Daza vs Singson

G.R. No. 86344 December 21, 1989

Facts:

The Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) was reorganized resulting to a political

realignment in the lower house. LDP also changed its representation in the Commission on

Appointments. They withdrew the seat occupied by Daza (LDP member) and gave it to the

new LDP member. Thereafter the chamber elected a new set of representatives in the CoA

which consisted of the original members except Daza who was replaced by Singson. Daza

questioned such replacement.

Issue:

Whether or not a change resulting from a political realignment validly changes the

composition of the Commission on Appointments.

Held:

As provided in the constitution, “there should be a Commission on Appointments

consisting of twelve Senators and twelve members of the House of Representatives elected

by each house respectively on the basis of proportional representation” of the political

parties therein, this necessarily connotes the authority of each house of Congress to see to
it that the requirement is duly complied with. Therefore, it may take appropriate measures,

not only upon the initial organization of the Commission but also subsequently thereto

NOT the court.

Coseteng vs Mitra (G.R. No. 86649)

Posted: July 25, 2011

Facts:

Congressional elections of May 11, 1987 resulted in representatives from diverse political

parties Petitioner Anna Dominique Coseteng was the only candidate elected under the

banner of KAIBA.

A year later, the “Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino” or LDP was organized as a political

party. As 158 out of 202 members of the House of Representatives formally affiliated with

the LDP, the House committees, including the House representation in the Commission on

Appointments, had to be reorganized. Petitioner Coseteng then wrote a letter to Speaker

Ramon Mitra requesting that as representative of KAIBA, she be appointed as a member of

the Commission on Appointments and House Electoral Tribunal.

On December 5, 1988, the House of Representatives, revised the House majority

membership in the Commission on Appointments to conform with the new political

alignments by replacing Rep. Raul A. Daza, LP, with Rep. Luis C. Singson, LDP, however,
Congressman Ablan, KBL, was retained as the 12th member representing the House

minority.

On February 1, 1989, Coseteng and her party, filed this Petition for Extraordinary Legal

Writs praying that the Supreme Court declare as null and void the election of respondent

Ablan, Verano-Yap, Romero, Cuenco, Mercado, Bandon, Cabochan, Imperial, Lobregat,

Beltran, Locsin, and Singson, as members of the Commission on Appointments, to enjoin

them from acting as such and to enjoin also the other respondents from recognizing them

as members of the Commission on Appointments on the theory that their election to that

Commission violated the constitutional mandate of proportional representation

Issue:

1. WON the question raised is political.

2. WON the members of the House in the Commission on Appointments were chosen on the

basis of proportional representation from the political parties therein as provided in

Section 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. Holding/

Held:

1. No, it is not. The “political question” issue was settled in Daza vs. Singson, where this

Court ruled that “the legality, and not the wisdom, of the manner of filling the Commission

on Appointments as prescribed by the Constitution” is justiciable, and, “even if the question

were political in nature, it would still come within our powers of review under the

expanded jurisdiction conferred upon us by Article VIII, Section 1, of the Constitution,

which includes the authority to determine whether grave abuse of discretion amounting to
excess or lack of jurisdiction has been committed by any branch or instrumentality of the

government.”

2. Yes, petition is dismissed for lack of merit. Section 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution

reads: “Sec. 18. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President

of the Senate, as ex oficio Chairman, twelve Senators, and twelve Members of the House of

Representatives elected by each House on the basis of proportional representation from

the political parties and parties or organizations registered under the party-list system

represented therein. The chairman of the Commission shall not vote, except in case of a tie.

The Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session days of

the Congress from their submission. The commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the

Members. (Art. VI, 1987 Constitution.) The composition of the House membership in the

Commission on Appointments was based on proportional representation of the political

parties in the House. There are 160 members of the LDP in the House. They represent 79%

of the House membership (which may be rounded out to 80%). Eighty percent (80%) of 12

members in the Commission on Appointments would equal 9.6 members, which may be

rounded out to ten (10) members from the LDP. The remaining two seats were

apportioned to the LP (respondent Lorna Verano-Yap) as the next largest party in the

Coalesced Majority and the KBL (respondent Roque Ablan) as the principal opposition

party in the House. There is no doubt that this apportionment of the House membership in

the Commission on Appointments was done “on the basis of proportional representation of

the political parties therein.” There is no merit in the petitioner’s contention that the House

members in the Commission on Appointments should have been nominated and elected by

their respective political parties. The petition itself shows that they were nominated by
their respective floor leaders in the House. They were elected by the House (not by their

party) as provided in Section 18, Article VI of the Constitution. The validity of their election

to the Commission on Appointments-eleven (11) from the Coalesced Majority and one from

the minority-is unassailable.

Guingona vs Gonzales GR No 106971 20 October 1992

Facts: As a result of national elections on May 1992, the Senate was composed by the
following by parties: LDP – IS, NPC – 5, Lakas – 3. Applying the mathematical formula
agreed by parties they are entitled to twelve seats. On the organization of the Senate,
Majority Floor Leader Romulo nominated eight senators for Commission on Appointments.
Senator Guingona objected on the nomination of Osmeña.

Issue: Whether or not the Constitution requires the election and presence of 12
senators in the Commission?
Decision: Constitution does not require the election and presence of 12 Senators for the
Commission to function. Other instances may be mentioned of Constitutional collegial bodies
which perform their functions even if their composition is expressly specified by the
Constittion.

Chavez v. COMELEC
Chavez v. COMELEC
Bidin, J.

Facts:

Petition for the issuance of a TRO enjoining COMELEC from proclaiming the 24th highest
senatorial candidate.
 May 5, 1992 - Court issued a Resolution of the case “Francisco Chavez v. Comelec , et al.,”
disqualifying Melchor Chavez from running for Senator in the May 11, 1992 elections. The petitioner
then filed an urgent motion with the Comelec praying that it (1) disseminate to all its agents and the
general public the resolution; and (2) order said election officials to delete the name of Melchor
Chavez as printed in the certified list of candidates, tally sheets, election returns and “to count all
votes cast for the disqualified Melchor, Chavez in favor of Francisco I. Chavez . . . .”

May 8, 1992 - Comelec issued a resolution which resolved to delete the name of Melchor
Chavez from the list of qualified candidates. However, it failed to order the crediting of all “Chavez”
votes in favor of petitioner as well as the cancellation of Melchor Chavez name in the list of qualified
candidates. On Election Day, Melchor Chavez remained undeleted in the list of qualified candidates.
Commissioner Rama issued a directive over the radio and TV ordering that all “Chavez” votes be
credited to the petitioner however it did not reach all the precincts.

Petitioner claims that the Comelec failed to perform its mandatory function under Sec. 7, RA
7166 which states that if a candidate has been disqualified, it shall be the duty of the Commission to
instruct without delay the deletion of the name of said candidate.

Confusion arose as the “Chavez” votes were either declared stray or invalidated by the
Boards of Election Inspectors (BEIs).As a result, “Chavez” votes were not credited in favor of
petitioner.

May 12, 1992 - Comelec issued another Resolution directing all municipal and city election
registrars throughout the country to examine the minutes of voting submitted by the BEIs and to
credit all the “Chavez” votes, which have been declared stray or invalidated by the BEIs, in favor of
petitioner.

Petitioner maintains that the said resolution proved futile because it did not reach all the various
BEIs throughout the country on time for implementation and that the minutes of voting did not
indicate the number of “Chavez” votes which were declared stray or invalidated.

May 23, 1992, petitioner filed an urgent petition before the respondent Comelec praying the
latter to (1) implement its May 12, 1992 resolution with costs de officio; (2) to re-open the ballot
boxes to scan for the “Chavez” votes for purposes of crediting the same in his favor; (3) make the
appropriate entries in the election returns/certificates of canvass; and (4) to suspend the
proclamation of the 24 winning candidates.

