  her 
her oath of office as Chairperson of the MTRCB, 
ineligibility  for the Presidency. A petition for quo warranto falls 
being appointed by Pnoy. From then on, petitioner 
within  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  Presidential  Electoral 
stopped using her American passport. 
Tribunal (PET) and not the COMELEC. 
9. On 9 December 2011, the U.S. Vice Consul issued to 
 
petitioner a "Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the 
United States" effective 21 October 2010  --------------------------------------------------------- 
10. On October 2012, the petitioner filed with the   
 
COMELEC her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for 
 
Senator for the 2013 Elections wherein she answered 
 
"6 years and 6 months" to the question "Period of 
 
residence in the Philippines before May 13, 2013."53   
Petitioner obtained the highest number of votes and   
was proclaimed Senator on 16 May 2013.   
11. On December 2013, petitioner obtained Philippine   
Diplomatic Passport No. DE0004530.   
12. On October 2015, petitioner filed her COC for the 
Presidency for the May 2016 Elections.