[CASE DIGEST] Macalintal v. PET (G.R. No.

191618)
June 7, 2011 | G.R. No. 191618

Atty. Romulo Macalintal, petitioner

Presidential Electoral Tribunal, respondent

FACTS:

Atty. Romulo Macalintal filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the previous ruling of the SC that
found the creation of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal by the SC as constitutional. In his motion,
Macalintal contended that the creation of the PET by the SC did not fall within the ambit of the last
paragraph of Section 4, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. He also contended that the PET exercises
quasi-judicial power, and thus, its members violate Section 12, Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution,

ISSUE:

Whether or not the PET is constitutional.

HELD:

Yes, the Court held that PET is constitutional. A look at the deliberations of the framers reveals that the
exclusive authority granted to the SC in judging cases relating to the elections of President and Vice-
President does not impinge on the supposed separation of power between the judiciary and the executive
departments, even if the said provision can be found in Art. VII.

The Court held that election issues are adversarial and judicial proceedings, and are essentially
justiciable questions.

Similarly, the Court held that in creating PET, it merely constitutionalized what was statutory. The last
paragraph of Section 4, Art. VII bestows upon the SC the power to hear questions relating to the election
of the President and Vice-President. Following the doctrine of necessary implication, the creation of PET
should be seen as the means necessary to carry said constitutional mandate into effect.

Motion for reconsideration denied.