Dissatisfied with the failure of respondent Comelec to act on his petition, petitioner filed this
urgent petition for prohibition and mandamus, with prayer for the issuance of a TRO, enjoining the
Comelec from proclaiming the 24th highest senatorial candidate, without first implementing
Comelec’s resolution of May 12, 1992 and acting upon petitioner 􀀀s letter/complaint dated May 14,
1992 and urgent petition dated May 22, 1992. Petitioner alleges that respondent Comelec acted
capriciously and whimsically and with grave abuse of discretion.

June 8, 1992, Sen. Agapito Aquino prayed for the dismissal of the instant petition on the
ground that the law does not allow pre-proclamation controversy involving the election of members
of the Senate.
Issue:

whether or not SC has jurisdiction over the case

Held:

Jurisdiction - The alleged inaction of Comelec in ordering the deletion of Melchor Chavez’s
name in the list of qualified candidates does not call for the exercise of the Court’s function of judicial
review. The Court can review the decisions or orders of the Comelec only in cases of grave abuse of
discretion committed by it in the discharge of its quasi-judicial powers and not those arising from the
exercise of its administrative functions.

Comelec can administratively undo what it has administratively left undone. Comelec has
ordered the deletion of Melchor Chavez’s name not only on the official list of candidates, but also on
the election returns, tally sheet and certificate of canvass. Hence, petitioner 􀀀s allegation that
respondent Comelec failed to implement the resolutions does not hold water.

Petitioner has no cause of action, the controversy being in the nature of a pre-
proclamation. While the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over pre-proclamation controversies
involving local elective officials, such are not allowed in elections for President, Vice-President,
Senator and Member of the House of Representatives.

Sec. 15 of Republic Act 7166 provides:

Sec. 15. Pre-proclamation Cases Not Allowed in Elections for President, Vice-President, Senator,
and Member of the House of Representatives. - For purposes of the elections for President, Vice-
President, Senator and Member of the House of Representatives, no pre-proclamation cases shall
be allowed on matters relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of
the election returns or the certificate of canvass, as the case may be. However, this does not
preclude the authority of the appropriate canvassing body motu propio or upon written complaint of
an interested person to correct manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election returns before
it.

xxx xxx xxx

Any objection on the election returns before the city or municipal board of canvassers, or on the
municipal certificates of canvass before the provincial boards of canvassers or district board of
canvassers in Metro Manila Area, shall be specifically noted in the minutes of their respective
proceedings.

What is allowed is the correction of “manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election
returns.” To be manifest, the errors must appear on the face of the certificates of canvass or election
returns sought to be corrected and/or objections thereto must have been made before the board of
canvassers and specifically noted in the minutes of their respective proceedings.
 The petitioner’s prayer does not call for the correction of “manifest errors in the certificates of
canvass or election returns” before the Comelec but for the reopening of the ballot boxes and
appreciation of the ballots contained therein. He has not even pointed to any “manifest error” in the
certificates of canvass or election returns he desires to be rectified. There being none, the proper
recourse is to file a regular

- Sanchez v. Commission on Elections: “… (1) Errors in the appreciation of ballots by the

board of inspectors are proper subject for election protest and not for recount or re-appreciation of
ballots. (2) The appreciation of ballots is not part of the proceedings of the board of canvassers. The
function of ballots appreciation is performed by the board election inspectors at the precinct level. (3)
The scope of pre-proclamation controversy is limited to the issues enumerated under Sec. 243 OEC.
The complete election returns whose authenticity is not in question, must be prima facie considered
valid for the purpose of canvassing the same and proclamation of the winning candidates.

“The ground for recount relied upon by Sanchez is clearly not among the issues that may be
raised in pre-proclamation controversy. His allegation of invalidation of “Sanchez” votes intended for
him bear no relation to the correctness and authenticity of the election returns canvassed. Neither
the Constitution nor statute has granted the Comelec or the board of canvassers the power in the
canvass of election returns to look beyond the face thereof, once satisfied of their authenticity (Abes
v. Comelec, 21 SCRA 1252, 1256).”

Petitioner has not demonstrated any manifest error in the certificates of canvas s or election
returns before the Comelec which would warrant their correction.

