Macalintal v.

PET (2010)

FACTS:

Atty. Romulo Macalintal questions the constitutionality of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal(PET)
as an illegal and unauthorized progeny of Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution.

ISSUES:

Whether the creation of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal is unconstitutional for being a violation
of paragraph 7, Section 4 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution

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

HELD:

First Issue:

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 presidential and vice-presidential election protests while concurrentlyacting
as an independent Electoral Tribunal.

Verba legisdictates that wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given their
ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed, in which case the significance thus
attached to them prevails. However, where there is ambiguity or doubt, the words of the
Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of its framers orratio legis et
anima. A doubtful provision must be examined in light of the history of the times, and the condition
and circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution. Last,ut magis valeat quam pereat
the Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole.

By the same token, the PET is not a separate and distinct entity from the Supreme Court, albeit it
has functions peculiar only to the Tribunal. It is obvious that the PET was constituted in
implementation of Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution, and it faithfully complies not
unlawfully defies the constitutional directive. The adoption of a separate seal, as well as the change
in the nomenclature of the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices into Chairman and Members of
the Tribunal, respectively, was designed simply to highlight the singularity and exclusivity of the
Tribunals functions as a special electoral court. 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.

Second Issue:

It is also beyond cavil that when the Supreme Court, as PET, resolves a presidential or vice-
presidential election contest, it performs what is essentially a judicial power. In the landmark case
ofAngara v. Electoral Commission,Justice Jose P. Laurel enucleated that "it would be inconceivable
if the Constitution had not provided for a mechanism by which to direct the course of government
along constitutional channels." In fact,Angarapointed out that "[t]he Constitution is a definition of
the powers of government." And yet, at that time, the 1935 Constitution did not contain the
expanded definition of judicial power found in Article VIII, Section 1, paragraph 2 of the present
Constitution.

DENIED.
 Macalintal v. PET (2011 MR)

FACTS:

Before us is a Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal of our
Decision in G.R. No. 191618 dated November 23, 2010, dismissing his petition and declaring the
establishment of respondent Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) as constitutional.

Petitioner reiterates his arguments on the alleged unconstitutional creation of the PET:

1.He has standing to file the petition as a taxpayer and a concerned citizen.
2.He is not estopped from assailing the constitution of the PET simply by virtue of his appearance
as counsel of former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo before respondent tribunal.
3.Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution does not provide for the creation of the PET.
4.The PET violates Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution.

To bolster his arguments that the PET is an illegal and unauthorized progeny of Section 4, Article
VII of the Constitution, petitioner invokes our ruling on the constitutionality of the Philippine Truth
Commission (PTC). Petitioner cites the concurring opinion of Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro
that the PTC is a public office which cannot be created by 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, the Supreme Court, likewise, cannot create the PET
in the absence of an act of legislature.
On the other hand, in its Comment to the Motion for Reconsideration, the Office of the Solicitor
General maintains that:

1.Petitioner is without standing to file the petition.

2.Petitioner is estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the PET.
3.The constitution of the PET is "on firm footing on the basis of the grant of authority to the
[Supreme] Court to be the sole judge of all election contests for the President or Vice-President
under paragraph 7, Section 4, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution."

ISSUE: Is PET unconstitutional?

HELD:

We reiterate that the abstraction of the Supreme Court acting as a Presidential Electoral Tribunal
from the unequivocal grant of jurisdiction in the last paragraph of Section 4, Article VII of the
Constitution is sound and tenable.

Petitioner is going to town under the misplaced assumption that the text of the provision itself was
the only basis for this Court to sustain the PET's constitutionality.

We reiterate that the PET is authorized by the last paragraph of Section 4, Article VII of the
Constitution and as supported by the discussions of the Members of the Constitutional Commission,
which drafted the present Constitution.

The explicit reference by the framers of our Constitution to constitutionalizing what was merely
statutory before is not diluted by the absence of a phrase, line or word, mandating the Supreme
Court to create a Presidential Electoral Tribunal.

Suffice it to state that the Constitution, verbose as it already is, cannot contain the specific
wording required by petitioner in order for him to accept the constitutionality of the PET.

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.

DENIED