Note:

Pre-proclamation controversy is defined as “any question pertaining to or affecting the

proceedings of the board of canvassers which may be raised by any candidate or by any registered
political party or coalition of political parties before the board or directly with the Commission, or any
matter raised under Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 in relation to the preparation, transmission,
receipt, custody and appreciation of the election returns.” [Sec. 241, Omnibus Election Code).

Bondoc vs. Pineda 201 SCRA 792

FACTS:

In the elections held on May 11, 1987, Marciano Pineda of the LDP and Emigdio Bondoc of the
NP were candidates for the position of Representative for the Fourth District of Pampanga.
Pineda was proclaimed winner. Bondoc filed a protest in the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal (HRET), which is composed of 9 members, 3 of whom are Justices of the SC
and the remaining 6 are members of the House of Representatives (5 members belong to the
LDP and 1 member is from the NP). Thereafter, a decision had been reached in which Bondoc
won over Pineda. Congressman Camasura of the LDP voted with the SC Justices and
Congressman Cerilles of the NP to proclaim Bondoc the winner of the contest.

On the eve of the promulgation of the Bondoc decision, Congressman Camasura received a
letter informing him that he was already expelled from the LDP for allegedly helping to
organize the Partido Pilipino of Eduardo Cojuangco and for allegedly inviting LDP members in
Davao Del Sur to join said political party. On the day of the promulgation of the decision, the
Chairman of HRET received a letter informing the Tribunal that on the basis of the letter from
the LDP, the House of Representatives decided to withdraw the nomination and rescind the
election of Congressman Camasura to the HRET.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the House of Representatives, at the request of the dominant political
party therein, may change that party’s representation in the HRET to thwart the
promulgation of a decision freely reached by the tribunal in an election contest pending
therein.

RULING:

The purpose of the constitutional convention creating the Electoral Commission was to
provide an independent and impartial tribunal for the determination of contests to legislative
office, devoid of partisan consideration.

As judges, the members of the tribunal must be non-partisan. They must discharge their
functions with complete detachment, impartiality and independence even independence from
the political party to which they belong. Hence, disloyalty to party and breach of party
discipline are not valid grounds for the expulsion of a member of the tribunal. In expelling
Congressman Camasura from the HRET for having cast a “conscience vote” in favor of Bondoc,
based strictly on the result of the examination and appreciation of the ballots and the
recount of the votes by the tribunal, the House of Representatives committed a grave abuse
of discretion, an injustice and a violation of the Constitution. Its resolution of expulsion
against Congressman Camasura is, therefore, null and void.

Another reason for the nullity of the expulsion resolution of the House of Representatives is
that it violates Congressman Camasura’s right to security of tenure. Members of the HRET, as
sole judge of congressional election contests, are entitled to security of tenure just as
members of the Judiciary enjoy security of tenure under the Constitution. Therefore,
membership in the HRET may not be terminated except for a just cause, such as, the
expiration of the member’s congressional term of office, his death, permanent disability,
resignation from the political party he represents in the tribunal, formal affiliation with
another political party or removal for other valid cause. A member may not be expelled by
the House of Representatives for party disloyalty, short of proof that he has formally
affiliated with another.

ABBAs vs Senate Electoral Tribunal

G.R. No. 83767 October 27, 1988

Facts:

This is a Special Civil Action for certiorari to nullify and set aside the Resolutions of the Senate Electoral
Tribunal dated February 12, 1988 and May 27, 1988, denying, respectively, the petitioners' Motion for
Disqualification or Inhibition and their Motion for Reconsideration thereafter filed.

Senator Members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal were being asked to inhibit themselves in hearing SET
Case No. 002-87 as they are considered interested parties, therefore leaving the Senate Electoral
Tribunal senateless, and all remaining members coming from the judiciary.

Issue:

Whether or not the set can function without the Senator members.

Held:

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari for lack of merit and affirmed the decision of
the Tribunal to not let Senator-Members to inhibit or disqualify himself, rather, just let them refrain
from participating in the resolution of a case where he sincerely feels that his personal interests or
biases would stand in the way of an objective and impartial judgment.